Get the tin foil hats out

[rynochop]

i judge roughing the passer on if the qb is brady or manning, that shot to the head on the ground gets called every time on those two.

 

[xwalker]

Early in the game an eagles d back was arguing with Dez and the ref git in between them. The eagles player put his hands on the ref - shoved him more than once trying to get him out of the way.

If players are shoving the ref and its not getting called don't expect much else to.

Yes, I was shocked that there was no call on that play. The Eagles player definitely moved the official with the shove.

 

[Hoov]

Yes, I was shocked that there was no call on that play. The Eagles player definitely moved the official with the shove.

That right there told me the refs were not going to have this game in hand. I think wilcox jacked up an eagles receiver where it looked like a forearm to the chin or neck in the first half.

 

[WV Cowboy]

i judge roughing the passer on if the qb is brady or manning, that shot to the head on the ground gets called every time on those two.

That should have been called, whether it was Romo, Orton, .. or a scrub like Brady Quinn.

 

[WV Cowboy]

That right there told me the refs were not going to have this game in hand. I think wilcox jacked up an eagles receiver where it looked like a forearm to the chin or neck in the first half.

Saw that.

 

[Hoov]

Saw that.

That was after a late hit knee to the head on Romo....so i was cheering at the wilcox hit

 

[Hoofbite]

You would think the owner of the most popular and most profitable franchise in the league would speak up about an officiating bias that has been going on for years on end. Or what about Stephen Jones and his seat on the competition committee? He'd say something about it, wouldn't he?

Guess the Jones' don't buy into an officiating conspiracy.

 

[mmohican29]

I think that crew was the same that did the game @ Baltimore last season, and his laundry was in our hamper all afternoon. Could be wrong.

 

[TX_Yid]

The one that is grinding my gears is the interception being overturned.

The others can all be explained away by judgement calls, what was seen at the time etc.

They cannot overturn that interception though. The hand was all the way under the ball. In the dark crevice between the two hands the nose of the ball may or may not have made contact with the ground but you cannot see it from any replay angle. There is no evidence, let alone irrefutable evidence to change that call. To change the call is to ignore the rule of the game, at that point they are cheating us. No question about it.

Absolutely that crew needs to yanked from their duties. I'm disgusted.

 

[tecolote]

If I was Jerry I would ask the league to send me 1 frame with undisputable proof that the ball hit the ground on the Int. There was none.

 

[Red Dragon]

I think one reason why the Wilcox INT was an incompletion was that it doesn't seem probable for a ball to be able to rebound and bounce that high if it hadn't somehow come in contact with the hard turf of the ground.


That being said, I don't think there was indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, indisputable being the key word.

 

[theebs]

You would think the owner of the most popular and most profitable franchise in the league would speak up about an officiating bias that has been going on for years on end. Or what about Stephen Jones and his seat on the competition committee? He'd say something about it, wouldn't he?

Guess the Jones' don't buy into an officiating conspiracy.

How dare cowboys fans point out obvious non calls

Shame on us. We should all keep it real so we can fit into the little club.

 

[theebs]

I think one reason why the Wilcox INT was an incompletion was that it doesn't seem probable for a ball to be able to rebound and bounce that high if it hadn't somehow come in contact with the hard turf of the ground.


That being said, I don't think there was indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, indisputable being the key word.

If that was a Td catch no way in the world they overturn it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Troy's job is to be an analyst for the game, not be a cheerleader for the Cowboys.

And his job isn't to be against the Cowboys either. Even if it's an attempt to not come off as a homer.





YR

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Early in the game an eagles d back was arguing with Dez and the ref git in between them. The eagles player put his hands on the ref - shoved him more than once trying to get him out of the way.

If players are shoving the ref and its not getting called don't expect much else to.

Yes, I had forgotten about that one. Should have at least been a personal foul, and usually would lead to an ejection.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I think one reason why the Wilcox INT was an incompletion was that it doesn't seem probable for a ball to be able to rebound and bounce that high if it hadn't somehow come in contact with the hard turf of the ground.


That being said, I don't think there was indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, indisputable being the key word.

I agree with what you are saying.

But, it's supposed to be *visual* evidence. And they didn't have any visual evidence.

The other problem listening to the radio on a different call for a different game was that they were saying that the ball *can* touch the ground if the hand(s) are underneath the ball. If this is true (again, it was a radio call for a different game), I don't see why Wilcox's play was not an INT.



YR

 

[big dog cowboy]

I agree with what you are saying.

But, it's supposed to be *visual* evidence. And they didn't have any visual evidence.

The other problem listening to the radio on a different call for a different game was that they were saying that the ball *can* touch the ground if the hand(s) are underneath the ball. If this is true (again, it was a radio call for a different game), I don't see why Wilcox's play was not an INT.

YR

Neither do I. But I told my fam it would be overturned because the game was in Philly. Sure enough.

 

[Nova]

i kinda thought it was going to be "one of those days" when one of the eagles kicked the ball and it should have either been delay of game OR unsportsmanlike conduct.

how the hell do you miss that?

It was so deliberate. I'm not sure how that's, at the very least, not a delay of game.

And the worst part about it... I'm pretty sure the play referenced where one of the PHI DBs pushed a ref was the same play.

 

[Nova]

I agree with what you are saying.

But, it's supposed to be *visual* evidence. And they didn't have any visual evidence.

The other problem listening to the radio on a different call for a different game was that they were saying that the ball *can* touch the ground if the hand(s) are underneath the ball. If this is true (again, it was a radio call for a different game), I don't see why Wilcox's play was not an INT.



YR

Even worse, I think the "ball should've bounced this way" logic was faulty.

If someone's hand is lying on the ground, and the ball hits said hand, is it not unlikely it bounces away from the receiver's body in an awkward manner (like it did)?

 

[Jakethesnake3]

Troy's job is to be an analyst for the game, not be a cheerleader for the Cowboys.

Really, I mean really.