That non-PI call was the play of the game

[OmerV]

I guess I'm not seeing the impeding then because while Smith did initiate contact, and Witten DID beat him to the spot, he did not cause Witten to fall and actually looked to try to run with Witten (because Witten was still able to run the route in that direction) to have a shot to get a hand around even though Witten did push him backwards. The ball was off target to the opposite direction of the route. I'm sure you and I have each seen far greater contact and hand play not called.

I agree that impeding wasn't the problem, I just referred to that in response to your comment that the DB doesn't have to allow the receiver to make his cut and "stroll on by". As you said, the problem was the DB trying to go through the receiver.

As for the ball being off target, pass interference isn't predicated on the pass being perfect, only on there being some chance for the receiver to make the play. I don't think it can be said that the throw was clearly uncatchable without the contact.

As for whether Smith caused Witten to fall, I think your position is debatable because although it's true that he didn't just plow over Witten, when a receiver is running full speed and at the same time trying to adjust to a ball thrown a bit behind, his balance isn't going to be so rock solid that the contact wouldn't be enough to knock him down. Even so, a pass interference call doesn't require that the DB knock the receiver to the ground anyway.

 

[OmerV]

This guy's entire schtick is that every call is correct and that he is Oh So Smart for calling Dallas fans idiots if think a call went against them. That's why he can twist himself into knots like this and dream up a HOF TE tripping over his own feet.

Marcus isn't a guy I've typically had many disagreements with, and he has been respectful through this exchange, so even though I don't understand his viewpoint, I don't have a problem with him either.

 

[Number1]

I agree, this one was kind of obvious. However, the refs are all over the place and with our luck we’d lose a timeout.

it ain't luck

 

[xwalker]

Thanks for the clips, I watched them several times but I don't see Witten initiating the contact. He does extend his arm but if Smith remains stationary Witten would barely touch him. The physical contact was Smith moving into Witten.

Yes, but that is allowed to some extent.

The defender just can't significantly slow him down or significantly alter his path AND definitely can't hold his arms down.

I really don't know the answer.

The defender didn't "run through Witten" as some have said but it's possible that he slowed him down with the arm extended momentarily in front of Witten.

I'm still not clear why Witten fell down.

Was he extending for the ball of did their feet/legs touch?

It's possible that one leg of Witten hit one leg of the defender but it's difficult to really see for certain.

 

[xwalker]

I guess I'm not seeing the impeding then because while Smith did initiate contact, and Witten DID beat him to the spot, he did not cause Witten to fall and actually looked to try to run with Witten (because Witten was still able to run the route in that direction) to have a shot to get a hand around even though Witten did push him backwards. The ball was off target to the opposite direction of the route. I'm sure you and I have each seen far greater contact and hand play not called.

The ball was not really off-target if Witten didn't fall down.

Maybe the ball was a tad in front but not really off-target.

 

[MarcusRock]

I agree that impeding wasn't the problem, I just referred to that in response to your comment that the DB doesn't have to allow the receiver to make his cut and "stroll on by". As you said, the problem was the DB trying to go through the receiver.

As for the ball being off target, pass interference isn't predicated on the pass being perfect, only on there being some chance for the receiver to make the play. I don't think it can be said that the throw was clearly uncatchable without the contact.

As for whether Smith caused Witten to fall, I think your position is debatable because although it's true that he didn't just plow over Witten, when a receiver is running full speed and at the same time trying to adjust to a ball thrown a bit behind, his balance isn't going to be so rock solid that the contact wouldn't be enough to knock him down. Even so, a pass interference call doesn't require that the DB knock the receiver to the ground anyway.

I agree with your first 2 paragraphs. On the PI call, the rules state that it's called when a player "significantly hinders an eligible player’s opportunity to catch the ball." As I alluded to earlier, far worse isn't called so our disagreement seems mostly on whether Witten fell as a result of Smith's actions (significant). I think ball placement had a lot to do with the fall since it's what caused Witten to open up his shoulders a whole lot more to twist back than if the ball placement had allowed him to keep running (which he was in good position to catch due to positioning).

 

[morat1959]

It’s not the officiating! Quit crying about it. Y’all sound like the aints fans!

 

[Kaiser]

Maybe the ball was a tad in front but not really off-target.

IMO the call was Witten coming back toward the ball where he would still catch it in the End Zone. The pass was certainly thrown for that type of play.

 

[Kaiser]

I'm still not clear why Witten fell down.

IMO it was clearly illegal contact and Witten fell because the contact knocked him off balance.

I would love to hear Witten talk about it after a couple of drinks, he may have not reacted in the moment because the refs have been so bad throughout the league this year.

 

[MarcusRock]

The ball was not really off-target if Witten didn't fall down.

Maybe the ball was a tad in front but not really off-target.

My contention is that the ball's positioning was the major factor in why Witten fell. If you look at Witten's feet, he is going to the left of the screen the whole way. To design a route for a throw to the opposite direction, not knowing where Smith will break PLUS having an LB in zone coverage would not be a smart play. The better chance was with Witten 1-on-1 with Smith and have Witten try a box-out. If it were designed to go the other way, I think you'd see Witten attempt to come back early because we all know he is not Mr. Dexterity and would need ample time to do so.

 

[MarcusRock]

Marcus isn't a guy I've typically had many disagreements with, and he has been respectful through this exchange, so even though I don't understand his viewpoint, I don't have a problem with him either.

Those with 12-year old antics (and logic) do, however, lol.

 

[Miller]

This wasn't the play of the game. We fell behind 14-0. We couldn't stop the run. The Vikings had bad calls too. I'm tired of the weekly ref threads when us starting slow and being mediocre is a bigger problem

 

[xwalker]

IMO the call was Witten coming back toward the ball where he would still catch it in the End Zone. The pass was certainly thrown for that type of play.

This one has the best view of the ball.

It appears to hit Witten's hand.

It looks like a perfect throw if Witten didn't fall down.

• I've stepped through each view frame by frame.
• The defender somewhat raked his hand across the front of Witten as the defender pulled his hand/arm back.
• That might have been what caused Witten to fall.
• I can't really see their feet/legs touch going frame by frame but it's still possible.
• On one of the 4 views the goalpost is in the way at the point that Witten starts to fall.

Considering some or the egregiously bad calls against the Cowboys, this one is close enough that it does not bother me.

I'm still irritated about the call a few games ago when a TD by Witten was recalled and the penalty was pi on the WR Wilson when in reality it was clearly pi against Wilson by two defenders completely blocking his path.

 

[MarcusRock]

I'm still not clear why Witten fell down.

And that's where it's at for me. If Smith's contact put Witten down immediately, it's an easy call. It didn't and there was a delay to him falling that also coincided with the ball being behind him as he ran the opposite direction the whole time.

 

[MarcusRock]

This wasn't the play of the game. We fell behind 14-0. We couldn't stop the run. The Vikings had bad calls too. I'm tired of the weekly ref threads when us starting slow and being mediocre is a bigger problem

These threads weren't around when we were 3-0. I was actually calling for them. Adversity brings certain things out of hiding though, lol.

 

[xwalker]

And that's where it's at for me. If Smith's contact put Witten down immediately, it's an easy call. It didn't and there was a delay for him falling that also coincided with the ball being behind him as he ran the opposite direction the whole time.

I don't know what you mean by "ran the opposite direction".

The ball hit Witten's hand as he was falling. I was directly above him which would have been waist or chest high if he didn't fall.

 

[OmerV]

Those with 12-year old antics (and logic) do, however, lol.

Lol, well, I haven’t typically had disagreements with Kaiser either, so I’ll leave that with you two.

 

[OmerV]

And that's where it's at for me. If Smith's contact put Witten down immediately, it's an easy call. It didn't and there was a delay to him falling that also coincided with the ball being behind him as he ran the opposite direction the whole time.

I don’t think it matters though if Witten was adjusting to the ball and made him more susceptible to falling when the contact was made. A PI call doesn’t require the pass to be perfect or the receiver to have rock solid footing.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't know what you mean by "ran the opposite direction".

The ball hit Witten's hand as he was falling. I was directly above him which would have been waist or chest high if he didn't fall.

If Witten had stopped right then and there at the point of contact, he'd have had it close to his body but still would have had to reach to the right. As it happened, he was still running to the left with no apparent intent to stop (with like a post-up or something).

I don’t think it matters though if Witten was adjusting to the ball and made him more susceptible to falling when the contact was made. A PI call doesn’t require the pass to be perfect or the receiver to have rock solid footing.

But if his adjustment makes him break his route it DOES increase the chance of incidental contact which is what I believe they deemed it here. The ball placement has to matter if it makes the receiver do something he clearly looked like he did not intend to do as part of his original route (reach back vs. keep running left).

Edit: I just noticed this but if you look at the base of the goal post as the camera pans down, the official there is looking left and isn't looking at Witten and Smith and only turns his head to watch the ball sail by. Random observation.

 

[Kaiser]

Considering some or the egregiously bad calls against the Cowboys, this one is close enough that it does not bother me.

Its doesn't bother me because I really felt the game was lost when we went down 14-0 and I very rarely feel that way. And like you say, there were plenty of other calls this year around the NFL that were much worse.

But I think it was clear PI and Smith basically tackled Witten. I think Witten's arm coming up could very easily have been the anticipation of the contact that was about to happen.