Apparently the rules change when it's the Cowboys, just like the definition of catch and football move, and roughing the passer.holding IS holding, isn't it?
no, it's subjective...holding IS holding, isn't it?
You are confused. Don't know what "certain poster" you're talking about but I post those exceptions because most don't even know they exist. I don't use it as "rationale" and have said several times I don't understand the point of it, but it's there. And what Miami example is there of a double team? Any play I've seen calling for a hold in the Miami game was not part of a double team. Unless you're talking about that infamous still picture in which you absolutely cannot tell if a holding took place because it's a penalty determined by motion. Something a whole lot of people also don't seem to realize. But the pics do their job in getting people riled up in their emotions and by that time the facts have no effect.Btw, the double teams exception that a certain poster seems to support as a rationale for the mountain of non-calls against Parsons is negated once a defender splits the double team (Miami example) or gets around the periphery of it and there is never an excuse for illegal hands to the face.
Also, Parsons doesn’t concern himself with selling the penalty because he often gets back into the play meaningfully despite the initial illegal holds / contact.
apparently. Especially if its certain playersno, it's subjective...
bingoApparently the rules change when it's the Cowboys, just like the definition of catch and football move, and roughing the passer.
apparently. Especially if its certain players
Right and if you're selling it, you're already out of the play. Then you are relying on the same guys who missed it in the first place. Better to keep fighting and try to overcome.Btw, the double teams exception that a certain poster seems to support as a rationale for the mountain of non-calls against Parsons is negated once a defender splits the double team (Miami example) or gets around the periphery of it and there is never an excuse for illegal hands to the face.
Also, Parsons doesn’t concern himself with selling the penalty because he often gets back into the play meaningfully despite the initial illegal holds / contact.
CommandersI believe this was posted in another thread. I considered this position by Blandino. And the comments made by others who suggest this will not change. Partly because Parson's doesn't sell the hold well. Or he is such a brutal man he plays through the hold, which confuses the ref. Or the incompetency of the refs. Or the refs just aren't calling them. There were many options postulated on this subject.
I'm not so certain I agree with the outcome others proffered.
I believe now that Blandino has spoken, there could be a change in how these infractions are ruled.
However, back in the day Joe Gibbs of the Commanders sent a short video every week to the league officials pointing out issues where the refs didn't make the right call, or any call at all. If I recall correctly, that did have somewhat of an result in favor of the Commanders. Perhaps Jerry should take a cue from this and have the video team create a Parson's is held video every week and inundate the league with visual evidence Parson's and the Dallas Cowboys are being unfairly treated.
I'd like to add I used the original name of the team from Washington D.C., the one Dallas thumped yesterday. You will note the board changed it to their current name.
So I will go back to calling them the Commodores since using the name they played under for decades is verboten. Silliness abounds in these latest days.
R e d s k i. N sCommanders