Here is the pass interference
dallas1.jpg
And while I agree holding is often missed, it should be when it is this obvious and in the open
dallas2.jpg
SoCal
"Horrible pick up on the pass interference.
Ignoring holding in the Cowboy's last touchdown."
The supposed pass interference I think you're referencing wasn't-I was afraid of a possible "face-guarding" call, but the Dallas defender put his hands up after the ball got there.
The holding call, I didn't see, but could be any play in any football or basketball game.
Easy to pick apart almost any officiating at any athletics event.
Here is the pass interference
dallas1.jpg
And while I agree holding is often missed, it should be when it is this obvious and in the open
dallas2.jpg
SoCal
Eh, there's just a pall of despair that surrounds the entire Lion organization. Would have been good for the league to have a little team play on but twas not to be. Whatevs. Katy Perry Super Bowl halftime?! BARF.
Des Bryant coming onto field without a helmet.
Not a Lions fan but hate to see a team screwd like they were.
SoCal
As a fellow Lions fan (who was at the game yesterday), I agree you're born into it. My feeling is God knows that only so many people have the strength to be Lions fans. It requires a good ticker and the ability to take ups and downs and the recognition that while we had the legendary Barry Sanders, when it comes to the playoffs we can never have nice things. Ever. Only the strongest of the strong can be Lions fans and take the ups and downs week in and week out.
It's called being Lionized. And I'm proud to have the condition and wouldn't trade it for anything. I haven't missed a Lionized meeting in about 12 years. Luckily we meet at the bar or at the stadium on Sundays.
In watching a few talk shows today I knew there'd be plenty of discussion of the 4th quarter issues. Cris Carter was on with Mike-and-Mike and didn't think it should've been pass interference. In seeing many replays, it could've been holding as Pettigrew turned upfield. They missed that call. In looking at the play the pass was just below the defender's helmet, hitting him above the numbers. Carter said had Pettigrew made a move to come back to the ball it could've been interference, but Pettigrew didn't. Carter actually convinced Mike Greenberg to change his mind.
I thought it could've gone either way and after watching so many iffy calls this year expected the flag.
Oh well. Almost makes up for the botched handling on the FG attempt several years ago against Seattle. Sort of.
Last edited by duketaylor; 01-05-2015 at 02:43 PM. Reason: additional comment.
Agree. If it was PI, it was pretty borderline IMO. The defender made no attempt to play the ball, but also made no attempt to hold or grab the receiver or impede him. Other than brushing his arm, he had both hands up in the air. Tough call that could have gone either way.
Had the ref just made one call or the other, there likely would have been very little controversy. The controversy was generated by the fact that the ref actually made one call, then changed his mind and picked up the flag after he had already signaled the penalty. He should have thrown the flag and THEN talked to the back judge before signaling in the call.
"There can BE only one."
is a guy who was seen in August on the Dallas Cowboy party bus with Jerry Jones.
In any case he says the PI call was "debatable" but there was holding on the play by Dallas that should have been called.
Also says the Dez Bryant on the field without a helmet was up to the officials discretion and would have supported a penalty if called.
So we had a call against Dallas that was missed, one "debatable" that went the Cowboys way , and one "discretion" in Dallas' favor.
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/...thony-hitchens
Of course, the refs did not punt the ball 10 yards.
SoCal
I literally cried as a kid when Tom Dempsey hit his 63-yard field goal to beat the Lions. Being a Lions fan kind of balances out with being a Duke fan.
Sorry, that was not borderline. That was definition of PI. If the defender does not make a play on the ball, contact is pass interference. Period. You touch him if you don't look back for the ball, it's pass interference. Did you see the photo socaldukefan posted? He hooked both his arms and then knocked the guy over.
If contact is made by a defender who is not playing the ball and there is ANY chance the receiver would have caught the ball if the defender weren't there, it's PI. So, you're saying NO contact was made and if we remove the defender from the picture, there's no way he catches that ball? Dude, as a former linebacker, I wanna play in your league!
Last edited by bjornolf; 01-05-2015 at 07:55 PM.
Take another look at the photo - he definitely doesn't hook both arms. The receiver's left arm is reaching OVER the shoulder of the Dallas player. You could argue he hooked his right arm, but I think that's a stretch personally to call that hooking. Secondly, I believe the knockdown happened after the ball arrived.
FWIW, the second official described what he saw as face guarding. While face guarding is a penalty in the college level, it is not in the NFL. However, a face guarding penalty requires no contact between the players. From what we have seen, there was most assuredly some contact prior to the arrival of the ball. My opinion was the official felt the contact of the receiver's right arm with the defender's left was minimal and/or incidental.
To me, it looked to me like the defender was doing his best to avoid contact with the receiver, but had no idea where the ball was. Because the ball was underthrown a bit, the receiver came back into the defender and initiated contact (apparently an irrelevant point by NFL rule standards, but whatever). The defender put his arms up to avoid grabbing or pulling the receiver. In doing so, there was contact. You can certainly make a strong case that it was PI because he impeded the path of the receiver and didn't play the ball. I still think it was a borderline call. As such, had the ref definitively called it one way or the other, I probably would have agreed with the call.
Found this online, and it supports your rule interpretation. From that link:
"Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.
Note 2: Defensive players have as much right to the path of the ball as eligible offensive players. "
"There can BE only one."
JMHO, but I think it was a bad call to not call PI there. It wasn't a horrible call, but probably should have been a PI.
However, it is worth noting that the play in question comes at the 8:25 mark of the 4th quarter. After the no-call, Detroit still could have won the game if...
- They stop the Cowboys on a 4th and 6 play with 4:00 left
- They stop the Cowboys on 3rd and 7 at the Detroit 13 with 3:40 left, a stop would have resulted in a FG to tie the game
- They stop the Cowboys on 3rd and goal at the Detroit 8 with 2:39 left, a stop would have resulted in a FG to tie the game
- They drive for a score when they get the ball back, down 4 points, with 2:32 to go in the game
It is not like that no-call ended any chance Detroit had to win. There were several opportunities for them to make a play after that call... and they didn't.
-Jason "the above post comes from a fan who has no dog in this fight at all... no rooting interest in either of these teams" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
And now the head of officials admits that his refs missed a blatant holding call on Dallas' late fourth down conversion:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014...rth-conversion