Video Request: DEZ return called back... Post #4

[realtick]

Totally bogus call... as cheap a hold as there ever has been. But: Witt got away with one on the Choice TD run that was pretty obvious IMO, and I'm one who has blasted officials for bias against the Dallas Cowboys.

Witten also got away with an even worse blown call on the Austin TD run against the Saints.

Guess the refs forgot the memo about being bias against the Boys.

And that was a legit holding call against Hurd.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Hold or no hold, I really think Dez got lucky on that return.

You are not going to run slowly on a kickoff return and wait for something to open up very often and have it work out.

The next time he did it, it did not open up, and it rarely will.

A good kick-off returner needs to hit it full speed.

 

[Future]

Of course he technically held. If an offensive player grasps a defensive player's jersey, it's technically holding. That occurs literally on every single down of every single game.

But you're right, you don't ever see those called, because it's a ridiculous call. The ref threw it late and if Dez would have been tackled immediately after the ref saw the hold, he wouldn't have thrown it.

Well put. Technical schmechnical, Hurd's block was a good one. That doesn't usually get called.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Well put. Technical schmechnical, Hurd's block was a good one. That doesn't usually get called.

Schmechnical, .. interesting. :laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

I watched that video and stop framed it every second and I do not see a holding call anywhere. Especially near either 40 yard line where every player for both teams in the frame is running clean.

Don't really care, because we won, but it sure seems to be a silly call.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

I can live with holding calls IF the the refs are even-handed about it, but the Colts were holding like maniacs throughout the game and I don't think they were flagged even once for it. Freaking ridiculous...

 

[speedkilz88]

The call couldn't possibly be on Hurd. The ball was spotted on the 32 after the penalty, so that means Dez was at the 42 when the ref "saw" the hold. (Dez was at the 18-30 when Hurd was blocking)

Dez had already broken into the clear at the 42, this was as bogus a call as you will ever see.

 

[hairic]

The line judge, at least I think it's the line judge (official on Cowboys sideline, one that ends up running with Bryant) throws a flag when he's at the Colts 49, Bryant's at the Cowboys 36, and Hurd's at the 35. The flag lands at the 42.

The holding occured from the 25 to the 29 yard line.

All that happened is the refs screwed up the spot. Ball should have been spotted at the 15-19 rather than the 32.

 

[realtick]

The line judge, at least I think it's the line judge (official on Cowboys sideline, one that ends up running with Bryant) throws a flag when he's at the Colts 49, Bryant's at the Cowboys 36, and Hurd's at the 35. The flag lands at the 42.

The holding occured from the 25 to the 29 yard line.

All that happened is the refs screwed up the spot. Ball should have been spotted at the 15-19 rather than the 32.

I refuse your version of reality.

 

[LeonDixson]

Everyone assumes the call was on Hurd, but the flag was thrown at the 42, WELL beyond where HURD was, and WELL after Hurd made his block.

It certainly was not on 42. He levels his guy just as Dez is passing by and before or at about the same time Hurd is engaging his defender. It was neither well beyond where Hurd was, nor well after Hurd made his block. You can see 42 at the .12 second mark of the video.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It was a big play by the Cowboys.

The ref thought Wade was still coaching the team.

Thus, the flag.

 

[Kevinicus]

It certainly was not on 42. He levels his guy just as Dez is passing by and before or at about the same time Hurd is engaging his defender. It was neither well beyond where Hurd was, nor well after Hurd made his block. You can see 42 at the .12 second mark of the video.

Heh, that's two people now who read "at" as "on."

 

[LeonDixson]

Heh, that's two people now who read "at" as "on."

You are correct. Sorry about that.