Interesting Double Standard I Noticed - MNF

[Kilyin]

Cowher throws a red flag to challenge a ruling of an incomplete pass. A referee comes over to talk to Cowher, and apparently told him he couldn't challenge the play, or that he shouldn't... either way, the referees allowed Cowher to rescind the challenge without losing a timeout or an allotted challenge.

Now flash back to Week 1, Parcells throws the red flag because the game clock wasn't stopped on a play that it should've. Do the refs explain to him he cant challenge the play? Yes, but at the expense of a timeout, which was crucial at the time.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd? I'd like to see some consistency, that's all. Call it one way or the other. Sometimes it seems like they just make stuff up as they go along.

 

[JackMagist]

Cowher throws a red flag to challenge a ruling of an incomplete pass. A referee comes over to talk to Cowher, and apparently told him he couldn't challenge the play, or that he shouldn't... either way, the referees allowed Cowher to rescind the challenge without losing a timeout or an allotted challenge.

Now flash back to Week 1, Parcells throws the red flag because the game clock wasn't stopped on a play that it should've. Do the refs explain to him he cant challenge the play? Yes, but at the expense of a timeout, which was crucial at the time.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd? I'd like to see some consistency, that's all. Call it one way or the other. Sometimes it seems like they just make stuff up as they go along.

I found it odd when it happened. Just as I did the call on the hold on Ellis; the foul was not called because Ellis ran through the attempted hold.

It's like they have a different set of rules for the Cowboys or something. I wish they would publish the "Special Cowboys Rules" so we would know what to expect.

 

[T-New41]

Cowher throws a red flag to challenge a ruling of an incomplete pass. A referee comes over to talk to Cowher, and apparently told him he couldn't challenge the play, or that he shouldn't... either way, the referees allowed Cowher to rescind the challenge without losing a timeout or an allotted challenge.

Now flash back to Week 1, Parcells throws the red flag because the game clock wasn't stopped on a play that it should've. Do the refs explain to him he cant challenge the play? Yes, but at the expense of a timeout, which was crucial at the time.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd? I'd like to see some consistency, that's all. Call it one way or the other. Sometimes it seems like they just make stuff up as they go along.

Yeah, that was pretty messed up.

The ones that really got me were the 2 offensice PI calls we got vs the Jags. I mean I could live with the no-call offensive pass interference on Browns TD where he pushed off on Henry's head. But then we get called for a similar play on a Witten TD (where he basically knocked the defenders hands off of him) and we get a 25 yard gain by TO negated b/c of a tick tack offensive PI on a player not even near the play (Fasano). But overall, I havent hated the Refs yet, seems like for the most part they are calling it straight.

 

[theogt]

Perhaps Parcells should learn to spit when he talks. Apparently it gets results.

 

[Tuna Helper]

I wish they would publish the "Special Cowboys Rules" so we would know what to expect.

I suppose the "horse collar" qualifies as one of them. Ironically, both parties involved in the birth of that rule are now on our team.

 

[Kevinicus]

hmm, I guess I'm the only one that thought Henry was far more guilty of pass interference on that touchdown than the WR was. Henry was driving through him with his head down the entire time. The WR pushed him off because he was about being tackled. It was a horrible play by Henry. The Witten and Fasano interference calls were very clear. Pass interference was not called poorly in week 1. There were inconsistencies and odd calls, but those weren't them. The Timeout loss was bad, as was the non late hit call on TO's first catch. And last night, the "whiffed" hold was just plain dumb.

 

[JackMagist]

I suppose the "horse collar" qualifies as one of them. Ironically, both parties involved in the birth of that rule are now on our team.

The Cowboys have been the genesis of many rules over the years. The Eric Williams "hands to the face" rule, the Emmitt Smith "removing the helmet" rule, the Roy Williams "horse collar" rule just to name a few. But those were at least published and are supposed to apply to everyone. I want to see the ones that only apply to the Cowboys and not to anyone else; they haven't published that rule book yet.

 

[Tuna Helper]

hmm, I guess I'm the only one that thought Henry was far more guilty of pass interference on that touchdown than the WR was. Henry was driving through him with his head down the entire time. The WR pushed him off because he was about being tackled. It was a horrible play by Henry. The Witten and Fasano interference calls were very clear. Pass interference was not called poorly in week 1. There were inconsistencies and odd calls, but those weren't them. The Timeout loss was bad, as was the non late hit call on TO's first catch. And last night, the "whiffed" hold was just plain dumb.

The refs will always give the home teams the benefit of questionable calls. This is why a road team has to play perfect football. Can't leave it up to the refs to get it right.

Buffoons like Joe Gibbs can moan all they want about the penalties, but the game should never come down to questionable calls.

 

[JackMagist]

hmm, I guess I'm the only one that thought Henry was far more guilty of pass interference on that touchdown than the WR was. Henry was driving through him with his head down the entire time. The WR pushed him off because he was about being tackled. It was a horrible play by Henry. The Witten and Fasano interference calls were very clear. Pass interference was not called poorly in week 1. There were inconsistencies and odd calls, but those weren't them. The Timeout loss was bad, as was the non late hit call on TO's first catch. And last night, the "whiffed" hold was just plain dumb.

I certainly didn't see it that way. There was some incidental contact when the WR stopped or slowed down in front of Henry and the refs could have called that maybe. But for the rest of the play; it's kind of hard not to have your head down when the guy has you by the back of the helmet and is jerking on it. And it is kind of hard not to seem to be driving through him when he is using that hold on the helmet to pull you toward him.

 

[Kevinicus]

I certainly didn't see it that way. There was some incidental contact when the WR stopped or slowed down in front of Henry and the refs could have called that maybe. But for the rest of the play; it's kind of hard not to have your head down when the guy has you by the back of the helmet and is jerking on it. And it is kind of hard not to seem to be driving through him when he is using that hold on the helmet to pull you toward him.

Henry was beat on the play, and was several yards away from the WR, he put his head down and ran to him in an effort to make up ground. He drove straight into his midsection. His head was down well before he got to the receiver.

 

[JackMagist]

Henry was beat on the play, and was several yards away from the WR, he put his head down and ran to him in an effort to make up ground. He drove straight into him. His head was down well before he got to the receiver.

You're still missing the point about the hand on the back of the helmet keeping the head down. Henry could not have raised his head regardless with the WR using the back of his helmet for a hand hold. I have the game TiVo'd and have gone back and watched that play several times. The WR was holding Henry plain and simple and there is nothing in the rules that allows for that.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Interesting, maybe they are starting to treat us like the Raiders, lol.

I'm still upset over that Witten PI call in the endzone, that don't think I will forget that one any time soon.

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

I found it odd when it happened. Just as I did the call on the hold on Ellis; the foul was not called because Ellis ran through the attempted hold.

It's like they have a different set of rules for the Cowboys or something. I wish they would publish the "Special Cowboys Rules" so we would know what to expect.

Both of you hit the nail right on the head. I was in absolute confusion when we took our timeout away and even more confused when they didn't call the hold because he broke it.

 

[proline]

Cowher throws a red flag to challenge a ruling of an incomplete pass. A referee comes over to talk to Cowher, and apparently told him he couldn't challenge the play, or that he shouldn't... either way, the referees allowed Cowher to rescind the challenge without losing a timeout or an allotted challenge.

Now flash back to Week 1, Parcells throws the red flag because the game clock wasn't stopped on a play that it should've. Do the refs explain to him he cant challenge the play? Yes, but at the expense of a timeout, which was crucial at the time.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd? I'd like to see some consistency, that's all. Call it one way or the other. Sometimes it seems like they just make stuff up as they go along.

I agree 100%!!!! I thought the exact same thing when it happened tonight.

 

[MRTRIPOD]

I still can't believe the holding play that was picked up because Ellis "RAN THROUGH" the hold?!?!?!?

That has got to be an NFL first!

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Anyone have a clip of the Jax game at this point to confirm this ?

I have never watched a game where the play was unchallengable, where the ref charged the challenging team with a timeout.

If a play is challengeable than (right or wrong) a timeout or reversal is the result.

 

[Seven]

Henry was beat on the play, and was several yards away from the WR, he put his head down and ran to him in an effort to make up ground. He drove straight into his midsection. His head was down well before he got to the receiver.

R-O-N-G, wrong.

Henry was beat, yes, ONLY because he had his back to the play. He was not "several"(I'm assuming we both agree several is more than 3) yards away. He did not drive straight into his mid-section and his head was not down well before he got to the receiver.

 

[Kilyin]

Anyone have a clip of the Jax game at this point to confirm this ?

I have never watched a game where the play was unchallengable, where the ref charged the challenging team with a timeout.

If a play is challengeable than (right or wrong) a timeout or reversal is the result.

It was near the end of the 4th quarter, I believe there were less than 3 minutes left when it happened, if you have access to the game.

It's the first time I've ever seen it happen, which is why I find the whole situation (especially after tonight) puzzling.

 

[Qwickdraw]

You guys sound like whiney Gibbs himself.

I agree the calls were stupid and unfair.

It happens.

To every team, at sometime.
And it will always.


But thinking that your favorite team is so significant that they make "special rules" for them or have an officiating bias against them is arrogant and ********.

 

[JackMagist]

You guys sound like whiney Gibbs himself.

I agree the calls were stupid and unfair.

It happens.

To every team, at sometime.
And it will always.


But thinking that your favorite team is so significant that they make "special rules" for them or have an officiating bias against them is arrogant and ********.

You're taking things a bit too literally there QD. The comment about "Special Rules" was a little thing call "hyperbole". It was an intentional exaggeration employed to accentuate the fact that 'the calls were stupid and unfair' (as you yourself point out).

And this entire discussion is predicated on the 'fact' that there have been an inordinate number of these 'stupid and unfair' calls going against the Cowboys in these first two games. Which naturally begs the question, “Why have there been so many of these calls?”