Mike Pereira discusses GB-Dal penalties

[superpunk]

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d804ad69b

Enjoy.

Recap

Recap of first one (last PI call)

"On this pass interference play the back judge signals that he had tangled feet but the side judge came in and said he had the defender not playing the ball. And that's the key. Collinsworth was on top of this talking about 'tangled feet' because it's not a foul - the book specifically says that. But it says that if both players are playing the ball, looking back for the ball and they tangle feet - not a foul. If both players are NOT looking back for the ball and they tangle feet, not a foul. But if one is, and one isn't, then it is - and I think if we take a look at this (switches on television) it's just a perfect example of tangled feet where the defender here is not playing the ball. (Shows clip of Williams running through Austin from sideline) The offensive player is looking back, the defender is not, and then the feet tangle. You'll see in this last shot precisely when the legs tangle - the knees hit - and if you look a the head of the defensive player, it's not turned back and making a play on the ball or making a look on the ball, so really in this situation the officials came together and discussed it - as I would want them to do - and when they discussed it and the side judge says "Hey, he was not looking back for the ball", they arrived at the right decision, which was defensive pass interference."

Recap of second (Harris strips TO)

"Another play with two different viewpoints - and you're right - Larry Hayes did come up and signal GB ball. But the ruling by the head-linesman was forward progress, you were able to see that right off the bat. And, by ruling forward progress, the play is basically dead. And if you take a look at the head linesman, he is giving a wind-the-clock signal. He is signalling that progress was stopped in the field of play and the receiver driven out of bounds. Well then you see Lair come up and he's gonna be signalling the other way, that it's Green Bay's ball. Now they got together and discussed it, and since the head linesman felt that he had signalled forward progress first - which he did - and that kills the play and therefore overrides the decision that Lair had made. And if you look at it, it's a very difficult call to make. I, looking at it ten times now really don't feel that progress is stopped - I think that Lair's call was the best call. But since progress was ruled, that's not reviewable. And Mike McCarthy was told that and he decided to challenge if it was a catch, if Owens had control - which he did - so they really had to stay with the ruling on the field."

"But in your estimation, it was a play that was ruled incorrectly? That Harris came away with the INT?"

"It's a judgement the head linesman has to make. It's a tough one, but when I watch it I don't think he's clearly driven backwards enough out of bounds - so when I take a look at it I would have just ruled a straight catch and then a strip before he went out of bounds."

 

[WoodysGirl]

what'd he say? can't watch it until I get home.

 

[Yeagermeister]

what'd he say? can't watch it until I get home.

We ain't saying :tongue:

 

[WoodysGirl]

We ain't saying :tongue:

I'm telling Hostile on you.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

We ain't saying :tongue:

Be nice to WG and me......I want to know also....

 

[theogt]

what'd he say? can't watch it until I get home.

Said the PI was a good call because the defender wasn't looking for the ball. Incidental tangling only counts when both are going for the ball.

Said that down by forward progress shouldn't have been called on the strip (or rather, he said it was a "tough call"), but because it was called, they made the right call that the strip wasn't a turnover.

 

[superpunk]

Recap of first one (last PI call)

"On this pass interference play the back judge signals that he had tangled feet but the side judge came in and said he had the defender not playing the ball. And that's the key. Collinsworth was on top of this talking about 'tangled feet' because it's not a foul - the book specifically says that. But it says that if both players are playing the ball, looking back for the ball and they tangle feet - not a foul. If both players are NOT looking back for the ball and they tangle feet, not a foul. But if one is, and one isn't, then it is - and I think if we take a look at this (switches on television) it's just a perfect example of tangled feet where the defender here is not playing the ball. (Shows clip of Williams running through Austin from sideline) The offensive player is looking back, the defender is not, and then the feet tangle. You'll see in this last shot precisely when the legs tangle - the knees hit - and if you look a the head of the defensive player, it's not turned back and making a play on the ball or making a look on the ball, so really in this situation the officials came together and discussed it - as I would want them to do - and when they discussed it and the side judge says "Hey, he was not looking back for the ball", they arrived at the right decision, which was defensive pass interference."

Recap of second (Harris strips TO)

"Another play with two different viewpoints - and you're right - Larry Hayes did come up and signal GB ball. But the ruling by the head-linesman was forward progress, you were able to see that right off the bat. And, by ruling forward progress, the play is basically dead. And if you take a look at the head linesman, he is giving a wind-the-clock signal. He is signalling that progress was stopped in the field of play and the receiver driven out of bounds. Well then you see Lair come up and he's gonna be signalling the other way, that it's Green Bay's ball. Now they got together and discussed it, and since the head linesman felt that he had signalled forward progress first - which he did - and that kills the play and therefore overrides the decision that Lair had made. And if you look at it, it's a very difficult call to make. I, looking at it ten times now really don't feel that progress is stopped - I think that Lair's call was the best call. But since progress was ruled, that's not reviewable. And Mike McCarthy was told that and he decided to challenge if it was a catch, if Owens had control - which he did - so they really had to stay with the ruling on the field."

"But in your estimation, it was a play that was ruled incorrectly? That Harris came away with the INT?"

"It's a judgement the head linesman has to make. It's a tough one, but when I watch it I don't think he's clearly driven backwards enough out of bounds - so when I take a look at it I would have just ruled a straight catch and then a strip before he went out of bounds."

 

[03EBZ06]

N/M Superpunk beat me to it.

 

[joseephuss]

Recap of first one (last PI call)

"On this pass interference play the back judge signals that he had tangled feet but the side judge came in and said he had the defender not playing the ball. And that's the key. Collinsworth was on top of this talking about 'tangled feet' because it's not a foul - the book specifically says that. But it says that if both players are playing the ball, looking back for the ball and they tangle feet - not a foul. If both players are NOT looking back for the ball and they tangle feet, not a foul. But if one is, and one isn't, then it is - and I think if we take a look at this (switches on television) it's just a perfect example of tangled feet where the defender here is not playing the ball. (Shows clip of Williams running through Austin from sideline) The offensive player is looking back, the defender is not, and then the feet tangle. You'll see in this last shot precisely when the legs tangle - the knees hit - and if you look a the head of the defensive player, it's not turned back and making a play on the ball or making a look on the ball, so really in this situation the officials came together and discussed it - as I would want them to do - and when they discussed it and the side judge says "Hey, he was not looking back for the ball", they arrived at the right decision, which was defensive pass interference."

Recap of second (Harris strips TO)

"Another play with two different viewpoints - and you're right - Larry Hayes did come up and signal GB ball. But the ruling by the head-linesman was forward progress, you were able to see that right off the bat. And, by ruling forward progress, the play is basically dead. And if you take a look at the head linesman, he is giving a wind-the-clock signal. He is signalling that progress was stopped in the field of play and the receiver driven out of bounds. Well then you see Lair come up and he's gonna be signalling the other way, that it's Green Bay's ball. Now they got together and discussed it, and since the head linesman felt that he had signalled forward progress first - which he did - and that kills the play and therefore overrides the decision that Lair had made. And if you look at it, it's a very difficult call to make. I, looking at it ten times now really don't feel that progress is stopped - I think that Lair's call was the best call. But since progress was ruled, that's not reviewable. And Mike McCarthy was told that and he decided to challenge if it was a catch, if Owens had control - which he did - so they really had to stay with the ruling on the field."

"But in your estimation, it was a play that was ruled incorrectly? That Harris came away with the INT?"

"It's a judgement the head linesman has to make. It's a tough one, but when I watch it I don't think he's clearly driven backwards enough out of bounds - so when I take a look at it I would have just ruled a straight catch and then a strip before he went out of bounds."

I agree with his opinion on both calls. I would add that Williams clearly grabbed at Austin with both arms, which played a part in their feet getting tangled.

 

[vicjagger]

Cliff notes version:

2nd PI on Austin was correct, because the defender was not looking at the ball, while the receiver was. In order for the contact to be incidental, both players must be looking in the same direction.

On the Al Harris strip, forward progress was ruled stopped, thereby ending the play and the issue of possession. Mike Pereira did admit that the issue of TOs forward progress was debatable (upon review), however, once that judgment is made & called on the field, the play is over.

 

[superpunk]

I agree with his opinion on both calls. I would add that Williams clearly grabbed at Austin with both arms, which played a part in their feet getting tangled.

I was waiting for Pereira to mention that, because I really wanted to hear that. It was my primary reason the PI was legit, too. But he never went there. He was more focused on the legs. I suspect that was because he wanted to address Collinsworth's mindless droning about the incidental leg-contact being incorrect. IMO, a better way would be to say the grab is PI, end of story - in which case the only defense is "That's pretty ticky-tack". Instead, he focused on the leg tangling, which completely prevented Miles from making the catch.

6 one way, half dozen the other, I suppose.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Thanks SP.


:tongue: @ Yeager

 

[Yeagermeister]

Thanks SP.


:tongue: @ Yeager

:moonbart: