Roy's interception for a TD..

[Rampage]

Hitting a defenseless receiver.

lets just dress up the offense in skirts and heels while they're at it.

 

[smarta5150]

lets just dress up the offense in skirts and heels while they're at it.

The league is getting ridiculous with all this offensive protection a la little roughing the passer calls.

Then you throw in illegal contact and the secondary guys are now gonna get timid like the DLine and LBs hitting QBs.

When will it change? will it stop?

The rules need to be looked over carefully and changes should be implemented.

Will they do it... probably not.

 

[Ratmatt]

I was at the game but got there just a couple of minutes late.. Just a quick question about something I missed: was Roy's int for a TD legit or were the refs correct to call it back? was Newman's penalty the real deal and did it affect the play (would Roy still have intercepted it and ran it back still)?

It was a horrible call!

 

[jordan20]

That's just silly. They seldom call the penalty - which is why they huddled up -- to get the enforcement clear. As far as enforcement that's a pretty complex call b/c of the INT - that's something that happens maybe once a year. The refs huddle up in those situations to get the call correct.

They certainly don't huddle to discuss whether there was a penalty - that's 1 guy's call, the other refs aren't in position to make the call.

It was a lame call -- but to say the refs didn't know what they were doing is ignorant. Its a bang bang play -- the refs don't get replay on a call like that and you can expect they will make calls you don't agree with sometimes.

I'm totally confused.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Nothing real special. It fell in his lap and noone was there to stop him. It was a HUGE call, as we promptly went from being up 7-0 to being down 13-0. Then, instead of having a great heads-up play from Roy, we have to endure more lame-o Roy to LB? threads.

Bah.

it truly was a double-edged sword

 

[Smashmouth24]

Whether the referee actually saw the penalty is debatable since they never elaborated on what was illegal about the hit.

Whether a penalty actually occurred is not debatable, as long as you agree Newman's helmet simply touched Furrey's helmet, and when you do that to a 'defenseless' receiver it's a 15-yard penalty and usually a fine.

 

[jimmy40]

Another sad thing about that penalty is the officials huddled up for about 30 seconds to decide what to call after the ball was tipped???
Like I said before Newman did not lead with his helmet, It was a BS call. The penalty for hitting a defenseless player is VERY VERY inconsistent, and mostly called only against Dallas.

BS.

 

[jimmy40]

I was at the game but got there just a couple of minutes late.. Just a quick question about something I missed: was Roy's int for a TD legit or were the refs correct to call it back? was Newman's penalty the real deal and did it affect the play (would Roy still have intercepted it and ran it back still)?

If this would have happened in the last two minutes of the game instead of the first two minutes it might be worth *****ing about, as it is it's just crying because we got beat by a 2-13 team.

 

[TEK2000]

If this would have happened in the last two minutes of the game instead of the first two minutes it might be worth *****ing about, as it is it's just crying because we got beat by a 2-13 team.

I guess I missed the part where people were blaming the game on the refs. I just thought we were having a discussion over it was a good or bad call.

 

[AbeBeta]

Whether the referee actually saw the penalty is debatable since they never elaborated on what was illegal about the hit.

What part of "hit on a defenseless receiver" isn't an elaboration? Point of emphasis straight from the rules committee several years ago.

And if he didn't see it, then why would he have thrown a flag? He saw something. He didn't see it as I saw it but I got to see several replays.

 

[CF74]

We was robbed!! On many calls and it quenched our fire..:bang2:

 

[Smashmouth24]

What part of "hit on a defenseless receiver" isn't an elaboration? Point of emphasis straight from the rules committee several years ago.

And if he didn't see it, then why would he have thrown a flag? He saw something. He didn't see it as I saw it but I got to see several replays.

Hitting a defenseless receiver isn't an elaboration point. Are you submitting that the referee actually believed it was illegal to hit a defenseless receiver, period? It's not a penalty.

 

[jordan20]

What part of "hit on a defenseless receiver" isn't an elaboration? Point of emphasis straight from the rules committee several years ago.

And if he didn't see it, then why would he have thrown a flag? He saw something. He didn't see it as I saw it but I got to see several replays.

This is my point that you make confusing with your comments. If the official saw it and then threw his flag which is what happened why did they huddle up for 30 or 45 seconds?

 

[AbeBeta]

This is my point that you make confusing with your comments. If the official saw it and then threw his flag which is what happened why did they huddle up for 30 or 45 seconds?

They likely huddled to get correct the timing of the play -- if the hit was BEFORE the Int it would be enforced one way -- if the hit was AFTER the Int the enforcement differs. That's most likely what they were talking about -- it was an unusual series of events -- they likely needed to review the timing and the rule to determine both possession and the spot of the ball.

 

[AbeBeta]

Hitting a defenseless receiver isn't an elaboration point. Are you submitting that the referee actually believed it was illegal to hit a defenseless receiver, period? It's not a penalty.

Unecessary roughness -- hit on a defenseless receiver. That's the call. It is pretty much like an out of bounds play -- the defenseless receiver is not fair game just like the player who runs OB isn't.

There is a long history in this league of fines for exactly those types of hits. What aren't you understanding here?

 

[Kilyin]

It was one of the worst calls I've seen all year. They basically flagged Newman for doing his job.

The touchdown by Roy Williams that Parcells challenged should have been overturned as well, IMO.

But we still shouldn't have lost to the Lions. It's definitely a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Unecessary roughness -- hit on a defenseless receiver. That's the call. It is pretty much like an out of bounds play -- the defenseless receiver is not fair game just like the player who runs OB isn't.

There is a long history in this league of fines for exactly those types of hits. What aren't you understanding here?

First of all, I doubt you'll find one instance where a player was fined for hitting a defenseless player legally. No player is ever 'fair game', there are restrictions on contact that apply to all circumstances, some with more restrictions than others.

Secondly, and for the second time in a row, there is no rule that says you cannot ever hit a defenseless receiver. There are rules that say you cannot hit a defensless receiver in a certain fashion, Newman violated one of them, the referee failed to elaborate on which one the official believed Newman specifically violated. It's not an elaboration unless they tell us specifically what they believed about the hit to be illegal, wouldn't you agree?

 

[AbeBeta]

The touchdown by Roy Williams that Parcells challenged should have been overturned as well, IMO.

Are you serious? That one was a good call. It was an outstanding play by the only Williams making them Sunday.

 

[Kilyin]

Are you serious? That one was a good call. It was an outstanding play by the only Williams making them Sunday.

Without having rewatched it, I'd have to say it was questionable at best. It definitely wasn't a bad challenge.

 

[Smashmouth24]

That's not correct. You can hit a receiver who is airborne, you just can't make helmet-to-helmet contact.

On a normal day, this would have ended the thread.

If you believe Newman's helmet made any contact _at all, at any point_ with Furrey's in the course of that collision, then you concede that he committed a 15-yard penalty.

If you don't, then you have every right to continue believing the Cowboys were jobbed on this play.