Wildcard Weekend Game Thread

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
BigSoxFan said:
I'm sure your football resume is far more impressive than those guys and Mike Pereira, the former VP of officiating with the NFL. You're perfectly right to mock them and anyone who uses their opinions as support of their stance on the DPI.
I haven't said a thing about the DPI. Pereira' s opinion is worth just as much as any other ex-official on the subject, which is somewhat less than those on the field, IMO.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
So basically your position is evolving into the officials on the field are just to be trusted. Aside from ignoring the fact that the officials on the field disagreed among themselves (and that the guy calling PI seemed to have the best angle), you just seem to be digging yourself into one of those internet holes where logic goes by the wayside as you strain to justify what is Occam's Razor obvious:
 
1-that is called PI 95 times out of 100 (Heck, even "Cowboys S Barry Church said he thought Hitchens committed pass interference. "I would've called it,'' he said, and smiled.") -- the official explanation that it was faceguarding is demonstrably untrue, there was contact.
2-there was also a hold on the defensive player that is unmistakable.
3-the reversal was downright unusual, if not bizarre.
4-ex-officials watching the play in slow-mo replay from multiple angles agree with the original call, and not the reversal.
 
And your counterargument is that we shouldn't question one of the officials who -- without the benefit of replay/slo-mo/multiple angles -- contradicted another official? Wow. Sometimes on the internet you just tip your hat to the guy who argues longest and loudest: you win.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
WayBackVazquez said:
He's a substitute as defined in the NFL rule book, which is why rule 12 concerns players REMOVING their helmets and rule 13 concerns substitutes, coaches, and other team personnel. The helmet rule is quite obviously inapplicable.
 
I wasn't arguing the helmet tule. And you never answered my question about why Bryant should be excused from responsibility for his actions that came before what you called the "error" was decided upon.
 
But it's a new day, and time to back away from the craycray
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
I missed this as I had to sleep in my stupid country but that Fox video is pretty clear cut, there are some pretty damning images of holds and a false start by Witten on the 4th down play too. The latter stuff happens, I mean a lot, but if I was already freaking out about the pretty outrageous flag being picked up and the non call on Bryant I'd be convinced the fix was in. I mean if there are any Lions fans. But I cannot imagine how upset I'd be if I was a Lions fan. There's jobbed by the refs on the last drive, holding not called happens, but there's picking up a flag with no explanation after the announcement, I've never seen it. Let alone it was a flag (twice) AND the Bryant thing.
 
What you gonna say NFL? They made a mistake oops, sorry Lions you lose on our bad? Or say it was the right call and try to ignore the evidence. Ignore the evidence? Wait is there a tape? Yes. Shit.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Here are the clips people are screaming about on that last Cowboys drive (honestly many get ignored if not for the picked up flag - maybe)
 
Witten false start on 4th down
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/66AC5622D31163690102628016128_2f57ae0f0bb.5.1.8217965492566932449.mp4?versionId=6YyHdGI9bX9C_IQYwb5khr_FPmYExKoQ
 
 
Holding?
http://twitter.com/WorldofIsaac/status/551897368111874048/photo/1
 
 
Holding twice over?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6jJRaKCUAEJ472.jpg:large
 
 
And on Lions's last try
No call for illegal contact on Johnson here
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6jAsFsCEAATlmC.jpg
 
 
Yeah so all combined ugh. For some reason it's not letting me embed this stuff not sure why
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
LondonSox said:
I missed this as I had to sleep in my stupid country but that Fox video is pretty clear cut, there are some pretty damning images of holds and a false start by Witten on the 4th down play too. The latter stuff happens, I mean a lot, but if I was already freaking out about the pretty outrageous flag being picked up and the non call on Bryant I'd be convinced the fix was in. I mean if there are any Lions fans. But I cannot imagine how upset I'd be if I was a Lions fan. There's jobbed by the refs on the last drive, holding not called happens, but there's picking up a flag with no explanation after the announcement, I've never seen it. Let alone it was a flag (twice) AND the Bryant thing.
 
What you gonna say NFL? They made a mistake oops, sorry Lions you lose on our bad? Or say it was the right call and try to ignore the evidence. Ignore the evidence? Wait is there a tape? Yes. Shit.
The Lions got jobbed, plain and simple. Even if they didn't the perception is out there that they did and seeing Blandano partying it up with the son of Jerruh doesn't exactly scream impartial. Somehow I believe this is going to screw with the teams next week especially the Pats. Expect lots of defensive pass interference calls especially on Browner.
 

ObstructedView

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
3,237
Maine
This whole thing reminds me of the Raiders and the Tuck Rule game: a call goes against a team with a late lead, and that team then proceeds to spend the final few minutes of the game not making the plays it needed to win. That one call was technically correct and the other probably wrong doesn't change the fact that each team still had the game in its hands and didn't get it done. I'd certainly feel aggrieved if I were a Lions fan, but I'd also be disgusted with the coach and players. 
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
WayBackVazquez said:
Not true that it has never been a penalty. It used to be a penalty.
Sorry should have left out the been.
More clearly, I never see DPI called without contact these days.

I remember this came up several years back after a bad call against the Pats when they were playing Manning and the Colts in the playoffs. There was clearly no contact and the announcer (Simms?) mentioned face guarding.
Announcer was criticized for not knowing the rules and that the ref just made a bad call. Not unusual in the NFL.

Anyway if I remember correctly, it was reported then that face guarding wasn't even a penalty when Simms played in the NFL and that he must have been confusing it with college somehow.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
BigSoxFan said:
I mean, the players choked, especially the punter, but the whole choking sequence was put in motion because of a bad call. That's a tough pill to swallow. The blown call was bad. The decision to punt on 4th and 1 was really bad. And the punt was really REALLY bad.
Regardless of the fact the Lions got screwed on the call, I can't understand why you do not go for it on 4th and 1. Caldwell is not an NFL head coach. He had an okay run with Tony Dungy's team and then he was okay as the Ravens OC but he strikes me as a very average coach.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,055
Hingham, MA
Tyrone Biggums said:
Regardless of the fact the Lions got screwed on the call, I can't understand why you do not go for it on 4th and 1. Caldwell is not an NFL head coach. He had an okay run with Tony Dungy's team and then he was okay as the Ravens OC but he strikes me as a very average coach.
 
Yeah I said this last night but it all comes back to this: if you are going to throw deep on 3rd and < 1, then you are doing so with the plan to go for it on 4th down if you don't complete the pass. Otherwise you run your best play to pick up the 3rd down, which is clearly not a deep pass. It is playcalling 101.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
Gerry Austin, who has reffed 3 Super Bowls was on ESPN this morning. I have no idea if he's a company man, but here are his thoughts:
 
1--He would not have called that PI due to the fact that although Pettigrew raised his arms to catch ball, he was still moving away from the ball, making contact incidental.
2--Once flag was thrown he said call should have been stuck with, because although he would not have called it, there was contact and you could defend that call.
3--He said call was made by "secondary official" on the play, and "primary" must have talked him out of it. No idea why ref made announcement before this conference.
4--As to the Dez Bryant incident, he said officials are taught to first give players a chance to stop and move back to sidelines before penalizing an emotional reaction. If Bryant did not immediately respond to verbal warning, then flag is thrown.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,825
Needham, MA
The Lions got jobbed AND despite that fact they still had plenty of chances to win the game.  It isn't one or the other.
 
When the Pats get hosed by the refs like that I choose not to focus on the officials because the bottom line for me as a fan of my own team is that in almost every single case there is something they could have done to overcome the bad call.  So I personally choose not to focus on the refs because is it wasted energy and frustration.  Plus, if you go to an opposing team's message board in the wake of a loss to the Pats there is always (and I mean always, like, 100% of the time, no hyperbole) a thread about how the refs screwed the other team.  It is the common mantra of loser fans everywhere, so when it comes to the Pats again I just personally choose not to engage in that kind of discussion, YMMV.
 
In this case because I don't care (actually pretty intensely dislike both teams), I have no issues spending some time discussing the horrendous way that the officials screwed the Lions.  Engaging in that discussion does not negate the fact that the Lions still could have, and maybe should have, made enough plays to win the game.  But the circumstances around the call in this case were so bad that I think as a fan of the NFL it warrants discussion.
 
I do think that the NFL needs to make pass interference something that can be reviewed, though.  If it were common practice to take a second look at a PI call and in some cases reverse the call on the field it would have taken some of the sting out of this situation where the flag was thrown, the call was made, and then it was inexplicably reversed.  You see much, much more marginal PI calls in almost every NFL game that are not reversed despite replays being shown on giant jumbotrons to the whole stadium.  I just don't understand why in this particular case, in such a key situation, the officials on the field would deviate so substantially from normal protocol.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
mostman said:
I didn't hear that. I'm sure it's happened a few times. That's just the first time I've seen it or can recall it happening. It seems every single year in the NFL playoffs there is some profound fuck up that happens with the officiating. Not just a simple missed call, but things like this.
The speed of the game and the availability of HD super slow-mo replays make controversies like this inevitable. Thirty years ago, Cowboys fans would say the officials got together and made the right call even though it made them look disorganized, and everyone else would say the Lions got screwed. But looking at our grainy 19-inch TVs, perhaps without the benefit of a definitive camera angle, none of us would know the truth. Today, even Cowboys fans will acknowledge that their team caught a huge break, so the Monday morning conversation is all about the crappy officiating. In reality, however, NFL officiating is almost certainly better than ever, and the fuck-ups seem to be equitably distributed (the Packers got the short end of the last epic high-profile blunder).
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
DrewDawg said:
Gerry Austin, who has reffed 3 Super Bowls was on ESPN this morning. I have no idea if he's a company man, but here are his thoughts:
 
1--He would not have called that PI due to the fact that although Pettigrew raised his arms to catch ball, he was still moving away from the ball, making contact incidental.
2--Once flag was thrown he said call should have been stuck with, because although he would not have called it, there was contact and you could defend that call.
3--He said call was made by "secondary official" on the play, and "primary" must have talked him out of it. No idea why ref made announcement before this conference.
4--As to the Dez Bryant incident, he said officials are taught to first give players a chance to stop and move back to sidelines before penalizing an emotional reaction. If Bryant did not immediately respond to verbal warning, then flag is thrown.
 
This makes NO sense to me. If he's moving away from the ball then surely there is LESS reason for the defender to make contact. He's saying if Pettigrew had come back towards the ball and impacted the defender himself it's a flag, but where the player waits for the ball and is pushed over backwards that's ok. This is dumb.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Ed Hillel said:
I'm glad someone caught this. It looked early to me live, which is what allowed him to get the defender off balance and get wide open.
 
This seemed like a false start to me live, but after viewing the replay it looks as if he got a near-perfect jump.
 
Doesn't change the fact that the Lions got jobbed. 
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
The argument that goes "But the Lions have only themselves to blame because after the blown call, they didn't make enough plays to win" totally falls flat to me.
 
They made enough plays to be in a position to win, and then got fucked by the refs (possibly multiple times), which made it much harder to capitalize on their up-until-then superiority and finish off the Cowboys.    They shouldn't have had to overcome that much adversity in the first place.
 
I mean, by that logic, if one team is literally spotted 30 points at the start of the game ("Today, the Jets will have 30 points to start the game, with the Bills starting with 0!"), it would still be the opponent's failing for not winning, because they technically had the ability to win when the game started,however disadvantaged they might be through no fault of their own.
 
The Lions winning that game would have been extra impressive; their loss is not somehow extra shameful because they weren't able to overcome such a bad call.   This is professional sports, it's not a test of character.  
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
drleather2001 said:
The argument that goes "But the Lions have only themselves to blame because after the blown call, they didn't make enough plays to win" totally falls flat to me.
 
They made enough plays to be in a position to win, and then got fucked by the refs (possibly multiple times), which made it much harder to capitalize on their up-until-then superiority and finish off the Cowboys.    They shouldn't have had to overcome that much adversity in the first place.
 
I mean, by that logic, if one team is literally spotted 30 points at the start of the game ("Today, the Jets will have 30 points to start the game, with the Bills starting with 0!"), it would still be the opponent's failing for not winning, because they technically had the ability to win when the game started,however disadvantaged they might be through no fault of their own.
 
The Lions winning that game would have been extra impressive; their loss is not somehow extra shameful because they weren't able to overcome such a bad call.   This is professional sports, it's not a test of character.  
 
While I agree with everything you said, and also hate when some huge blown call is brushed aside, I don't think this particular call was that bad.  it was the folly of how it was handled, with the flag being thrown and then picked up without explanation that's the real problem here.  If no flag had been thrown, would anyone even remember this play?  It was borderline, I can see arguments for both sides on why it should/shouldn't have been called.  It certainly wasn't the most obvious missed pass interference call of the weekend, and there are likely to be a dozen worse PI calls in the rest of the playoffs.
 
The way it went down and the timing was deflating to Detroit, but the call itself was borderline either way IMO.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
12,529
Hendu for Kutch said:
 
While I agree with everything you said, and also hate when some huge blown call is brushed aside, I don't think this particular call was that bad.  it was the folly of how it was handled, with the flag being thrown and then picked up without explanation that's the real problem here.  If no flag had been thrown, would anyone even remember this play?  It was borderline, I can see arguments for both sides on why it should/shouldn't have been called.  It certainly wasn't the most obvious missed pass interference call of the weekend, and there are likely to be a dozen worse PI calls in the rest of the playoffs.
 
The way it went down and the timing was deflating to Detroit, but the call itself was borderline either way IMO.
 
Agreed with this. The handling of the call is more controversial than not calling PI itself. The flag pick-up definitely hurt the Lions' win probability (it was something like 11% win probability lost), but fuck the Lions anyway, they were still big favorites to win that game even after the flag was picked up and didn't get it done.
 

Flunky

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2009
1,918
CT
drleather2001 said:
The argument that goes "But the Lions have only themselves to blame because after the blown call, they didn't make enough plays to win" totally falls flat to me.
 
They made enough plays to be in a position to win, and then got fucked by the refs (possibly multiple times), which made it much harder to capitalize on their up-until-then superiority and finish off the Cowboys.    They shouldn't have had to overcome that much adversity in the first place.
 
I mean, by that logic, if one team is literally spotted 30 points at the start of the game ("Today, the Jets will have 30 points to start the game, with the Bills starting with 0!"), it would still be the opponent's failing for not winning, because they technically had the ability to win when the game started,however disadvantaged they might be through no fault of their own.
 
The Lions winning that game would have been extra impressive; their loss is not somehow extra shameful because they weren't able to overcome such a bad call.   This is professional sports, it's not a test of character.  
 
IMHO, if we're going down the cold, calculated route, that blown call isn't enough to explain the Lion's subsequent collapse.
 
In fact, for the most part, even if a litany of poor officiating impacting a game result may explain how some teams lost, it doesn't explain how some teams win despite it.
 
In that way I disagree with your final sentence.
 

mgoblue2

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2010
652
As a Lions fan, it's tough to stomach this game. I feel more aggrieved by the UC by Bryant and holds on the Dallas TD drive than I do by the pick up. To play so well in the first half and only score three points in the second half was so frustrating, and the run game was nowhere near as good as where it was earlier in the game.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
DrewDawg said:
Gerry Austin, who has reffed 3 Super Bowls was on ESPN this morning. I have no idea if he's a company man, but here are his thoughts:
 
1--He would not have called that PI due to the fact that although Pettigrew raised his arms to catch ball, he was still moving away from the ball, making contact incidental.
2--Once flag was thrown he said call should have been stuck with, because although he would not have called it, there was contact and you could defend that call.
3--He said call was made by "secondary official" on the play, and "primary" must have talked him out of it. No idea why ref made announcement before this conference.
4--As to the Dez Bryant incident, he said officials are taught to first give players a chance to stop and move back to sidelines before penalizing an emotional reaction. If Bryant did not immediately respond to verbal warning, then flag is thrown.
 
Gerry Austin is the biggest NFL ref shill in the history of ever. He absolutely railed every single call a replacement ref made, but I have literally not ever heard him say he's disagreed with a call an NFL official has made outside of that before now.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
mgoblue2 said:
As a Lions fan, it's tough to stomach this game. I feel more aggrieved by the UC by Bryant and holds on the Dallas TD drive than I do by the pick up. To play so well in the first half and only score three points in the second half was so frustrating, and the run game was nowhere near as good as where it was earlier in the game.
 
Yeah bottom line there really isn't a good excuse for scoring 3 points in the second half. Calls may have made it harder but that's just not good enough.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
LondonSox said:
 
Yeah bottom line there really isn't a good excuse for scoring 3 points in the second half. Calls may have made it harder but that's just not good enough.
 
It probably would have been, had that call not been overturned.
 
Teams sometimes when they only score 3 points in a half.  Even in the playoffs.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
12,529
drleather2001 said:
 
It probably would have been, had that call not been overturned.
 
Teams sometimes when they only score 3 points in a half.  Even in the playoffs.
 
 
Even with the flag pickup, they "should have" won. They were still pretty big favorites. But they allowed a TD drive and then failed to answer when they did.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
tims4wins said:
 
Yeah I said this last night but it all comes back to this: if you are going to throw deep on 3rd and < 1, then you are doing so with the plan to go for it on 4th down if you don't complete the pass. Otherwise you run your best play to pick up the 3rd down, which is clearly not a deep pass. It is playcalling 101.
You don't know what the playcall is - it's possible it was designed for a shorter route to get open, but the coverage shut down the short option and the quarterback went to one of his other options. Throwing deep is lower percentage than throwing short or running on 3rd and short - but the defense knows this too, and will defend accordingly. Basic game theory (also a part of playcalling 101) suggests that the offense has to do non-optimal things sometimes because the defense won't be defending them - and just to keep the defense honest. Non-red-zone deep passes on 3rd-and-1-2 are completed just 42.4% of the time, but for an average of a whopping 12.9 yards per attempt and 8.7% touchdown rate. In 2014, all those numbers are higher. Short passes are completed more often (64.7% of the time, 60% for first downs) but for just 5.79 YPA and touchdowns on only 0.8% of attempts.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Former ref Jim Daopoulous both lays out with clarity how unbelievable it is that the call was overturned, and how it's automatic to give Bryant a penalty in that situation. He goes further and says the refs must have just been "intimidated" by the situation. Be interesting to see if the NFL releases a statement today. Really inexcusable -- hard to feel sorry for Suh and company, and dem's the breaks, but they did get screwed.
 
I know there's been talk about how ref crews are re-configured for the playoffs. I do wonder if head ref Morelli had worked with the linesman who saw it differently, and not the back judge -- so maybe Morelli had more trust in the linesman?
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
It's pretty interesting, normally the ex refs who work in the media are pretty supportive of the refs, I can't recall such universal criticism, except for the replacement refs.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Very exciting Cowboys-Lions game. I thought Romo was going to manage to play poorly enough to lose yet another playoff game, but he pulled it out at the end. Had the Lions rallied, where would that fumble after the recovery of the fumble have ranked among the all-time worst boners in professional sports history?

to me, if there was any pass interference on the disputed call, it was for pushing off by the receiver, an offensive penalty. I didn't see any contact initiated by the defensive player until after the ball bounced off his back.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
Bill Polian and Herm Edwards debated this on SC this morning. Polian thought the shoulder push was enough to warrant the PI; Edwards did not ... although both said it was clear that the defender was not making any effort on the ball.
 
Both thought the jersey grab should have been called for holding.
 
Both thought Bryant should have been flagged.
 
Both thought that the flag, once thrown, should not have been picked up in this particular case.
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,484
NC
Plympton91 said:
Had the Lions rallied, where would that fumble after the recovery of the fumble have ranked among the all-time worst boners in professional sports history?
 
The irony is Leon Lett is an assistant D Line coach.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
That was way worse of a play yesterday than the Troy Brown/SD play.  Trying to return an INT at the point in the game where Brady threw the pick in the SD game is pretty standard. 
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
maufman said:
Game management is a relatively small part of being an NFL head coach.
Sure, but it's also the easiest.  It's really pretty mind-boggling, given the hyper-competitive NFL landscape, that teams continue to throw away non-trivial fractions of win expectancy (over the course of a 16-game season) through sheer mathematical illiteracy.  If it's too much to expect the coach to get it right, just hire some 22-year old basement-dweller for $50,000 per year.  
 
Ralphwiggum said:
The Lions got jobbed AND despite that fact they still had plenty of chances to win the game.  It isn't one or the other.
 
When the Pats get hosed by the refs like that I choose not to focus on the officials because the bottom line for me as a fan of my own team is that in almost every single case there is something they could have done to overcome the bad call.  So I personally choose not to focus on the refs because is it wasted energy and frustration.  Plus, if you go to an opposing team's message board in the wake of a loss to the Pats there is always (and I mean always, like, 100% of the time, no hyperbole) a thread about how the refs screwed the other team.  It is the common mantra of loser fans everywhere, so when it comes to the Pats again I just personally choose not to engage in that kind of discussion, YMMV.
 
In this case because I don't care (actually pretty intensely dislike both teams), I have no issues spending some time discussing the horrendous way that the officials screwed the Lions.  Engaging in that discussion does not negate the fact that the Lions still could have, and maybe should have, made enough plays to win the game.  But the circumstances around the call in this case were so bad that I think as a fan of the NFL it warrants discussion.
 
I do think that the NFL needs to make pass interference something that can be reviewed, though.  If it were common practice to take a second look at a PI call and in some cases reverse the call on the field it would have taken some of the sting out of this situation where the flag was thrown, the call was made, and then it was inexplicably reversed.  You see much, much more marginal PI calls in almost every NFL game that are not reversed despite replays being shown on giant jumbotrons to the whole stadium.  I just don't understand why in this particular case, in such a key situation, the officials on the field would deviate so substantially from normal protocol.
This is a spectacular post.  
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,014
0-3 to 4-3
WayBackVazquez said:
Actually, no it doesn't say that. It says you can't remove it in the field of play. And he didn't.

Honestly, since Dez was not on the field during the play, he was subject to rule 13, and not rule 12, anyway. Meaning he was subject to the exact same rules Jason Garrett was. So the helmet thing is a nom-starter. If you think Garrett would or should have been penalized there, then okay, I guess.
I'm all done with the Dez discussion but wanted to pop back in to acknowledge that you were right and I was wrong about the wording of the rule.  It's all about removal in the field of play, and you're right - he did not remove it in the field of play.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,726
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
Very exciting Cowboys-Lions game. I thought Romo was going to manage to play poorly enough to lose yet another playoff game, but he pulled it out at the end. Had the Lions rallied, where would that fumble after the recovery of the fumble have ranked among the all-time worst boners in professional sports history?

to me, if there was any pass interference on the disputed call, it was for pushing off by the receiver, an offensive penalty. I didn't see any contact initiated by the defensive player until after the ball bounced off his back.
 
Defensive player grabbed the receivers jersey while downfield before the ball arrived. At the very least is was defensive holding.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
BTW, a sober assessment of the sequence was posted on ESPN (3 penalties - one play):
 
1. Pettigrew Facemask Penalty: Rule 12, Section 2, Article 14 of the NFL rule book. ("No player shall grasp and control, twist, turn push or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.") 
 
Pettigrew put his hands on Hitchens' face mask
 
2. DPI: Rule 8, Section 5, Article 2(a) of the NFL rule book, which prohibits "contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent's ability to make the catch."  
 
Hitchens never turned around, so by definition he was not playing the ball
 
The key here is whether the contact was truly minimal. It seemed thorough enough to knock down Pettigrew, whom the Lions list at 275 pounds. In his interview, Morelli seemed less than 100 percent convinced, saying Bergman "thought" it was face guarding and refusing to offer his own opinion.
 
 
3. Coming on to the Field: Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(j) prohibits "removal of a helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player." 
 
Dez Bryant ran onto the field to protest the call. He was not wearing a helmet
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
geoduck no quahog said:
 
3. Coming on to the Field: Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(j) prohibits "removal of a helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player." 
 
Dez Bryant ran onto the field to protest the call. He was not wearing a helmet
 
 
A former NFL ref said that in these case they usually give the player a verbal warning to immediately leave the field before they assess the penalty. If player immediately returns to sideline they don't throw flag. It's apparently not zero-tolerance.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
geoduck no quahog said:
 
3. Coming on to the Field: Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(j) prohibits "removal of a helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player." 
 
Dez Bryant ran onto the field to protest the call. He was not wearing a helmet
 
Sigh. He was not a player in the field of play, and he did not remove his helmet. He was a substitute.
 
 
Section 2 Substitutes and Withdrawn Players
 
SUBSTITUTE BECOMES PLAYER
 
Article 2 A substitute becomes a player when he:
 
 (a) participates in at least one play (including a play negated by penalty prior to the snap or during the play); or
 
 (b) is on the field of play or the end zone when a snap, fair-catch kick, or free kick is made, or when a snap, fair-catch
kick, or free kick is imminent.
 
A player becomes a substitute when he is withdrawn from the game and does not participate in at least one play. A play
negated by penalty prior to the snap or during the play counts as a missed play. 
 
 
 
The helmet removal rule, of course, does not apply to substitutes, who have no reason to be wearing a helmet. The rule that was applicable to this situation was Rule 13, which applies to "non-player conduct." 
 

Rule 13 Non-Player Conduct
 
Section 1 Non-Player Conduct
 
NON-PLAYER FOULS
 
Article 1 There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct by a substitute, coach, attendant, or any other non- player (entitled to
sit on a team’s bench) during any period or timeout (including between halves). 
 
 

Because Dez left the restricted area, he was subject to penalty.

RESTRICTED AREAS
 
Article 4 All team personnel must observe the zone restrictions applicable to the bench area and the border rimming the
playing field. The only persons permitted within the solid six-foot white border (1-1) while play is in progress on the field
are game officials. For reasons involving the safety of participating players whose actions may carry them out of bounds,
officials’ unobstructed coverage of the game, and spectators’ sightlines to the field, the border rules must be observed by
all coaches and players in the bench area. Violators are subject to penalty by the officials. 
 
 

Penalty: For illegal acts under Articles 1 through 6 above: Loss of 15 yards from team for whose supposed benefit
 foul was made. (Unsportsmanlike Conduct.)
 
Enforcement is from:
a) the succeeding spot if the ball is dead.
b) whatever spot the Referee, after consulting with crew, deems equitable, if the ball was in play. 
 
 


As we all know, and as several former officials have explained, calling such a foul is discretionary, and is usually not done without first giving the offender a warning to return to the area. As Gerry Austin, three-time Super Bowl official noted this morning, Dez appeared to return to the sideline immediately after being told to do so by the official.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
I find the notion that the contact from Hitchens was what caused Pettigrew to fall backward laughable. He was falling because that's where his momentum was taking him, not because Hitchens pushed the object weighing 275 pounds. Seriously, fuck ESPN for trying to stir shit up.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Which is why Pass Interference is such a fucked up affair. The casual fan just can't predict whether subtle contact will be called or not. It's apparently a judgment call with a troubling lack of consistency. It often has a huge in-game impact.
 
I still don't know if Pettigrew falling backwards is the main point, or if the point is Hitchens not going for the ball and making contact (the ball being "catchable")
 
It sucks watching a game and waiting the 3 seconds to see if a flag comes out, not knowing what the fuck to expect. I don't know if there's any solution, other than changing the rule or at least making it reviewable.
 
Is PI more clear to the educated fan? I'm curious. Right now it just screws with my head. 
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
The rule, itself, is pretty clear. The application of the rule, on the other hand, is a gigantic mess. I would 100% favor making pass interference reviewable. It's a penalty that could potentially give a team 50 yards or more. Making that call incorrectly could have a huge impact on the outcome of a game.
 
As for my comment about the ESPN piece, it reads as though the author is saying that the contact was not minimal, as it was done with enough force to push Pettigrew to the ground. As that was clearly not the case, I'm left to believe that the thing is merely click bait and First Take fodder.
 
Edit: I should probably make it clear that calling that interference would not have been particularly egregious. I did not like the call live, but after a few replays, it did look like the flag was defensible.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
NFL head of officials Dean Blandino said Monday that the no-call on pass interference against Detroit Lions tight end Brandon Pettigrew by Dallas Cowboys linebacker Anthony Hitchens was debatable but holding definitely should have been called on the play.
...
Blandino said that when he reviewed the play it appears as a "judgment call that could have gone either way." But he saw a clear "jersey grab" by Hitchens that should have resulted in a defensive holding call that "should have been called."
...
Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant came onto the field without his helmet to argue the initial pass-interference call Sunday, an act that had many wondering why he wasn't flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. But Blandino said that Bryan't actions weren't an automatic penalty as the rule against players taking their helmets off on the field only applies to players in the game at that time.
The official Sunday had "discretion" to decide whether Bryant's actions warranted a penalty and decided against it although Blandino said he would have supported a penalty on Bryant if it was called.
 
 
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/12124549/dean-blandino-holding-call-missed-vs-dallas-cowboys-lb-anthony-hitchens
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I'm not sure making it reviewable would change anything.

As said it's pretty subjective the way it's called. There is usually contact when a call is made but the basis of how much contact varies.
With irrefutable evidence as the standard to overturn, I don't see calls getting reversed unless there is absolutely no contact.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Well, it's good to know that the NFL head of officiating can at least define the PI rules.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
2,351
How many of us at least agree that not calling the PI, the facemask, or the jersey tug was preferable from an impartial fan perspective? In my opinion it's a better NFL when the borderline stuff isn't called, and in normal circumstances the no-call(s) there would have fallen comfortably within the "let them play in the playoffs" mantra. Personally I say let them play all the time, but I digress.
 
That said, once the penalty is announced changing it is inexcusable, doubly so when strict by the book application of the rules warrants the flag. 
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
As Blandino points out in that story, the biggest "mistake" was announcing the penalty before they conferred. We've all seen flags picked up after the officials get together. The announcement added to the magnitude of the moment, and not explaining why it was picked up not only added to the confusion, but let loose a torrent of replays and subsequent analysis.
 
If the jersey pull had been called, none of this would have mattered.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
E5 Yaz said:
If the jersey pull had been called, none of this would have mattered.
 

True, but let's be fair to everything seen on replay. They should have called the jersey pull and the facemask, meaning the down was replayed.