Another game lost due to referee bias

[Miller]

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.

He already explained the contact in the obvious pictures. He was explaining the rule of not turning your head. But again, you are skipping around and not paying attention. Oh and there is this
''



Paul Schwartz ‏@NYPost_Schwartz Cowboys S Barry Church said he thought Hitchens committed pass interference. "I would've called it,'' he said, and smiled.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

How anyone can see that picture and say Hitchens doesn't touch the receiver or prevent the Lions receiver from catching the ball, there's really nothing else to say. I'm reminded of the saying, "Who you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

 

[SultanOfSix]

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

I'm going to post this right here. As far as the rest I'm done discussing it. The hands the face are not hard to see. You can replay it over and over again in the first second of the video as I've done multiple times to verify it.

http://s23.postimg.org/eq0y4jqkr/handstotheface.png

Pictures don't tell the whole story. They're selective. That's why I posted the whole video.

 

[Miller]

How anyone can see that picture and say Hitchens doesn't touch the receiver or prevent the Lions receiver from catching the ball, there's really nothing else to say. I'm reminded of the saying, "Who you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

Its unreal. Somehow the TE having the hands near his face once negates pulling him from behind and then running right into him with his back turned and head not turned back. It's like talking to my 3 year old and trying to explain it. And I have liked a lot of Sultan's other posts so I'm assuming its a stubborn thing.

 

[Miller]

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

I'm going to post this right here. As far as the rest I'm done discussing it. The hands the face are not hard to see. You can replay it over and over again in the first second of the video as I've done multiple times to verify it.

http://s23.postimg.org/eq0y4jqkr/handstotheface.png

Pictures don't tell the whole story. They're selective. That's why I posted the whole video.

So then pay attention to your own advice and watch the video because a) the pic you posted doesn't show hands to the face, it shows hands to the shoulder pad and matches the tape which shows him pushing by on the shoulder pad while Hitchens uses his arms down lower...as I explained at 1 second. It is all one motion of on the pad and down to fight off Hitchens arms which then start to grab the jersey. You then see the TE go back to the shoulder to try and get Hitchens off of him...exact same move. No matter what you say, it doesn't negate the hold or obvious PI which gives Detroit the ball and most likely the game.

Paul Schwartz ‏@NYPost_Schwartz
Cowboys S Barry Church said he thought Hitchens committed pass interference. "I would've called it,'' he said, and smiled.

 

[SultanOfSix]

How anyone can see that picture and say Hitchens doesn't touch the receiver or prevent the Lions receiver from catching the ball, there's really nothing else to say. I'm reminded of the saying, "Who you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

No one said only those simple straw-mans.

 

[SultanOfSix]

So then pay attention to your own advice and watch the video because a) the pic you posted doesn't show hands to the face, it shows hands to the shoulder pad and matches the tape which shows him pushing by on the shoulder pad while Hitchens uses his arms down lower...as I explained at 1 second. It is all one motion of on the pad and down to fight off Hitchens arms which then start to grab the jersey. No matter what you say, it doesn't negate the hold or obvious PI which gives Detroit the ball and most likely the game.

Paul Schwartz ‏@NYPost_Schwartz
Cowboys S Barry Church said he thought Hitchens committed pass interference. "I would've called it,'' he said, and smiled.

I did. I watched it more than you. I posted the video. Unlike you who posted selective images at points in time that don't tell the entire story.

 

[Miller]

I did. I watched it more than you. I posted the video. Unlike you who posted selective images at points in time that don't tell the entire story.

So then you are wrong. You say that, but post your own picture. The pictures do tell the story as far as interference because they aren't showing it due to a facemask. In multiple ones from different angles they all clearly show Hitchens with his hands on the WR as the ball is approaching. He doesn't have his head turned and is not making a play on the ball. He then is on the WR right when the ball is getting there. Both are basic PI. You showed me a grainy pic of a hand on a shoulder pad, saying it was what?.,.,to the right lower 1% of his jaw. The same video you posted shows it on the shoulder pad and down as the two arm fight. Then the grab and TE trying to get away by again trying the EXACT same move to the shoulder pad. Its EXACT. There is no face hit until midway through and by then weve had a missed hold. Then the guy interferes. Its the rules. I'm not making up an opinion piece here. Glad you know how many times I've watched it...which is like 50 now. Listen I gave in on one piece of info,..he could have hit and pushed the facemask mid play. You are just blatantly ignoring the reality of interference and holding which gives the ball back to Detroit and changes the game.

 

[tyke1doe]

No one said only those simple straw-mans.

Not if there's no contact. Face guarding is legal in the NFL.

Oops!

 

[SultanOfSix]

What the hell are you talking about? His hand is on his face. It's not on his shoulder. His face even moves in the motion a hand on his face would cause it to if pushed in the direction that receiver did in the video. You're blind.

And no pass interference is not called just because a defender makes contact with a receiver even if his back is turned. It has to impede his ability to catch the ball like an arm grab. The video shows that Hitchens swipes his arm to get the receiver's hands off of his facemask and it goes to his shoulder. The receiver had no opportunity to catch the ball because of his backward momentum falling away from the ball and it hitting Hitchens in the back.

Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

1. Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
2. Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
3. Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
4. Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
5. Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
6. Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
7. Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Note: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

ARTICLE 3. PERMISSIBLE ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR

Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:

1. Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
2. Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
3. Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
4. Laying a hand on an opponent that does not restrict him in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
5. Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball.

 

[tyke1doe]

Amazing how you see around Hichens from that angle to see the contact.

Double oops!

 

[The Quest for Six]

No it's not.....Fact is.... it's true

.sorry to inform you but repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't make it true...

 

[tyke1doe]

What the hell are you talking about? His hand is on his face. It's not on his shoulder. His face even moves in the motion a hand on his face would cause it to if pushed in the direction that receiver did in the video. You're blind.

And no pass interference is not called just because a defender makes contact with a receiver even if his back is turned. It has to impede his ability to catch the ball like an arm grab. The video shows that Hitchens swipes his arm to get the receiver's hands off of his facemask and it goes to his shoulder. The receiver had no opportunity to catch the ball because of his backward momentum falling away from the ball and it hitting Hitchens in the back.

Who are you talking to?

You're having two conversations: one with HoustonFrog and one with me. And both of us are arguing something different.

In my case, I'm saying Hitchens makes contact with Pettigrew as he's trying to come back to catch the ball. That's pass interference.

Pettigrew does not have his hands on Hitchen's facemask as he's attempting to go for the ball. Thus, the initial flag.

You then say I'm making a strawman argument, and I've shown you two posts where Carharris2 suggests that Hutchins did not make contact. Thus, no straw man.

Beyond that, I don't know what you're raving about.

 

[Miller]

What the hell are you talking about? His hand is on his face. It's not on his shoulder. His face even moves in the motion a hand on his face would cause it to if pushed in the direction that receiver did in the video. You're blind.

And no pass interference is not called just because a defender makes contact with a receiver even if his back is turned. It has to impede his ability to catch the ball like an arm grab. The video shows that Hitchens swipes his arm to get the receiver's hands off of his facemask and it goes to his shoulder. The receiver had no opportunity to catch the ball because of his backward momentum falling away from the ball and it hitting Hitchens in the back.

Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

1. Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
2. Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
3. Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
4. Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
5. Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
6. Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
7. Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Note: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

ARTICLE 3. PERMISSIBLE ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR

Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:

1. Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
2. Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
3. Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
4. Laying a hand on an opponent that does not restrict him in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
5. Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball.

How hard is it to admit you are wrong?

Your know the bolded is against your argument right? The TE was turned to catch the ball. His touching impeded him from catching it because he was making contact. The pictures show it and you are the ONLY human that is attributing the facemask to his grabbing Pettigrew. If you want to argue the facemask, go for it but you are acting like the whole play revolved around the facemask. His arms were outstretched on the receivers arm and he ran into him before the ball arrived. That has NOTHING to do with the facemask. Please stop. Its embarrassing. Swiping his hands off the facemask does not amount to tackling him...which impedes a catch.

Look at #1..Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.

He wasn't playing the ball, didn't have his head turned and ran into the player. That's called impeding.

You are completely lost as to the rule. Hitchens has to even try and locate the ball. Even he said after he could do better

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article5520333.html

“I think I did a pretty good job of closing the distance and at least trying to get my head turned around,” Hitchens said. “So, overall, I think my technique was pretty decent. I can fight more to get my head turned around or close the gaps a little closer, just little things. You can always improve.”

Also, Pettigrew didn't have hands to the face to start the play. OK, its not close. Its on the shoulder coming down. You are nitpicking and claiming all of this is causing Hitchens to do what he is doing when in reality there were two calls that should have been made on him and one against him...maybe.. if the rules were followed.

Dean Blandino, the NFL’s head of officials, said Monday that Hitchens should have been penalized for defensive holding for grabbing Pettigrew’s jersey before the pass. Replays also showed Pettigrew grabbing Hitchens’ facemask during the play, which Blandino said wasn’t a penalty.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article5520333.html#storylink=cpy



Mike Pereira ✔ @MikePereira
I am out of here. Biggest call was the DPI pickup. It was DPI and it was defensive holding as well. Not good. Flying back to Sac tonight.

6:58 PM - 4 Jan 2015


What about this picture says "get off my facemask" or doesn't impeded while not looking for the ball

 

[SultanOfSix]

How hard is it to admit you are wrong?

Your know the bolded is against your argument right? The TE was turned to catch the ball. His touching impeded him from catching it because he was making contact. The pictures show it and you are the ONLY human that is attributing the facemask to his grabbing Pettigrew. If you want to argue the facemask, go for it but you are acting like the whole play revolved around the facemask. His arms were outstretched on the receivers arm and he ran into him before the ball arrived. That has NOTHING to do with the facemask. Please stop. Its embarrassing. Swiping his hands off the facemask does not amount to tackling him...which impedes a catch.

Look at #1..Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.

He wasn't playing the ball, didn't have his head turned and ran into the player. That's called impeding.

No the bolded part isn't against the argument. The last bolded one isn't relevant however. You're arguing he impeded the receiver from making the catch. I'm arguing that he didn't. All the things I've discussed are in support of this. 1) Just because he makes contact does not mean he impeded his catch 2) the face mask reference was to show that contact was made to swipe his arm away and the end result of the motion 3) he did not run into the receiver before the ball arrived. He was in position guarding him while the ball hit his back. The video shows nothing of the sort that you're suggesting. 4) the receiver's momentum carried him backwards and therefore he could not come back for the ball and initiate contact to even draw the pass interference penalty 5) just because a defender is not looking at the ball and he makes contact, doesn't automatically make it pass interference.

Just defending a pass restricts or impedes an opponent from making a catch. That's not the point. The point is whether there are certain events that restricts or impedes the receiver's ability to make a catch like grabbing his arm.

These facts are stipulated in the rules.

 

[big dog cowboy]

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/17/nfl-officiating-worse-ever-ways-improve-twitter-social-media

“Referees of football and basketball games today are being accused of worse blunders than ever before.” —Sports Illustrated, March 26, 1962

“It is hard to remember a season that produced such a rampant display of human fallibility as has been revealed—on television, always on television—by the officiating crews of the NFL.” —Sports Illustrated, Oct. 9, 1978

“Pro football has been victimized by incompetence this year.” —Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, 1996

“Criticism of NFL officials has seldom been as vociferous as it has been this season.” —USA Today, Dec. 1, 1998

“Regular Officials Back, and So Are Complaints.” —New York Times, Nov. 12, 2012

All I can do is shake my head.

 

[Miller]

No the bolded part isn't against the argument. You're arguing he impeded making the catch. I'm arguing that he didn't. All the things I've discussed are in support of this. 1) Just because he makes contact does not mean he impeded his catch 2) the face mask reference was to show that contact was made to swipe his arm away and the end result of the motion 3) he did not run into the receiver before the ball arrived. He was in position guarding him while the ball hit his back. The video shows nothing of the sort that you're suggesting. 4) the receiver's momentum carried him backwards and therefore he could not come back for the ball and initiate contact to even draw the pass interference penalty 5) just because a defender is not looking at the ball and he makes contact, doesn't automatically make it pass interference.

These facts are stipulated in the rules.

And your argument is wrong by the definition you gave. If the defender is not playing the ball and makes contact that impedes the catch its DPI. It is all in the play. His hands on his arms and making contact with him while not playing the ball constitutes it in the rules. You can jam it in all the rules for it...including 3) grabbing his arms. The picture above is the definition of it. Here is a link...again..with two slow motion replays from the proper angle. In both you see Hitchens grab the arm and push while then putting his arms in the air. At no time did he play the ball and as you can tell in the second one....it isn't even close to when the facemask occurred. This is text book PI. You also said the TE was falling backwards a) that has nothing to do with catching it and b) it happens after Hitchens pushes him. So AGAIN you are wrong.

Second video down and its blatant

http://www.businessinsider.com/pass-interference-call-lions-cowboys-2015-1

 

[SultanOfSix]

And your argument is wrong by the definition you gave. If the defender is not playing the ball and makes contact that impedes the catch its DPI. It is all in the play. His hands on his arms and making contact with him while not playing the ball constitutes it in the rules. You can jam it in all the rules for it...including 3) grabbing his arms. The picture above is the definition of it. Here is a link...again..with two slow motion replays. In both you see Hitchens grab the arm and push while them putting his arms in the air. At no time did he play the ball and as you can tell in the second one....it isn't even close to when the facemask occurred. This is text book PI. You also said the TE was falling backwards a) that has nothing to do with catching it and b) it happens after Hitchens pushes him. So AGAIN you are wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pass-interference-call-lions-cowboys-2015-1

OMG. You just repeat the same thing over and over again. I am arguing the notion of impeding the catch. That's the disputable portion of the rule. It's not just contact with the player. It's not just not looking back for the ball. It's all three simultaneously. Even rule 4 in the top stipulates a pass interference even if the defender is looking at the ball, i.e. looking at the ball doesn't absolve a defender from being called for it. And rule 4 in the bottom says that contact that doesn't impede his catch is not pass interference. Holy moly.

 

[Miller]

OMG. You just repeat the same thing over and over again. I am arguing the notion of impeding the catch. That's the disputable portion of the rule. It's not just contact with the player. It's not just not looking back for the ball. It's all three simultaneously. Even rule 4 in the top stipulates a pass interference even if the defender is looking at the ball, i.e. looking at the ball doesn't absolve a defender from being called for it. And rule 4 in the bottom says that contact that doesn't impede his catch is not pass interference. Holy moly.

Yeah I have to because you can't interpret it. It's maddening that you are so lost on this. There is a reason why I keep saying listen to your video and quoting league rules officials....because they are telling you why its PI. The reason why the turning the head makes such a huge difference is because playing the ball would allow this play to NOT be PI. So because he didn't, it shows an intent to impede the WR from catching it when he DID make contact. That's how the rule works. If it was inadvertent such as tripping or something that wouldn't stop the catch, then you are right. But reaching out and pushing the guy on his arm...arms that have to catch the ball is DPI. Pettigrew's arms are raising to catch it and they get pushed. There is no gray there. This is impeding a catch when you take a shoulder and push it with your back turned. Sorry, its black and white here. As Pettigrew said after the game and Hitchens alluded to above...he was playing catch up and ran right to him

https://vine.co/v/OdpLdDFP3rW

 

[SultanOfSix]

Yeah, he does give him a nudge to his shoulder there in slow motion. It's harder to see in full speed of the video as opposed to here. Whether doing that actually prevented him from catching a ball that hit Hitchens in the back with his momentum falling backwards is debatable. I don't think it would have made a difference at all. I guess you can call it payback for the receiver using illegal hands to the face on him twice. If you want a fair interpretation of that entire play, the whole thing was a mess of contact up and down the field. So let them play and hence no penalty.