(Video) Pat Watkins no PI call on Calvin Johnson

[SultanOfSix]

Watkin's was not pass interference. He has every right to go for the ball as long as he doesn't go through the receiver, and he was the one who actually had more of the ball than Johnson from what I can tell.

Roy's could have been called because he had his hand on his shoulder. But, even that was dubious. I'm surprised Roy was in position to make the play, with all the talk about him not being able to cover. He actually got turned one way and came back and made a great recovery.

 

[Next_years_Champs]

Sorry guys you can't go through the WR even if you are trying to make a play on the ball. WR had the inside postion and Watkins ran into him. Had the shoe been on the other foot I can promise we would be hearing how the refs hate the Cowboys and how unfair it was. I know the Lion fans are saying the same.

Well I don't agree at all, Watkins and the reciever were side by side if anything. And Watkins actually got slightly ahead of the reciever right before the ball got there, He didn't go through the reciever IMO which is pass interference. And if the play situation were reversed I still wouldn't consider it PI, I would however reserve the right to complain.

 

[dbair1967]

Joe Buck...what a f'in tool

"that was about as blatant a pass interfeence call as your gonna see"

uh no, it wasnt..we've all seen FAR worse

he is such a prick

David

 

[Doomsday101]

But of course...I wouldn't expect nothing less from the Chicken Fried Nation (as Randy Galloway likes to call the Cowboys fandom) .

It just reminds me of the old Clips from Hank Shram where he hollers at the ref and get all over him for a call against his team and a few plays later the ref makes a call in favor of KC and he is holler way to go ref good eyes. I try and watch games based on what I see regardless of who is playing. So many around here are quick to jump on the refs but when close calls go our way it was just a good call.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I am not certain of if it was PI or not, but Joe Buck was sure quick to label it PI though, the screen didn't even pan to the play and he was screaming PI. And announcers have alot of power to what gets talked about afterwards (eg... Madden saying Blueprint).

No point in worrying about it now.

 

[Future]

Sorry guys you can't go through the WR even if you are trying to make a play on the ball. WR had the inside postion and Watkins ran into him. Had the shoe been on the other foot I can promise we would be hearing how the refs hate the Cowboys and how unfair it was. I know the Lion fans are saying the same.

I don't necessarily think it was PI, but it should probably have been called.

 

[superpunk]

It is pass interference by either team when any player movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player of such player’s opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

Note 2: Defensive players have as much right to the path of the ball as eligible offensive players.

Possibly applicable parts bolded. Have at it.

 

[Doomsday101]

Well I don't agree at all, Watkins and the reciever were side by side if anything. And Watkins actually got slightly ahead of the reciever right before the ball got there, He didn't go through the reciever IMO which is pass interference. And if the play situation were reversed I still wouldn't consider it PI, I would however reserve the right to complain.

He ran into the WR and was fortunate not to be called. I imagine 90% around here felt it was fine I doubt 90% would think that had the shoe been on the other foot.

 

[AsthmaField]

Joe Buck...what an f'in tool

"that was about as blatant a pass interfeence call as your gonna see"

uh no, it wasnt..we've all seen FAR worse

he is such a prick

David

I would add to that if it wasn't perfectly stated.

 

[dbair1967]

Well I don't agree at all, Watkins and the reciever were side by side if anything. And Watkins actually got slightly ahead of the reciever right before the ball got there, He didn't go through the reciever IMO which is pass interference. And if the play situation were reversed I still wouldn't consider it PI, I would however reserve the right to complain.

we see it the same way

he has a right to the ball

David

 

[dbair1967]

He ran into the WR and was fortunate not to be called. I imagine 90% around here felt it was fine I doubt 90% would think that had the shoe been on the other foot.

he didnt run "into" the WR...there was contact, but he took a route to play the ball and didnt knock the guy over or pull him down...its not PI

you guys need to go look at the rule book

David

 

[Oh_Canada]

He ran into the WR and was fortunate not to be called. I imagine 90% around here felt it was fine I doubt 90% would think that had the shoe been on the other foot.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove....that is pretty much status quo on any team's forum....but I personally don't find anything wrong with a non-call where a defensive player beats a receiver to the ball.
If they can't do that...what can they do?? Let the receiver catch it???

 

[Doomsday101]

he didnt run "into" the WR...there was contact, but he took a route to play the ball and didnt knock the guy over or pull him down...its not PI

you guys need to go look at the rule book

David

I have and I know the rules and I also know the comments around here had the shoe been on the other foot you would be crying bloody murder and accusing the Refs of cheating or some damn bias as most do here every week after games. Call goes in favor of your team then it was a great call I can watch games without bias I doubt you can.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Troy was definitely on dope yesterday

"he's not even playing the ball"

just shutup dude...loved you as the QB here, but yesterday you were God-awful

David

Yesterday, Aikman was, (as Parcells would say), "off the range".

I know we discuss his style of announcing Cowboy games all the time, but yesterday was ridiculous. He even questioned whether T.O. pushed off to get open on a reception before he even saw the replay and when they did show the replay the DB was playing 10 yards off the ball! It was ridiculous!

On the Pat Watkins play, I told me son, they might could have called interference, but as for Aikman's comment that Watkins "obviously wasn't playing the ball", I wondered if Troy was actually watching the game.

 

[Next_years_Champs]

He ran into the WR and was fortunate not to be called. I imagine 90% around here felt it was fine I doubt 90% would think that had the shoe been on the other foot.

Well contact is allowed with the WR if the defender is making a play for the ball that was even stated by the head of the officals last week after the Green Bay game. The type contact that isn't allowed is when the defender comes through the back of the reciever. That isn't what Watkins did he broke on the ball and actually got there before the reciever, thus there was no PI which was the correct call IMO.

 

[firehawk350]

Yesterday, Aikman was, (as Parcells would say), "off the range".

I know we discuss his style of announcing Cowboy games all the time, but yesterday was ridiculous. He even questioned whether T.O. pushed off to get open on a reception before he even saw the replay and when they did show the replay the DB was playing 10 yards off the ball! It was ridiculous!

On the Pat Watkins play, I told me son, they might could have called interference, but as for Aikman's comment that Watkins "obviously wasn't playing the ball", I wondered if Troy was actually watching the game.

To be fair, I think Aikman was referring to the earlier play, when the ref called it Offensive PI. There might have been some mix-up with the replay in the production trailer and they showed the wrong play. It happens a couple of times a game.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove....that is pretty much status quo on any team's forum....but I personally don't find anything wrong with a non-call where a defensive player beats a receiver to the ball.
If they can't do that...what can they do?? Let the receiver catch it???

No I get sick of hearing every week how the refs cheat and are bias yet when a close call goes in our favor how it was such a great call. It seems very hypocritical when I hear this.

 

[adamknite]

No I get sick of hearing every week how the refs cheat and are bias yet when a close call goes in our favor how it was such a great call. It seems very hypocritical when I hear this.

So nobody is allowed to have an opinion because some people are tools... sound logic.

 

[superpunk]

he didnt run "into" the WR...there was contact, but he took a route to play the ball and didnt knock the guy over or pull him down...its not PI

you guys need to go look at the rule book

David

According to the rules, which I posted, it looks like it could go either way.

Given that, it would seem that the "If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference." comment influenced the ruling on the field.

Yesterday, Aikman was, (as Parcells would say), "off the range".

I know we discuss his style of announcing Cowboy games all the time, but yesterday was ridiculous. He even questioned whether T.O. pushed off to get open on a reception before he even saw the replay and when they did show the replay the DB was playing 10 yards off the ball! It was ridiculous!

On the Pat Watkins play, I told me son, they might could have called interference, but as for Aikman's comment that Watkins "obviously wasn't playing the ball", I wondered if Troy was actually watching the game.

I just think Troy worded it wrong. He was wondering if the corner fell down on his own, or because TO pushed off. He just didn't phrase it as a question, I don't think, and hadn't seen the replay yet. He should have clarified after he saw the replay, but I don't think you can get too worked up over that dialogue.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I didn't get to see the game and that film is of poor quality. It look like to me Watkins hands were up as if he were trying to catch the ball. (like I said, the film is very bad and I could be way off in what I thought I was seeing) If that is the case and they only bumped shoulders, that isn't PI as Watkins was making an attempt at the ball and not trying to hamper Johnson's ability to catch the ball. (incidental contact)