Can anyone point to another defender who rushes the QB that suffers this type of ambivalence from the refs? To any consistent degree?I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that it’s happening to one of our players.
I was hoping the attention that has been given to it would cause the league to address it with the officials. There's enough evidence to show that there's a problem with how they view holds on him. Whether they are not seeing them as holds because of his ability to fight through them or because they'd have to constantly call holding, there's no reason for none to be called for this long.It is happening enough that they should know to be on the look out for it and aren't. I'd call that intential.
I would love to see a comparison to other players on his level (Watt, Hunter, Garrett, Bosa).Can anyone point to another defender who rushes the QB that suffers this type of ambivalence from the refs? To any consistent degree?
This is why I constantly bring up the wording of the rule. "Material restriction" implies that some restriction is fine. So if you can effectively fight off what might have been a material restriction to a mere mortal, it only looks like acceptable restriction at those speeds. So it combines with the other wording about the defender's path to the ball and if it looks like his path is not being impacted then he doesn't look like one who's being held. But that will never fly when there are "46 Quarters, OMG!" headlines out there.He's fighting through them instead of being completely restrained or taken to the ground, so the officials notice the holds less. I think it's only human to notice a player who is charging past a defender who is suddenly stopped or pulled down to the ground than one who is slowed but keeps moving toward the QB.
That's not an excuse for it. A hold is a hold and there's no reason for none to be called for this long.
I was going to suggest something far more descriptive and disturbing but this is a family show.Waiting for an OL to put Parsons in a choke hold?
OK, it's a wording problem. That's a new direction to take on the dying hill.This is why I constantly bring up the wording of the rule. "Material restriction" implies that some restriction is fine. So if you can effectively fight off what might have been a material restriction to a mere mortal, it only looks like acceptable restriction at those speeds. So it combines with the other wording about the defender's path to the ball and if it looks like his path is not being impacted then he doesn't look like one who's being held. But that will never fly when there are "46 Quarters, OMG!" headlines out there.
We've already seen that numerous times. Still nothing!Waiting for an OL to put Parsons in a choke hold?
It's only a dying hill when there are numbers to back up the whine.OK, it's a wording problem. That's a new direction to take on the dying hill.
MARCUSROCK on NFL OFFICIALSIt's only a dying hill when there are numbers to back up the whine.
Has Parsons had a stretch like this before?Have other current top pass rushers had stretches like this before?Parsons has drawn 3 holding calls this year from what I remember. What were his holding stats his previous seasons to know if this is out of the ordinary or typical for him?How about you people start with these gimme questions so the 'spiracy argument can have some semblance of context, rather than the lazy "OMG it's rigged!" haze?
Ok Dean…It's only a dying hill when there are numbers to back up the whine.
Has Parsons had a stretch like this before?Have other current top pass rushers had stretches like this before?Parsons has drawn 3 holding calls this year from what I remember. What were his holding stats his previous seasons to know if this is out of the ordinary or typical for him?How about you people start with these gimme questions so the 'spiracy argument can have some semblance of context, rather than the lazy "OMG it's rigged!" haze?
MARCUSROCK on NFL OFFICIALS
Do you have answers to those questions that would actually make a case for the 'spiracy or once again try to minimize that you have none?Ok Dean…
We already know what the truth is. 42 quarters. And a lot of film on it. why do you always side with the refs. When the truth is right in front of you on this one.Do you have answers to those questions that would actually make a case for the 'spiracy or once again try to minimize that you have none?
See how fast that argument, to quote the other poster, dies on a hill when substance is asked for?
There is no "truth." There is a number without context. So I'm asking for context. You wrote 5 sentences instead of just saying, "I don't have context, just non-directional outrage at a growing number because that's what the tally is designed to do."We already know what the truth is. 42 quarters. And a lot of film on it. why do you always side with the refs. When the truth is right in front of you on this one.
Yes. It is silly to respect others.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.
Put a fox in the hen house, you'll have chicken for dinner.If true Deano, there are two remaining explanations:
They run around the field for 60 minutes without colliding into players, yardage sticks and themselves, so the answer must be...
- Your officials are legally blind
- Your officials are incompetent
Well, when we played the Eagles, at least twice they raised up both of their arms and did a pirouette and got the call.I guess Parsons is proud and fights through the hold, in order to sell some of these holds , he should take a dive or feign neck injury ( I am just kidding, but it is really frustrating. Also when he is double or triple teamed it’s a mystery that someone else get to QB , D- law got once which caused the Wilson pick , but we need more )
So Blandino said the video in the OP is a hold on Parsons?There is no "truth." There is a number without context. So I'm asking for context. You wrote 5 sentences instead of just saying, "I don't have context, just non-directional outrage at a growing number because that's what the tally is designed to do."
Intentional - after 42 quarters and this much notoriety, they should be watching what happens to Micah on every play. No excuse for this crap!I don't know how Dean Blandino would know if it is intentional or not. If he asked his old pals do you think they would admit it is intentional? or that Blandino would rat them out?
I don't know if it is intentional or not but both holding calls on the Cowboys yesterday were a lot less obvious that the ones the let go on Micah.