Twitter: Refs missed a safety call on Arizona

[MarcusRock]

Of course not. But then again, if they were calling the game close and that was called a hold on Collins, I'd understand it.

To me, the conspiracies about the refs and Cowboys are stupid. My biggest gripe is that there seems to be a wide chasm in consistency play to play, game to game, crew to crew. And it just seems like it's getting worse.

I agree with you here. But I think it's tough for 16 different crews to apply the same standard for plays that don't ever look identical. Where you have judgement calls you are going to have variance at extreme rates.

 

[ESisback]

Seems pretty obvious what his point is.

Officiating is bad across the league, not just against Dallas.

I agree, but I keep coming back to the stat they seem to ignore…the timing of the flags. Just kinda odd, IMHO.

 

[MarcusRock]

He clearly impeded Lawrence after Lawrence had gotten by him by grabbing his shoulder pad. You can easily see Lawrence's shoulder being pulled back and it forcing him to slow down and redirect. That's not a block; it's a hold.

Yeah, disagree. Lawrence redirected because Murray stepped up and rolled out so he had to change his angle of pursuit even if the OL let him go by. At real speed he was not impeded from where he wanted to go. Again, "materially restrict" means some is allowable. To me, being able to choose the path you want to go and not prevented or taken off course like Schultz did to his guy is not material. Throw in the rip rule as an add-on and two things point to not calling it a hold, which is why I think it wasn't.

 

[gimmesix]

This is the problem. Y'all are simply making up the rules that make sense in your mind.

The NFL Rulebook states:

Exception: Holding will be called if the defender’s feet are taken away from him by the offensive player’s action.

I think you are applying the rule wrong. The idea is that when the player rips, it can cause the offensive player's arms to become entangled. Therefore, holding is not going to be called then unless there's essentially a takedown.

In this case, Lawrence has disengaged from the lineman, so that does not apply. Otherwise, he could pretty much wrap his arms around Lawrence and hold him in place and holding wouldn't be called because his feet weren't taken away. It's a lot like pass interference/illegal contact. When the receiver and defensive back are engaged in hand-fighting, officials usually do not call a penalty because it's hard to determine fault.

You can see in the first video that MarcusRock posted that Lawrence had disengaged from the tackle (no possible entanglement), was taking the corner on a direct line to Murray, and the tackle reached out and grabbed his shoulder, causing him to be slowed down and have to redirect. That should be called holding because he could not block him from that angle, only grab him. That is proper application of the rules because again, if it meant what you said then any offensive linemen could grab a defender from behind if beaten by a rip move as long as he didn't take him off his feet.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

LOL. First of all, that exception you highlighted isn't even part of the "rip" rule (section i). That exception is for the previous section (h).
At least get the correct exceptions if you are trying to call someone out. . It's obvious you don't even know how to read the rule book.

The actual rule pertaining to the "rip" is

i) if, during a defensive charge, a defensive player uses a “rip” technique that puts an offensive player in a position that would normally be holding.
Exception: Holding will be called if the defender’s feet are taken away from him by the offensive player’s action

And "holding will not be called when rip move is used" is not same as what is state in the rule above. Go learn to read the rule book correctly.

You've literally made the point clearer. Thank you.

Under Article 4 (1) it provides a list of instances of when a offensive player WILL NOT be called for holding.

You're predictably using a juvenile argumentative tactic saying "well, he said 'dip and rip' and the rulebook doesn't say that!"

Congrats on being obtuse.

The Rulebook says a defensive player using a "rip" technique that puts an offensive player in a position that would normally be holding WILL NOT BE CALLED.

One of the exceptions to this list is if a defender's feet are "taken away from him."

 

[DOUBLE WING]

I've said several times that there was no material restriction. This is true even if you ignore the rip move (that's the point of the Schultz comparison that people want to avoid). But since Lawrence did the rip on top of things, even if you want to call the OL's hand on the shoulder "material," which it's not, the rip move only bolsters the case that holding shouldn't be called because of the position it puts the OL in. That is why it exists. If there's two forces against calling a hold, you don't call a hold. Refs suck, but no need to pile on.

Again, people need to know the rules they rail against before knee-jerking that "we wuz robbed" and engaging in denial olympics. Same for the Dez no-catch where people ignored the portion of the rule that applied.

OK, cool. So if you say there was no material restriction, then whether or not Lawrence used a rip move is irrelevant. So why do you keep bringing it up?

Last time I asked you the difference between Lawrence and this play you said it was because Lawrence supposedly used a rip move. Now you're changing course, and saying the rip move doesn't matter.

So I'll ask the question again - if you're taking the rip out of the equation and saying there was flat out no material restriction of Lawrence, then what is the difference between that and the material restriction the defender experienced on this play?

 

[gimmesix]

Yeah, disagree. Lawrence redirected because Murray stepped up and rolled out so he had to change his angle of pursuit even if the OL let him go by. At real speed he was not impeded from where he wanted to go. Again, "materially restrict" means some is allowable. To me, being able to choose the path you want to go and not prevented or taken off course like Schultz did to his guy is not material. Throw in the rip rule as an add-on and two things point to not calling it a hold, which is why I think it wasn't.

We'll have to disagree. You can tell in the first video that Lawrence is heading straight for Murray before he is grabbed by the lineman. The grab restricted him from continuing on that path. He 100 percent was impeded from where he wanted to go. The only thing the lineman has going in his favor is that it was a quick grab.

 

[MarcusRock]

Insults for opposing views again? You “enlighten”, while others “stalk” and “snipe from the sidelines”? Predictable and boring.

Bro, you and the other also-rans in here didn't offer ANY opposing views. Y'all's first entry into the thread was to snipe with, "why do you talk to him?" or "he only takes up for opponents." Sorry, but that's just bitterness due to a past ***-whoopin' from when y'all actually tried to discuss something with me and didn't like the results. Every single one of you too. That's just a b*tch move. And that's why I call you a stalker because that's what it is. Can't stand that I'm right but won't get involved in the discussion except to chirp from the sidelines, not about the topic, but about me. Like I said the last time, there'll be a next time and here it is. You can't help yourself due to your scars. Aaron Rodgers said it best: "I own you!"

See you next time! Lol.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I think you are applying the rule wrong. The idea is that when the player rips, it can cause the offensive player's arms to become entangled. Therefore, holding is not going to be called then unless there's essentially a takedown.

In this case, Lawrence has disengaged from the lineman, so that does not apply. Otherwise, he could pretty much wrap his arms around Lawrence and hold him in place and holding wouldn't be called because his feet weren't taken away. It's a lot like pass interference/illegal contact. When the receiver and defensive back are engaged in hand-fighting, officials usually do not call a penalty because it's hard to determine fault.

You can see in the first video that MarcusRock posted that Lawrence had disengaged from the tackle (no possible entanglement), was taking the corner on a direct line to Murray, and the tackle reached out and grabbed his shoulder, causing him to be slowed down and have to redirect. That should be called holding because he could not block him from that angle, only grab him. That is proper application of the rules because again, if it meant what you said then any offensive linemen could grab a defender from behind if beaten by a rip move as long as he didn't take him off his feet.

I disagree.

The NFL Rulebook states as an exception under to the list it provides of non-holding call scenarios:

Exception: Holding will be called if the defender’s feet are taken away from him by the offensive player’s action.

D-Law's direction never changed nor was his feet taken from him (see Schultz hold).

Secondly, with regard to your "wrap his arms around Lawrence and hold him in place" scenario, the Rulebook clearly addresses that in the following:

USE OF HANDS BY OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Article 2 - An offensive player cannot obstruct or impede an opponent by grasping him with his hands or encircling any part of a defender’s body with his arms, except in the following situations [...]

 

[droopdog7]

Man, this threaded was ended by MarcusRock's video on the first page and it gone six more pages. Anyone thinking Tank was held on that play is the very epitome of a homer. Call it an attempted hold if you want, but by definition it's not a hold. It really had no material impact on the play and should be called the same way 100 out of 100 times. Comparing that to the hold on the zeke run makes me wonder how many realities we all live in?

 

[Zman5]

You've literally made the point clearer. Thank you.

Under Article 4 (1) it provides a list of instances of when a offensive player WILL NOT be called for holding.

You're predictably using a juvenile argumentative tactic saying "well, he said 'dip and rip' and the rulebook doesn't say that!"

Congrats on being obtuse.

The Rulebook says a defensive player using a "rip" technique that puts an offensive player in a position that would normally be holding WILL NOT BE CALLED.

LOL. You still can't read the rule book correctly. Saying a "holding will not be called when rip is used" implies that "holding will NEVER be called on a play regardless what happens if rip is used on that play". That's not what the rule says. Using the rip move doesn't give "free holding" play for the offense. Even if DLaw started the play with the rip move, it doesn't give the OLinemen free pass to grab and push from behind after DLaw runs by him.

Go watch some football and learn the rules.

 

[MarcusRock]

We'll have to disagree. You can tell in the first video that Lawrence is heading straight for Murray before he is grabbed by the lineman. The grab restricted him from continuing on that path. He 100 percent was impeded from where he wanted to go. The only thing the lineman has going in his favor is that it was a quick grab.

And Murray didn't move? That's why Lawrence had to turn and he was not prevented from doing so. And "quick" is why I say it's not "materially." Again, bolstered by the fact that Lawrence used a rip move which puts pressure on a hold not being called. Fine to disagree. I know you're not a poster that outright lies and deceives so it's all good.

 

[ESisback]

Bro, you and the other also-rans in here didn't offer ANY opposing views. Y'all's first entry into the thread was to snipe with, "why do you talk to him?" or "he only takes up for opponents." Sorry, but that's just bitterness due to a past ***-whoopin' from when y'all actually tried to discuss something with me and didn't like the results. Every single one of you too. That's just a b*tch move. And that's why I call you a stalker because that's what it is. Can't stand that I'm right but won't get involved in the discussion except to chirp from the sidelines, not about the topic, but about me. Like I said the last time, there'll be a next time and here it is. You can't help yourself due to your scars. Aaron Rodgers said it best: "I own you!"

See you next time! Lol.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[MarcusRock]

OK, cool. So if you say there was no material restriction, then whether or not Lawrence used a rip move is irrelevant. So why do you keep bringing it up?

Last time I asked you the difference between Lawrence and this play you said it was because Lawrence supposedly used a rip move. Now you're changing course, and saying the rip move doesn't matter.

So I'll ask the question again - if you're taking the rip out of the equation and saying there was flat out no material restriction of Lawrence, then what is the difference between that and the material restriction the defender experienced on this play?

Lol. I mentioned nothing about that other play because I told you you're reaching by showing a play that looks nothing like this one whatsoever. I didn't even comment on you trying to add words into the rulebook that aren't there either. I can't change course on a video I didn't even opine on other than "it looks nothing like what we're talking about." And I just finished telling you I'm not taking the rip out of the equation. That's what you and others want to do (along with the Schultz video) to pretend you have any kind of case. The rip is an added thing in the mind of a ref to not call it a hold, which it wasn't even without the rip. So not irrelevant. This is not either/or. It's both/and. Life is flexible.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Lol. I mentioned nothing about that other play because I told you you're reaching by showing a play that looks nothing like this one whatsoever. I didn't even comment on you trying to add words into the rulebook that aren't there either. I can't change course on a video I didn't even opine on other than "it looks nothing like what we're talking about." And I just finished telling you I'm not taking the rip out of the equation. That's what you and others want to do (along with the Schultz video) to pretend you have any kind of case. The rip is an added thing in the mind of a ref to not call it a hold, which it wasn't even without the rip. This is not either/or. It's both/and. Life is flexible.

Both of these bolded statements cannot be true. What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

If Lawrence wasn't held, it doesn't matter if he ripped or not. The rip ONLY matters if you agree that he was held/materially restricted. You keep trying to hedge your bet by saying "well, it wasn't holding... but even if it WAS holding, he used a rip move!"

Stop straddling the fence and just say what you mean and mean what you say. Was he held or not? If he wasn't, the rip is irrelevant and there's no sense in continuing to bring it up.

The reason you keep avoiding answering the difference on how this defender was materially restricted vs. Lawrence is... there is no difference. Both defenders had their man beat, and were grabbed from behind to cause a momentary, millisecond pause in their path forward. Thus, materially restricting them. You continue to tapdance around explaining the difference in the plays because there is no difference.

 

[MarcusRock]

Both of these bolded statements cannot be true. What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

If Lawrence wasn't held, it doesn't matter if he ripped or not. The rip ONLY matters if you agree that he was held/materially restricted. You keep trying to hedge your bet by saying "well, it wasn't holding... but even if it WAS holding, he used a rip move!"

Stop straddling the fence and just say what you mean and mean what you say. Was he held or not? If he wasn't, the rip is irrelevant and there's no sense in continuing to bring it up.

The reason you keep avoiding answering the difference on how this defender was materially restricted vs. Lawrence is... there is no difference. Both defenders had their man beat, and were grabbed from behind to cause a momentary, millisecond pause in their path forward. Thus, materially restricting them. You continue to tapdance around explaining the difference in the plays because there is no difference.

There's no straddling. You're just trying to confuse the situation to catch me in words but I'm giving you nothing to work with. So you can continue to insert words that aren't there to your heart's content. All while you continually ignore the Schultz comparison video I posted from the beginning. And you accuse me of tapdance? Mercy.

There's nothing to answer in your video because it's nothing like what we're talking about and I said so from jump. The fact that I even acknowledge it after you ignored mine saying the same thing is generous enough, don't you think? I told you why the rip is relevant and again you just cruise on past it with this word play. See the rules is all I can say.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

LOL. You still can't read the rule book correctly. Saying a "holding will not be called when rip is used" implies that "holding will NEVER be called on a play regardless what happens if rip is used on that play". That's not what the rule says. Using the rip move doesn't give "free holding" play for the offense. Even if DLaw started the play with the rip move, it doesn't give the OLinemen free pass to grab and push from behind after DLaw runs by him.

Go watch some football and learn the rules.

Luuuuuuuulz, my gosh, smh....I keep saying it but how do some of you function in life.

The rule generally applied per Article 4 (i) is that an offensive player WILL NOT BE CALLED for a hold when if the defensive player uses a "rip" that puts the offensive player in a position that would normally be holding.

THEN IT PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

Except if the "defender's feet are taken away from him by the offensive player's action."

WHAT ARE YOU FAILING TO COMPUTE?

The rules as spelled-out are entirely consistent.

Now respond back and quote the rulebook again like itself somehow in conflict with what I said.

 

[Zman5]

Luuuuuuuulz, my gosh, smh....I keep saying it but how do some of you function in life.

The rule generally applied per Article 4 (i) is that an offensive player WILL NOT BE CALLED for a hold when if the defensive player uses a "rip" that puts the offensive player in a position that would normally be holding.

THEN IT PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION

Except if the "defender's feet are taken away from him by the offensive player's action."

WHAT ARE YOU FAILING TO COMPUTE?

The rules as spelled-out are entirely consistent.

Where does it say when "rip" is used by the defensive player, the "offense will not be called for holding regardless of what happens in rest of the play"? Are you telling me that if a defensive player uses a rip technique to start the rush, the offensive player can go bear hug him and tackle him from behind and he will not be called for holding?
It's obvious you have no clue.

 

[hollaback23]

No, I'm clearly saying officiating is bad across the league and teams are getting screwed on a weekly basis......not just the Cowboys.

I won'teven ask you if you think the league is out to specifically get the Cowboys because I already know the laughable answer.

The league officiating is crap and the cowboys d ok get screwed quite a bit. I constantly see your arguing how the ref made a good call/non call when it comes to Dallas. But in the sentence you will say the officiating is poor. You can't play both sides of the fence.

 

[hollaback23]

Seems pretty obvious what his point is.

Officiating is bad across the league, not just against Dallas.

My point was that @CalPolyTechnique Complains about officiating but dallas gets screwed on a call he defends the refs. You can play both sides of the fence.