Twitter: Refs missed a safety call on Arizona

[nalam]

Two refs staring at a blatant hold (more blatant than ours) in the endzone...safety.

This was true, I called it during the game

 

[J_Allen]

Bullcrap.. the hold against Schultz on Zeke's 15 yard run was a good call. He held.. the bad part was that he didn't have to. That guy had no chance to make the tackle. The facemask on Watkins? or was it Osa? was a legit call. Borderline because he grabbed the top of the helmet then moved down to the facemask but he didn't let go immediately so good call. But again it's not JUST the calls that go against the Cowboys that bothers anyone.. It's when the other team does damn near the exact same thing and no flag comes out that people get up in arms. All we ask is that it be called the same way. Dak has been whacked upside the head a dozen times and I believe has drawn one flag all season. Why protect some QBs from shots to the head but not others? The grabbing Tank's shoulder pad as he closed in on Murray was one of the easiest calls in the game to see. The guy grabbed him, turned him and never let go until Murray had escaped. Tank probably ran 3-4 steps with the guy holding on.. No way the refs could have missed that. And again I keep coming back to the VERY obvious holding Green got away with on Diggs on the first option run where Parson's knocked him out of bounds. A ref is standing there.. 10 feet away looking right at the play.. but swallowed his whistle in NBA parlance. Leaving me to ask .. Why?

Exactly, that was a hold by Schultz but it also was a hold against Lawrence.

Yet somehow that's fine with people here. Absolutely amazing.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The video makes it look less blatant than the photo I posted. That being said, I do think he was tugged a bit from behind. Typically when others try to sell calls on our oline, our guys are actually holding.

OF COURSE the video makes it look less blatant than the still shot you posted because a video actually depicts what happened.

A still shot provides no context.

Do you know Cardinal fans really tried claiming Santonio Holmes didn’t have two feet inbounds on that crucial touchdown in the Super Bowl. And guess what they tried showing as proof? A still shot (see below).

Problem was, just a few frames before the actual proof was there in plain sight (see below).

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Two refs staring at a blatant hold (more blatant than ours) in the endzone...safety.

That exactly what I was saying in a thread I made about this play. That was a potential 5-8 point swing.

 

[MarcusRock]

What do you think Jones' right hand is doing on Lawrence's right shoulder pad there? Just resting gently?

Did he "materially restrict" per the wording of the rule or did Lawrence get to go in the direction he was going without being twisted or hooked or whatever? That's the key, which is why I showed the Schultz hold in the next post. The 2 are nothing alike and nothing of the sort happened to Lawrence unless one needs to see it that way.

 

[Ken]

You can't in any way shape or form tell a hold from a still picture. Don't know why people insist on doing that for motion penalties.

Here are videos and it was not a hold. No material restriction or twisting, turning, hooking, etc. Plus DLaw used a rip move which has an exception in the rules. Again, people are reacting to DLaw's reaction. Wasn't a hold.

I agree...not a hold.

 

[MarcusRock]

So grabbing a guys shoulder pads after he's gotten by you is not holding?

What universe do you live in?

Hey, I get it man. I get it. Same question to you and others. Did he twist or jerk or take Lawrence to the ground to alter his path to the QB? Because that's what's in the rules. At real speed, Lawrence got to run exactly where he wanted to run. Compare it to Schultz. That's "material restriction" in keeping someone from the path they want to run. Lawrence's was not. Are you going to tell me those 2 examples were the same thing?

 

[MarcusRock]

You missed the "grabbing" part of the rule. It sure looks like the guy is grabbing DLaw's shoulder pads from that video. You can see his right shoulder jerk back.

Here is the official rule.

Use his hands or arms to materially restrict an opponent or alter the defender’s path or angle of pursuit. It is a foul regardless of whether the blocker’s hands are inside or outside the frame of the defender’s body. Material restrictions include but are not limited to:

1. grabbing or tackling an opponent;
2. hooking, jerking, twisting, or turning him; or
3. pulling him to the ground.

Right. Now did he do so to "materially restrict" Lawrence or "alter his path or angle of pursuit"? Watch the live action shot. When did Lawrence ever get moved off his path he took? Now look at the Schultz one I posted. Are those 2 the same thing? Tell me.

 

[MarcusRock]

A player doesn't react like that unless he's feeling some resistance in his shoulders. So I don't think it was just a love tap. All it takes is a little tug of the shoulders to kill a player's momentum there.

You're calling that "material restriction" per the rules? And that wording implies that some restriction is okay. Where did Lawrence get altered from where he wanted to go? Dude ran a nicely-formed loop, wouldn't you say? You too want to compare that to what Schultz did and say those were both "material restriction" just the same?

 

[Kingofholland]

What's fun y is this crew is flag happy and has thrown more penalties than any ref crew this year

 

[MarcusRock]

Yeah, the same play you say demarcus Lawrence wasn't held on.

Outstanding. You should be a ref

I should be. I don't have emotion ants running in my veins. I'd have gotten that Saints PI call right, I tells ya that.

 

[MarcusRock]

Our fans, smh.

I can show a photo of Santonio Holmes catch in the Super Bowl that makes it look like he only had one foot touching because it’s a still shot.

People were doing the same for that fumble at the end of the game. It's a call that totally depends on motion so a still shot is useless.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Did he "materially restrict" per the wording of the rule or did Lawrence get to go in the direction he was going without being twisted or hooked or whatever? That's the key, which is why I showed the Schultz hold in the next post. The 2 are nothing alike and nothing of the sort happened to Lawrence unless one needs to see it that way.

Right, that's the question I asked you. What do you think his right hand is doing on Lawrence's shoulder pad?

IF his fingers clamped down into the jersey to momentarily stop Lawrence's movement forward, couldn't that fit the bill of "materially restricting" him?

 

[Zman5]

Right. Now did he do so to "materially restrict" Lawrence or "alter his path or angle of pursuit"? Watch the live action shot. When did Lawrence ever get moved off his path he took? Now look at the Schultz one I posted. Are those 2 the same thing? Tell me.

DLaws was definitely restricted and the grab and push by the Olinemen did alter his intended path of pursuit. You can see it on the second video where DLaw is trying to turn toward Murray but the grab and push prevents DLaw from changing his path toward Murray and the grab slows him down hence "materially restricting" him.

 

[MarcusRock]

Right, that's the question I asked you. What do you think his right hand is doing on Lawrence's shoulder pad?

IF his fingers clamped down into the jersey to momentarily stop Lawrence's movement forward, couldn't that fit the bill of "materially restricting" him?

Lawrence never stopped. He ran a nicely-formed loop that never had a jagged jolt to it whatsoever. Not material. The OL never held on the way Schultz did to alter the guy's path and the rule calls that out by name. Gotta read the rules and see if it fits the description. It doesn't in Lawrence's case but Schultz was gill-tee.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Lawrence never stopped. He ran a nicely-formed loop that never had a jagged jolt to it whatsoever. Not material. The OL never held on the way Schultz did to alter the guy's path and the rule calls that out by name. Gotta read the rules and see if it fits the description. It doesn't in Lawrence's case but Schultz was gill-tee.

The rule doesn't say he has to be stopped - just materially restricted.

I don't care about the Schultz play. I'm not debating nor asking you about that. I'm asking you what you think Jones' right hand might have been doing on top of Lawrence's shoulder pad on this play in question? And you still haven't answered the question.

 

[MarcusRock]

DLaws was definitely restricted and the grab and push by the Olinemen did alter his intended path of pursuit. You can see it on the second video where DLaw is trying to turn toward Murray but the grab and push prevents DLaw from changing his path toward Murray and the grab slows him down hence "materially restricting" him.

Disagree. Lawrence ran a loop without breaking his path. He went where he wanted. The OL is allowed to push. Rules don't prohibit that. You're allowed to restrict but not materially. This is why I showed the Schultz hold. That is blatant. Lawrence's situation is in no way similar which is why no one addresses Schultz' hold when they make their case because the two are night and day.

 

[MarcusRock]

The rule doesn't say he has to be stopped - just materially restricted.

I don't care about the Schultz play. I'm not debating nor asking you about that. I'm asking you what you think Jones' right hand might have been doing on top of Lawrence's shoulder pad on this play in question? And you still haven't answered the question.

I already answered you. Not material. The OL didn't jerk him or twist him or pull him down. He did have a hand on him which was there the entire time from his block. And he let go once Lawrence turned the corner. That's how you properly avoid a hold. The Schultz play is relevant because he didn't let go and restricted his guy from where he wanted to go. The OL here did not. Clear difference and why no one wants to reference it. Exactly why I posted it.

 

[Zman5]

Disagree. Lawrence ran a loop without breaking his path. He went where he wanted. The OL is allowed to push. Rules don't prohibit that. You're allowed to restrict but not materially. This is why I showed the Schultz hold. That is blatant. Lawrence's situation is in no way similar which is why no one addresses Schultz' hold when they make their case because the two are night and day.

And I totally disagree. DLaw is not a small dude and for him to not be able to turn toward Murray when the grab happens, that was a significant grab and push. Also OL is not allowed to push the defender from the back which he clearly does on this play.

Go watch it in slow mo and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

I already answered you. Not material. The OL didn't jerk him or twist him or pull him down. He did have a hand on him which was there the entire time from his block. And he let go once Lawrence turned the corner. That's how you properly avoid a hold. The Schultz play is relevant because he didn't let go and restricted his guy from where he wanted to go. The OL here did not. Clear difference and why no one wants to reference it. Exactly why I posted it.

Yes, and again, for the 10th time, my question is WHAT do you think Jones' hand was doing on his shoulder pad? You actually still haven't answered. Was it just resting there? Was it grazing his shoulder pad? Or was he possibly gripping a hold of his jersey/pad?

If it's the latter, that could certainly qualify as "materially restricting" him by momentarily altering his forward movement.

Again, the Schultz play is irrelevant. I'm not asking you to break down what a textbook holding call is compared to another play. The point is, the referee who didn't throw a flag on this play doesn't have the benefit of breaking it down like the JFK Zapruder film like people in this thread are attempting to do. They have to make a bang-bang call. So everything that happens on this play needs to be viewed through the lens of what the referee may have seen from his point of view in that split second, not what you see after watching a GIF played back a million times.

If you are being honest with yourself, you've seen plays less egregious-looking than this flagged for holding countless times. And, conversely, you've probably seen more egregious-looking plays NOT flagged for holding. That's life in the NFL. But stop acting like you can't understand why anyone viewing this would expect a referee to throw a flag here.