Another game lost due to referee bias

[Miller]

I don't care if the article said it. That's the author's opinion on a video anyone else can see. Anyone who isn't blind as a bat can see that he has his fingers on his face mask, even wrapped around it. You put this in front of an jury who care nothing about football and have no fan association to a particular team and I'm certain all of them will say the same.

The only person here who is biased is you.

Watching the play in real time, there is contact between both parties. The holding by Hitchens comes right after the receiver extends his arms to push him away by the facemask which he then subsequently grabs. If anything, no flag should have been tossed on the play at all. The ball was poorly thrown and uncatchable and thrown into the back of Hitchens.The ref said he threw the flag because of face guarding for PI, but that is not a penalty in the NFL.

You're using this play as an excuse to substantiate a terrible call on Dez. Neither play is tied to the other as far as rules go. And the former should certainly have no impact whatsoever on the latter.

Your explanation makes no sense at all. You are talking about bias but are glossing every FACT about the video. Your whole argument is on a facemask that you claim a jury would convict on. Yet you ignore the basic rules of football to make it a no call. And your take on the play isn't even right. The HOLD..something that happened..is while the TE is running down the field..before he even turns his body. That is first. So that is a missed penalty. Secondly would be your video because in it Pettigrew is turning back for the ball and Hitchens is reaching out forward already grabbing arm and this is when the hand goes toward the facemask. Then Hitchens grabs his arm and runs into him preball. How is a ball uncatchable if it is right at the player and hits the defender in the back? That rule is only for balls nowhere near a WRs, like out of bounds. So youre off there. So you'd like to ignore a blatant hold and a blatant PI which pictures show happening and that...using your words...a jury would be out in 2 minutes on, but claim a facemask, that even Hitchens never mentioned, is the key to the play. That's a joke. And you know it. You can't call a hold or a PI "playing the ball" yet call two guys tussling (which happens alot) an automatic facemask. Under your scenario the ONLY right call is off-setting with Lions getting ball again. In most normal settings we get flagged and game over. Nothing I'm saying is controversial in football circles and is agreed upon by 99% of people regarding the hold and PI.

And its not a terrible call on Dez. It's the right call under a terrible rule. He didn't maintain control when his arm hit. I think it should be a catch but the rules are the rules. Deion and others all said the same...great grab..horrible rule that took it.

 

[Miller]

The officials are bad all game long, in every single game across the league.

It's not a Dallas bias.

It's the referees are completely useless.

Right. But watch out, this kind of sound reasoning and normal thought patterns make you a troll to some. Just a warning.

 

[Everson24]

The first shot is of a hold before the ball was thrown. That could've been called. Several thousands others aren't either.

The second picture is him knocking his hand off his facemask. Watch the video you posted. It's very clear.

Thre refs did miss the quick hold. They did call PI but then a ref with a better angle thought that Hitchens did not interfere before the ball arrived. They could not then call the holding penalty but they could convene and overrule the PI call which is what they did. They also missed a facemask and offensive PI on Pettigrew too. But because the throw was so bad and Pettigrew did not fight to get back to the ball, the no call was probably the way to go on that one. Because it was 4th down the play gets overblown.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Your explanation makes no sense at all. You are talking about bias but are glossing every FACT about the video. Your whole argument is on a facemask that you claim a jury would convict on. Yet you ignore the basic rules of football to make it a no call. And your take on the play isn't even right. The HOLD..something that happened..is while the TE is running down the field..before he even turns his body. That is first. So that is a missed penalty. Secondly would be your video because in it Pettigrew is turning back for the ball and Hitchens is reaching out forward already grabbing arm and this is when the hand goes toward the facemask. Then Hitchens grabs his arm and runs into him preball. How is a ball uncatchable if it is right at the player and hits the defender in the back? That rule is only for balls nowhere near a WRs, like out of bounds. So youre off there. So you'd like to ignore a blatant hold and a blatant PI which pictures show happening and that...using your words...a jury would be out in 2 minutes on, but claim a facemask, that even Hitchens never mentioned, is the key to the play. That's a joke. And you know it. You can't call a hold or a PI "playing the ball" yet call two guys tussling (which happens alot) an automatic facemask. Under your scenario the ONLY right call is off-setting with Lions getting ball again. In most normal settings we get flagged and game over. Nothing I'm saying is controversial in football circles and is agreed upon by 99% of people regarding the hold and PI.

And its not a terrible call on Dez. It's the right call under a terrible rule. He didn't maintain control when his arm hit. I think it should be a catch but the rules are the rules. Deion and others all said the same...great grab..horrible rule that took it.

It makes perfect sense.



The way I described it is how it happens at two seconds in. Keep pausing it to see it. The receiver extends his arm to push Hitchens away then he grabs the jersey, then the receiver extends his arm out onto his facemask and further pushes him away to which Hitchen responds by slapping his arm away. Watch the play over and over again until you get it. Or go see an eye doctor.

The ball is uncatchable in the sense that the QB threw it into the back of Hitchens who had position on the receiver. If he threw it higher then it would have been catchable.

 

[Miller]

It makes perfect sense.



The way I described it is how it happens at two seconds in. Keep pausing it to see it. The receiver extends his arm to push Hitchens away then he grabs the jersey, then he extends his arm out onto his facemask and further pushes him away. Watch the play over and over again until you get it. Or go see an eye doctor.

The ball is uncatchable in the sense that the QB threw it into the back of Hitchens who had position on the receiver. If he threw it higher then it would have been catchable.

Its NOT as you describe. At 2 seconds is when Hitchens is holding his jersey as he goes by...ok. It is right there clear as day. Pause it. That is the hold. Then they start jockeying and that is when you are calling facemask while Hitchens is riding him. Then Hitchens has his hands on his arm and is hitting him before the ball gets there....slo mo confirms this. It's an easy call. The still shots we posted show this. Your video had Pareira calling it throughout. Your scenario for no call ONLY makes sense under the rules if Hutchens turns toward the ball. If he isn't playing the ball, it is a call EVERY time. This is even mentioned in the video and is a legit rule. There is no eye doctor needed. You are wrong, that is all. Even if they call the facemask, the holding and PI with his back to the ball warrant a do over and Lions have the ball.

Also, it is catchable. You are making up a new rule here. It is right at him except a defender on top of him is impeding it..lol. QBs throw at defenders with their back turned all the time and WRs make the catch. In fact it hits the TE in the right hand. How is that not catchable?

You need a rule book, my eyes are fine.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its NOT as you describe. At 2 seconds is when Hitchens is holding his jersey as he goes by...ok. It is right there clear as day. Pause it. That is the hold. Then they start jockeying and that is when you are calling facemask while Hitchens is riding him. Then Hitchens has his hands on his arm and is hitting him before the ball gets there. It's an easy call. The still shots we posted show this. Your video had Pareira calling it throughout. Your scenario for no call ONLY makes sense under the rules if Hutchens turns toward the ball. If he isn't playing the ball, it is a call EVERY time. This is even mentioned in the video and is a legit rule. There is no eye doctor needed. You are wrong, that is all. Even if they call the facemask, the holding and PI with his back to the ball warrant a do over.

Also, it is catchable. You are making up a new rule here. It is right at him except a defender on top of him is impeding it..lol. QBs throw at defenders with their back turned all the time and WRs make the catch. In fact it hits the TE in the right hand. How is that not catchable?

You need a rule book, my eyes are fine.

I see it as he describes.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Its NOT as you describe. At 2 seconds is when Hitchens is holding his jersey as he goes by...ok. It is right there clear as day. Pause it. That is the hold. Then they start jockeying and that is when you are calling facemask while Hitchens is riding him. Then Hitchens has his hands on his arm and is hitting him before the ball gets there. It's an easy call. The still shots we posted show this. Your video had Pareira calling it throughout. Your scenario for no call ONLY makes sense under the rules if Hutchens turns toward the ball. If he isn't playing the ball, it is a call EVERY time. This is even mentioned in the video and is a legit rule. There is no eye doctor needed. You are wrong, that is all. Even if they call the facemask, the holding and PI with his back to the ball warrant a do over.

Also, it is catchable. You are making up a new rule here. It is right at him except a defender on top of him is impeding it..lol. QBs throw at defenders with their back turned all the time and WRs make the catch. In fact it hits the TE in the right hand. How is that not catchable?

You need a rule book, my eyes are fine.

If you want to make it into a question about who's doing what to who, then both players are exhibiting contact all the way down the field, starting with the receiver shoving his hands in Hitchens face first at one second in. Illegal hands to the face missed, one second in, everything else doesn't matter after the fact if you want to go back in time.

The point is, the receiver is trying to garner separation and Hitchens is trying to maintain his proximity. If anything, the jostling between the two signified that no flag should have been thrown at all because both parties were engaging in contact and that ball was uncatchable. It's not about a rule establishing it as the latter, it is about it being such since the momentum of the receiver was carrying him backwards and the ball it hit Hitchens in the back because of his position not because he pass interfered.

 

[Miller]

I see it as he describes.

Congrats, you are in the 1% that doesn't know the rules too.

 

[Miller]

If you want to make it into a question about who's doing what to who, then both players are exhibiting contact all the way down the field, starting with the receiver shoving his hands in Hitchens face first at one second in. Illegal hands to the face missed, one second in, everything else doesn't matter after the fact if you want to go back in time.

The point is, the receiver is trying to garner separation and Hitchens is trying to maintain his proximity. If anything, the jostling between the two signified that no flag should have been thrown at all because both parties were engaging in contact and that ball was uncatchable. It's not about a rule establishing it as the latter, it is about it being such since the momentum of the receiver was carrying him backwards and the ball it hit Hitchens in the back because of his position not because he pass interfered.

Listen, you can't make up new rules. The only time "uncatchable" is used is when the ball sails 10 ft over a WRs head while he is being contacted. The ball actually hits his right hand. And yes, he is falling backwards because the player is interfering with him. Its easily catchable.

The 1 second mark is nothing but the two of them doing normal separation as they pass. At 2 seconds is the holding pictures below with Pettigrew trying to get away. If you can't see it, not sure what to say. That is penalty 1 and at 2 seconds

After that they start exchanging arm contact because TE is trying to get away from hold and that is when Pettigrew goes towards the facemask. Read this on it and what the outcomes would have been, including penalty on Dez running onto the field. It has a video of the facemask you are talking of and its when he is turning toward ball coming from QB so its after the 2 second hold.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/facemask-cowboys-lions-2015-1/

Thirdly we have Hutchens post the two plays above interfering with the TE WITH HIS BACK TURNED...emphasis because it is a major factor in the rule. To make it a play where both players are playing the ball, the DB must have back turned back to the ball'

As I said,....and showing it step by step..it should have been called. You can claim the Facemask even and it still gives the Lions the ball.

 

[SultanOfSix]

No. The ball hits Hitchens back shoulder. It doesn't even touch the receiver's hand.

You can't claim things as "normal" contact for things that don't fit your argument. If you want to go back in time, then the receiver shoves his hand into Hitchens face first at one second in: illegal hands to the face. You can then make the argument that Hitchens grabbed his jersey as a result of the hands to the face and that becomes "normal" contact even if it's technically a hold. "Normal" contact is out the window all the way down the field.

The ball is uncatchable, and it's not due to anything Hitchens did. The flag shouldn't have been thrown. Period.

 

[Miller]

No. The ball hits Hitchens back shoulder. It doesn't even touch his hand.

You can't claim things as "normal" contact for things that don't fit your argument. If you want to go back in time, then the receiver shoves his hand into Hitchens face first at one second in: illegal hands to the face. You can then make the argument that Hitchens grabbed his jersey as a result of the hands to the face and that becomes "normal" contact even if it's technically a hold. "Normal" contact is out the window all the way down the field.

The ball is uncatchable, and it's not due to anything Hitchens did. The flag shouldn't have been thrown. Period.

I'm not sure what to say but you're making up facts and rules. At 1 second his hands aren't near his face. They are at his waist. Same with Hitchens as the pass.

The hold is blatant and not s result of anything. I've posted 3 articles and countless pictures and they all say the same thing. I even gave you credit for the facemask and posted an article on it above and it even says Detroit still would have the ball. Every pundit, rules maker, non involved commentator has agreed. You think Pareira is out to make up rules while explaining it in your video?

AGAIN, there is no uncatchable rule in the history of NFL football that has it how you are explaining. Its NOT the rule. Its either way too high or nowhere near a WR. Not because it's right at him but hits someone. It's ruining any semblance of a argument you have. It's easily catchable if it's in TE vacinity of the of the WR. His right hand is under the arm and right where the shoulder is. If someone is tackled in the field of play and the ball goes over them you can't call uncatchable. Hard to debate when you don't know the rules.

Hitchens back turned is a breaker in any interference argument. Plain and simple.

Detroit has ball no matter what. Talk about matching facts to suit agenda..you take Hitchens mugging s guy and say the one facemask allegedly makes it s no call. Unreal

 

[SultanOfSix]

I'm not sure what to say but you're making up facts and rules. At 1 second his hands aren't near his face. They are at his waist. Same with Hitchens as the pass.

Yes his hands are. When he comes across the line he shoves his hand into his face. It's right there for anyone to see.

The hold is blatant and not s result of anything. I've posted 3 articles and countless pictures and they all say the same thing. I even gave you credit for the facemask and posted an article on it above and it even says Detroit still would have the ball. Every pundit, rules maker, non involved commentator has agreed. You think Pareira is out to make up rules while explaining it in your video?

No everyone doesn't agree. Three articles that happen to support you view don't mean "every" in any world. No one is arguing that Hitchens didn't hold. They are arguing that it wasn't called and its irrelevant. If you want to go back in time, then I can go back in time and say "illegal hands to the face" weren't called on the receiver either which happened before and hold to Hitchens. I frankly don't really care what Pareira says. Every human being can have subjective bias and arguments from authority are logical fallacies. I can watch the video tape and make my own conclusion. Whether Detroit should have the ball or not is irrelevant to what happened on the play.

AGAIN, there is no uncatchable rule in the history of NFL football that has it how you are explaining. Its NOT the rule. Its either way too high or nowhere near a WR. Not because it's right at him but hits someone. It's ruining any semblance of a argument you have. It's easily catchable if it's in TE vacinity of the of the WR. His right hand is under the arm and right where the shoulder is. If someone is tackled in the field of play and the ball goes over them you can't call uncatchable

It doesn't matter if there is a rule or not. I'm saying the ball was uncatchable and nothing that Hitchens did interfered with his possibility to make that catch other than him having the appropriate position on the receiver. The receiver was not going back for the ball and Hitchens wasn't preventing his movement back towards it. Just because a player's back is turned and he makes contact - in this case him swiping his hand away from the facemask and touching his jersey - doesn't also mean it's pass interference either.

 

[mmohican29]

Thre refs did miss the quick hold. They did call PI but then a ref with a better angle thought that Hitchens did not interfere before the ball arrived. They could not then call the holding penalty but they could convene and overrule the PI call which is what they did. They also missed a facemask and offensive PI on Pettigrew too. But because the throw was so bad and Pettigrew did not fight to get back to the ball, the no call was probably the way to go on that one. Because it was 4th down the play gets overblown.

This, except I believe it was 3rd down.

 

[Miller]

This, except I believe it was 3rd down.

Except that his scenario is wrong. The call was PI. The only reason it was overturned was one official thought it was face guarding...a college rule and the other one didn't see it well enough and said he only saw minimal contact. When the head ref was interviewed later about it he explained this and said that he was too far away to see anything. So basically they missed the calls. It was 3rd and 1 so Detroit would have had the ball again for 1 to 2 plays.

 

[DogFace]

Yes his hands are. When he comes across the line he shoves his hand into his face. It's right there for anyone to see.


No everyone doesn't agree. Three articles that happen to support you view don't mean "every" in any world. No one is arguing that Hitchens didn't hold. They are arguing that it wasn't called and its irrelevant. If you want to go back in time, then I can go back in time and say "illegal hands to the face" weren't called on the receiver either which happened before and hold to Hitchens. I frankly don't really care what Pareira says. Every human being can have subjective bias and arguments from authority are logical fallacies. I can watch the video tape and make my own conclusion. Whether Detroit should have the ball or not is irrelevant to what happened on the play.


It doesn't matter if there is a rule or not. I'm saying the ball was uncatchable and nothing that Hitchens did interfered with his possibility to make that catch other than him having the appropriate position on the receiver. The receiver was not going back for the ball and Hitchens wasn't preventing his movement back towards it. Just because a player's back is turned and he makes contact - in this case him swiping his hand away from the facemask and touching his jersey - doesn't also mean it's pass interference either.

This person is obviously messing with you. What you say is clear to see. You can't argue with someone that denies visual facts.

 

[DogFace]

I don't even know what you're talking about. If a receiver is coming back for the ball and the defender isn't playing the ball or doesn't have his head turned to play the ball, that's PASS INTERFERENCE!

Not if there's no contact. Face guarding is legal in the NFL. Watch the play again. And read Sultan of Six's explanation. It's very clear.

 

[DogFace]

Oh wait. I forgot Mike Pereira weighed in. He's never wrong and he usually sides with the Cowboys.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

I don't even know what you're talking about. If a receiver is coming back for the ball and the defender isn't playing the ball or doesn't have his head turned to play the ball, that's PASS INTERFERENCE!

In college.

 

[Miller]

Yes his hands are. When he comes across the line he shoves his hand into his face. It's right there for anyone to see.


No everyone doesn't agree. Three articles that happen to support you view don't mean "every" in any world. No one is arguing that Hitchens didn't hold. They are arguing that it wasn't called and its irrelevant. If you want to go back in time, then I can go back in time and say "illegal hands to the face" weren't called on the receiver either which happened before and hold to Hitchens. I frankly don't really care what Pareira says. Every human being can have subjective bias and arguments from authority are logical fallacies. I can watch the video tape and make my own conclusion. Whether Detroit should have the ball or not is irrelevant to what happened on the play.


It doesn't matter if there is a rule or not. I'm saying the ball was uncatchable and nothing that Hitchens did interfered with his possibility to make that catch other than him having the appropriate position on the receiver. The receiver was not going back for the ball and Hitchens wasn't preventing his movement back towards it. Just because a player's back is turned and he makes contact - in this case him swiping his hand away from the facemask and touching his jersey - doesn't also mean it's pass interference either.

I think you are purposely being obtuse just to be stubborn because its the only explanation that basic facts and rules could escape anyone who watches football.

1) He didn't shove his hands in his face. That is a flat out lie and made up. Watch it again. As they pass in the normal line of scrimmage bump area Pettigrews hand goes right by his shoulder as Hitchens hand checks him and then they both hand check at waist level as he turns..all normal. He didn't touch or push his facemask once. Just hit pause quickly and its easy to see, In fact you can see Hitchens grab his outside arm too. All normal at that point. Swim type move where arm at shoulder pad goes to waist

2) Going through your points. Yes a majority of people who have discussed this agree. If Hitchens did hold its not "irrelevant" its a penalty so that is a throw away line by you that again makes no sense. He didn't use hands to the face at the start and if he did at all, it was after the hold. And it does matter what Pereira says because he knows the rules and explained it in detail...Hutchens doesn't have his head turned and runs into and grabs the receiver. Its basic interference. Whether they have the ball or not is the MAIN argument. They get 3rd down again and a chance to ice it and more time runs! It the crux of this whole things

3) Check the bolded. He did interfere with his ability to catch it. It didn't have to do with the facemask. It had to do with him grabbing his arm and then running into him before the ball got there. As for your last sentence...ITS THE FRIGGIN RULE!!!!!! If a defender has his back turned and doesn't play the ball and makes contact with a WR ability to catch it...its interference. Pic #1 isn't swiping a hand away from facemask. Pic #2 isn't touching a jersey. It's classic interference.

4) Add all that up and its simple. Missed calls. Listen there is no guarantee Detroit gets it the next play when they replay 3rd down but they run clock and still have 2 more plays to end the game. This board would not exist if the call went against Dez or something. It's hard to take anyone seriously who doesn't know the rules or can't admit we got away with one.

 

[Miller]

In college.

No, its the rules in the pros. Again, know the rules