Officiating??

[goshan]

Lets settle this:

1. The Romo Int looked like an Int to me. In live action, he looked out of bounds but after I saw the replay, it looked like he had possession with both feet inbounds.
2. Delhomme did fumble and so did Eli last week.
3. It was interference on Henry, it was just a late flag.
4. Looked like Defensive Intf against TO on the pass over the middle. Remember the play?
5. The fumble Hurd recovered was too close to call on replay. So it stays as called on the field.
6. TO was holding on the Barber call. Stupid play by TO. Good call by the refs.
7. JJ did chop block.
8. Refs missed the spot on the Henry PI as Adam says.
9. We caught a break on the no PI call on the deep route where it hit is butt.

How can you guys whine every week about the refs? You sound like Joe Gibbs.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Lets settle this:
How can you guys whine every week about the refs? You sound like Joe Gibbs.

There's a difference. For one, I've yet to hear a Cowboys fan on this board say that the refs cost us a game. I hear that all of the time from Skins fans. I've also never heard of a Cowboys fan claiming there's a "conspiracy" by the refs against Dallas. I have heard plenty of Skins fans say that on their main boards. Essentially, because Joe Gibbs acts the way he does it results into their fans coming up with these crazy ideas.

But the reason why I whine about the refs is that I'm a fan of football and the refereeing is pretty poor. I complained about the refereeing in the Indy vs. Pittsburgh game in the playoffs last year and the Super Bowl last year as well. The refereeing stinks. It needs to get better and the NFL doesn't seem to be all that proactive in improving it.

And that bothers me, regardless of who is playing.



YAKUZA

 

[dbair1967]

Lets settle this:

1. The Romo Int looked like an Int to me. In live action, he looked out of bounds but after I saw the replay, it looked like he had possession with both feet inbounds.
2. Delhomme did fumble and so did Eli last week.
3. It was interference on Henry, it was just a late flag.
4. Looked like Defensive Intf against TO on the pass over the middle. Remember the play?
5. The fumble Hurd recovered was too close to call on replay. So it stays as called on the field.
6. TO was holding on the Barber call. Stupid play by TO. Good call by the refs.
7. JJ did chop block.
8. Refs missed the spot on the Henry PI as Adam says.
9. We caught a break on the no PI call on the deep route where it hit is butt.

How can you guys whine every week about the refs? You sound like Joe Gibbs.

you left off the two bogus calls on Gurode, and on #9, the ball hit Newman in the butt, but you cant rule PI if the pass isnt catchable, ...unless they pass a rule saying the defensive guy has to get out of the way and allow the receiver first dibs at the ball, that wasnt PI

there used to be a rule about "face guarding" and I think thats what Keyshawn wanted called, but I'm not sure thats even in the book anymore....Newman did not interfere to prevent a catch, so that wasnt a "break" for us

David

 

[Stautner]

As much as I want to get into semantics...

Yes, that's true. However, although your mentioning of most fans as being in agreement with you would be considered conclusive, the fact that it lacks such a foundation is apparent.



LOL. Sure, the tone is indicative of the mood. That's because we won. And the mood of fans has no relevance to the conclusiveness of the play.

You didn't accuse of us making conclusive statements, you said we weren't "conclusive of everyone" - that doesn't make sense.

By "mood of the fans" I wasn't referring to happiness spurred by the victory, I was referring to all the fans that agreed it was a close play - their "mood" about the play itself.

As for being "conclusive", the thing you are twisting completely is that you are the ONLY one claiming to have a "conclusive" perspective - all the rest of us are the one's saying that the replays were inconclusive, or at least unclear enough that overturning the call would have been difficult.

 

[tomson75]

The refs cost us the game. There is also a conspiracy against us.























oh wait....we won.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

you left off the two bogus calls on Gurode, and on #9, the ball hit Newman in the butt, but you cant rule PI if the pass isnt catchable, ...unless they pass a rule saying the defensive guy has to get out of the way and allow the receiver first dibs at the ball, that wasnt PI

there used to be a rule about "face guarding" and I think thats what Keyshawn wanted called, but I'm not sure thats even in the book anymore....Newman did not interfere to prevent a catch, so that wasnt a "break" for us

David

First off, I'm pretty sure that Newman didn't even touch Keyshawn on that play. His right foot may have grazed Key's leg, but it certainly didn't impede his progress. We were saved by an ugly throw by Delhomme. Newman's coverage technique was ugly to watch, but he didn't interfere.

I'm pretty sure that face guarding is still technically a rule, but it's almost never called. Even still, jumping up in the air in front of a receiver isn't face guarding.



YAKUZA

 

[AdamJT13]

They missed a spot on a Barber run to the left. He made the first down, but they spotted it just short.

I thought so at first, but from the ovehead camera angle, it looked like Barber's leg slid out of bounds just before the ball got to the first-down marker. The spot might have been short, but it still wouldn't have been a first down.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm pretty sure that face guarding is still technically a rule, but it's almost never called.

There is NO "face-guarding" rule in the NFL.


------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rulesschool120501.html

3) What is the official rule against "face-guarding" when a defender is trying to break up a pass? Is there a certain amount of space he must be within of the receiver for this penalty to be called?

There is no such thing as face-guarding in the National Football League. It is legal to face-guard a receiver. In order to have pass interference you must have contact. Any act without contact is not considered a foul.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

[SultanOfSix]

You didn't accuse of us making conclusive statements, you said we weren't "conclusive of everyone" - that doesn't make sense.

I know I didn't. Although I didn't word it correctly, what was certainly meant that the two most vocal antagonists to my opinion are hardly conclusive proof of everyone being in agreement with both of your opinions, which you indeed implied.

By "mood of the fans" I wasn't referring to happiness spurred by the victory, I was referring to all the fans that agreed it was a close play - their "mood" about the play itself.

Well, you obviously worded it incorrectly. It seems that all people aren't immune from making that mistake...

As for being "conclusive", the thing you are twisting completely is that you are the ONLY one claiming to have a "conclusive" perspective - all the rest of us are the one's saying that the replays were inconclusive, or at least unclear enough that overturning the call would have been difficult.

Yeah, well it is pretty conclusive to me. Just like it was pretty conclusive to me that Eli's "non-fumble" last week was a fumble, and Delhommes fumble this week was a fumble.

All of you are welcome to hold your own opinions, because that's all that they are like mine, and the conclusion to its conclusiveness by the NFL is moot because the 'Boys won the game.

 

[aikemirv]

There is NO "face-guarding" rule in the NFL.


------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rulesschool120501.html

3) What is the official rule against "face-guarding" when a defender is trying to break up a pass? Is there a certain amount of space he must be within of the receiver for this penalty to be called?

There is no such thing as face-guarding in the National Football League. It is legal to face-guard a receiver. In order to have pass interference you must have contact. Any act without contact is not considered a foul.

------------------------------------------------------------

Did not know that - I thought for sure that it used to be.

 

[Cowboy Bebop]

Lets settle this:

1. The Romo Int looked like an Int to me. In live action, he looked out of bounds but after I saw the replay, it looked like he had possession with both feet inbounds.
2. Delhomme did fumble and so did Eli last week.
3. It was interference on Henry, it was just a late flag.
4. Looked like Defensive Intf against TO on the pass over the middle. Remember the play?
5. The fumble Hurd recovered was too close to call on replay. So it stays as called on the field.
6. TO was holding on the Barber call. Stupid play by TO. Good call by the refs.
7. JJ did chop block.
8. Refs missed the spot on the Henry PI as Adam says.
9. We caught a break on the no PI call on the deep route where it hit is butt.

How can you guys whine every week about the refs? You sound like Joe Gibbs.

Although completely accurate, I do not think your post is going to go over well. Unless you claim everything that goes against the Cowboys is a conspiracy these people do not want to hear it.

 

[tomson75]

Although completely accurate, I do not think your post is going to go over well. Unless you claim everything that goes against the Cowboys is a conspiracy these people do not want to hear it.

Do any of you ever read the previous posts in a thread before posting yourself?

What are you? An internet security guard? Who is actually claiming there's a conspiracy? What are you talking about?

 

[LeonDixson]

The defender clearly gained posssession of the ball before he went out of bounds on the INT.

Was his foot in?

Doesn't matter. T.O. shoved him at the last moment, and that would have caused him to fal toward the sidelines, as he did.

Once he gained control, T.O.'s actions would allow his foot to be out because it is the same play as a defender pushing the receiver out before he gets both feet in.

And it was a mental mistake by Romo taking that chance when it was a busted play.

Agreed, TwoDeep. It was an ill-advised throw to begin with. Owens had a chance to prevent the int by shoving or tackling the guy while he was still juggling the ball, but he didn't want to get physical I guess.

That call could not have been overturned based on the replay. I agree with the poster above that said bad calls were made, as well as some bad non-calls, on both teams. There was a definite interference on TNew that wasn't called. The officials were terrible, but evenly terrible IMHO.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Although completely accurate, I do not think your post is going to go over well. Unless you claim everything that goes against the Cowboys is a conspiracy these people do not want to hear it.

How is it completely accurate? Watch the pass to Keyshawn on Newman again. Newman doesn't touch Keyshawn. It was terrible technique and Newman was prone to having the ball caught or committing a penalty, but he didn't touch Keyshawn. So I don't know how we got away with that.


YAKUZA

 

[AdamJT13]

There was a definite interference on TNew that wasn't called.

Newman did not interferfere with Keyshawn AT ALL.

 

[Doomsday101]

Newman did not interferfere with Keyshawn AT ALL.

I agree. It would not even be considered face guarding because he only had 1 arm in the air not both and never made contact on the play.

 

[Stautner]

I know I didn't. Although I didn't word it correctly, what was certainly meant that the two most vocal antagonists to my opinion are hardly conclusive proof of everyone being in agreement with both of your opinions, which you indeed implied.



Well, you obviously worded it incorrectly. It seems that all people aren't immune from making that mistake...



Yeah, well it is pretty conclusive to me. Just like it was pretty conclusive to me that Eli's "non-fumble" last week was a fumble, and Delhommes fumble this week was a fumble.

All of you are welcome to hold your own opinions, because that's all that they are like mine, and the conclusion to its conclusiveness by the NFL is moot because the 'Boys won the game.

Okay, I'll stick with the "conclusion to its conclusiveness by the NFL".

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

last night, but what the hell was that PI call that came about 15 seconds after the end of the play. I think it was Henry on the thug Smith. There was no fllag, Smith started chirping, then Delhomme ran to the ref and boom, there was the flag.

What was up with that bs. That flag was later than the PI in the Luckeyes err Buckeyes NCAA championship game.

 

[Muhast]

Not sure I'd call him a thug.

But yea it was a really late call. If anything it looked more like an illegal contact then a pass interference.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Lets settle this:

1. The Romo Int looked like an Int to me. In live action, he looked out of bounds but after I saw the replay, it looked like he had possession with both feet inbounds.
2. Delhomme did fumble and so did Eli last week.
3. It was interference on Henry, it was just a late flag.
4. Looked like Defensive Intf against TO on the pass over the middle. Remember the play?
5. The fumble Hurd recovered was too close to call on replay. So it stays as called on the field.
6. TO was holding on the Barber call. Stupid play by TO. Good call by the refs.
7. JJ did chop block.
8. Refs missed the spot on the Henry PI as Adam says.
9. We caught a break on the no PI call on the deep route where it hit is butt.

How can you guys whine every week about the refs? You sound like Joe Gibbs.

How was it PI on Newman when the ball hit him? Last I checked, he wasn't touching the Panther WR.