Really??? https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/gamecenter/view/4571#874908

ok the players in question are

Cincinnati
24 https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/player/6664 or https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/player/6172
23 https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/player/6744

Cleveland
17 https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/player/5284

WR 17 blocked DB 23 and DB 24 though DB 23 got free a little later in the play so I think really it is WR 17 and DB 24 that you are talking about

Only thing I can think of is 17 has great blocking ability to be able to hold unto 24 and 23 though 23 got free

so if that is the player involved I would it is pass inference on the offense


Now if he is player 21 = https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/player/6572
Only thing I can think of is he thought to cover the middle of the field so he ran himself right out by doing that.

So basically this lmao

I agree with Bling. This looks like a case of faulty angles. The safety should be sprint toward the pylon to try and cut off the runner. The safety probably won't get there, but it'll be a lot more realistic than that. What's obvious in this play is that the CPU calculated the intercept angle for the play and didn't bother to adjust for the length of field.

If the safety were to run toward the pylon he would have ended up running behind the receiver by several yards by the time he intersected his path.

That's why I included the bolded sentence. The problem is that when the intersect path puts the safety in the end zone and out of play, the safety instead should run to the pylon since that is the spot of last resort.

I could see a slight deviation in path taken, but given how far back he was, if he were to run to the pylon he would have surrendered the play anyways. To me his route looks realistic enough as there are numerous times where defenders will run into the middle part of the endzone when coming from the far side on an intersect path when the play was made to the boundary.