DogFace
Carharris2
- Messages
- 13,137
- Reaction score
- 15,602
But still a factor.If you are looking for reasons why we lost this one is pretty low on the list.
But still a factor.If you are looking for reasons why we lost this one is pretty low on the list.
He appeared to hook his right arm impeding his progress to the ball and you can’t see the grab from behind from that angle. Granted it wasn’t much of a grab.
He "materially restricted" Schultz from coming back to make a play on the ball. Even a slight hold is huge in such circumstances. We see it differently.
If you couldn't see the grab from that angle, then from what angle could you see it from and I'll pull the video. I just watched the play itself and showed you the replay and there was no pull of the jersey that I saw.
I'm not disagreeing really but my point is that I have seen a flag thrown for that. I think it's a 50/50 call as just before Schultz decides to move towards the ball you see his body move sidewards from being momentarily grabbed/hooked/tugged by the defender. There isn't much in it but it did hinder his ability to make a play for the ball which is why a flag has been thrown for that.Yeah, there was no material restriction. Shultz was able to work himself into perfect position to catch the ball. For all intents and purposes this was a Hail Mary. How many times have you seen contact flagged in a Hail Mary situation? Almost never unless it's blatant. Shultz just chose not to jump to contest anyone else.
I'm not disagreeing really but my point is that I have seen a flag thrown for that. I think it's a 50/50 call as just before Schultz decides to move towards the ball you see his body move sidewards from being momentarily grabbed/hooked/tugged by the defender. There isn't much in it but it did hinder his ability to make a play for the ball which is why a flag has been thrown for that.
A lot of people unrelated to the Cowboys adjudged Ramsay to have hooked and held Gallup and that the flag should have been thrown against him. I thought it could have gone either way. I can't think of an exact example right now but from watching countless games I have seen a flag thrown for a similar hold to the one on Schultz. Maybe someone else with a better memory than me will post an example!It's just like that Ramsay/Gallup play from the beginning of the year. Worse contact than this was taking place until Gallup made a blatant pushoff to draw the flag. You can make contact and you can move a guy but not "materially." Here's where I've seen a flag thrown and it was obvious why. Where have you seen a flag thrown for this kind of contact because people use this "I've seen" line all the time with no specifics cited?
Not sure what you’re looking at but several including myself could see the DB reach for the back of Schultz to keep him from coming back for the ball. It appeared to be a slight tug but not enough to get a call. Could have very easily been a PI on the clip you posted for the DB hooking Schultz’ right arm. You can’t impede a receiver from making a play on the ball.
A lot of people unrelated to the Cowboys adjudged Ramsay to have hooked and held Gallup and that the flag should have been thrown against him. I thought it could have gone either way. I can't think of an exact example right now but from watching countless games I have seen a flag thrown for a similar hold to the one on Schultz. Maybe someone else with a better memory than me will post an example!
Went back and looked at my video frame by frame and he did pull down on the jersey a little on Shultz' left, you're correct. That is still not a material restriction as it would have been pulling back on the jersey. Again, that is the key phrase for holding. Was it material?
As for PI, swiping at an arm not hot holding it down is not PI. And the point of this thread is Shultz didn't make a play on the ball. He sat there waiting for the ball to land in his hands. He was not restricted from doing that. A DB can make the exact same motion to a receiver topping off his route before turning around and it's not PI, especially if he's not all over the guy as the ball arrives.
Like I said there wasn’t enough on the tug/grab to warrant a call. A DB reaching around a receiver and hooking their arm while they’re going up for a ball can easily warrant a PI. Had the ball not been underthrown there might have been a call. The bottom line is the ball was thrown up for grabs.
Not evenI thought he could have done a better job going after the ball. He was held a little bit but he never attacked the ball. I think he could have done a better job and caught it.
What do ya think?
Even more so 14 shouldve been more patient, had plenty of time and couldve ran for 7 yards or so and made the 4th n goal easierI thought he could have done a better job going after the ball. He was held a little bit but he never attacked the ball. I think he could have done a better job and caught it.
What do ya think?
He tried but was held big time heldI thought he could have done a better job going after the ball. He was held a little bit but he never attacked the ball. I think he could have done a better job and caught it.
What do ya think?
Yep along with roughing the qb on the same playI thought a penalty could have been called
I agree with your point the ball was underthrown. If you're going to your tallest receiver, give him a chance to use his height.
One of the first things they tell quarterbacks is do not throw floating passes in the middle area of the field, especially near the goal line because the defensive backs are looking at the ball.I thought he could have done a better job going after the ball. He was held a little bit but he never attacked the ball. I think he could have done a better job and caught it.
What do ya think?