texaspackerbacker
10 years ago
They said before one of those games that the official crews were hybrid groups - the referee didn't have even one member of his usual crew, and it wasn't even based on quality - they didn't say what it was based on. That would seem kinda stupid in terms of communication and covering each other.

Even though I favor the Cowboys over everybody other than the Packers, it did look like there was contact, especially on the replay, and thus, interference. They owed the Cowboys one, though, after that bogus running into the kicker penalty that kept the Lions first drive going. And as somebody said in either this forum or another one, Golden Tate has been on the wrong side of karma ever since his uncalled push off on the Fail Mary play.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
PackFanWithTwins
10 years ago

Incorect. It was not one official. It was 2 officials with differing takes on the call and then communicating those views with the Referee. So it was 3 involved in the play. That had never worked together. The referee probably had no view of the play so he is forced to make a decision based on the input from 2 other officials. That he hasn't worked with. Doesn't know their communication style. So the referee heard from the back judge and was told penalty on # . The referee then proceeded to announce the penalty. Evidently then, the Side Judge finally got involved. Either there was a technology screw up or the Side Judge just didn't speak up in a timely enough manner for what the Ref was used to from his crew.

So a Pro Bowl team of high ranking players is better than the Packers? A Pro Bowl team couldn't even beat the Buccaneers. There is a value to a team working together. Officiating is no different.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



The point was. It shouldn't matter who the other officials are because the Referee is the only one who can make the final call. The referee screwed up by announcing the call to soon. He should have made sure he had the input from the others before making the announcement.

Officiating is different than a football team. Sure there are benefits to a crew working together all year. Mostly that they know each other so they more efficient. There is also benefit to having the best officials rather than officials that make more mistakes at their individual job.

Had the Referee taken a little time got all the input and made the call "there is no penalty for PI" there would be no issue today.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
PackFanWithTwins
10 years ago

Even though I favor the Cowboys over everybody other than the Packers, it did look like there was contact, especially on the replay, and thus, interference. They owed the Cowboys one, though, after that bogus running into the kicker penalty that kept the Lions first drive going. And as somebody said in either this forum or another one, Golden Tate has been on the wrong side of karma ever since his uncalled push off on the Fail Mary play.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



By the letter of the rules. There was also offensive PI and a facemask on Pettigrew also.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
mi_keys
10 years ago

Personally I think picking the flag up was the right call. No where in the rules do defenders have to be looking back and playing the ball. Something Aikman and Buck apparently need to learn. There was more offensive PI and a facemask on that play as well.

I've underlined the portions I believe are potentially relevant from the 2013 rulebook (did not find a copy of the 2014 rulebook on first search but I am not aware of any 2014 rule changes that impacted pass interference):

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2013%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf 

PROHIBITED ACTS
Article 2 Prohibited Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:
(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.
Note: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

PERMISSIBLE ACTS
Article 3 Permissible Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
(a) Incidental contact by an opponent’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, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
(d) Laying a hand on an opponent that does not restrict him in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(e) Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball.

2013 NFL Rules (Page 51) wrote:



While the rule does not say verbatim "a defender must be looking back and playing the ball," two of the seven broad examples of pass interference only apply when an offending player does not play the ball (underlined above). Pragmatically, I don't see how one could argue a player is playing the ball when they never look for it. That's why announcers discuss never turning to find the ball in relation to pass interference.

Also, how do you figure it was pass interference on Detroit? I could see if the defender turned and tried to play the ball and the tight end came through his back but that obviously never happened. There's nothing about going through a player's front when you're trying to play the ball and they are not. There's no push off. I don't see any way in which Detroit's player tries to impede the Dallas player from catching the ball. Facemask? Sure, but then it is offsetting penalties and repeat of 3rd and 1. Then I believe you'd enforce the 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct on Dez after the offsetting penalties.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Rockmolder
10 years ago

By the letter of the rules. There was also offensive PI and a facemask on Pettigrew also.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



Exactly. They handled it atriciously, but it's rather hard to turn around and see the ball when you get your facemask pulled forward.

https://vine.co/v/OdD5hWMBK2q 

Should've offset, I guess.

TThat wasn't the call, though. They appeared to miss the facemask. The quotes make that much clear. In that case, it would've been OPI, as the defender just ran through the receiver, with little to no ball awareness.
PackFanWithTwins
10 years ago

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2013%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf


While the rule does not say verbatim "a defender must be looking back and playing the ball," two of the seven broad examples of pass interference only apply when an offending player does not play the ball (underlined above). Pragmatically, I don't see how one could argue a player is playing the ball when they never look for it. That's why announcers discuss never turning to find the ball in relation to pass interference.

Also, how do you figure it was pass interference on Detroit? I could see if the defender turned and tried to play the ball and the tight end came through his back but that obviously never happened. There's nothing about going through a player's front when you're trying to play the ball and they are not. There's no push off. I don't see any way in which Detroit's player tries to impede the Dallas player from catching the ball. Facemask? Sure, but then it is offsetting penalties and repeat of 3rd and 1. Then I believe you'd enforce the 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct on Dez after the offsetting penalties.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Pettigrew had armed extended creating separation which also ended up becoming the facemask.

(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.

This is in reference to incidental contact "WR and DB running and tangle their feet" If the DB is looking back playing the ball, NO PI. If he isn't than they would call him for PI.

The only thing that prevented the WR from having a chance to catch the ball, was it hitting the defender in the back.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
buckeyepackfan
10 years ago
The NFL is now saying the call should not have been changed.

Refs blew it. Jerry gets his way.


I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
nerdmann
10 years ago

The NFL is now saying the call should not have been changed.

Refs blew it. Jerry gets his way.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 



Everyone knows it was bullshit.

The integrity of the game is being lost more and more under Goodell.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Porforis
10 years ago

They said before one of those games that the official crews were hybrid groups - the referee didn't have even one member of his usual crew, and it wasn't even based on quality - they didn't say what it was based on. That would seem kinda stupid in terms of communication and covering each other.

Even though I favor the Cowboys over everybody other than the Packers, it did look like there was contact, especially on the replay, and thus, interference. They owed the Cowboys one, though, after that bogus running into the kicker penalty that kept the Lions first drive going. And as somebody said in either this forum or another one, Golden Tate has been on the wrong side of karma ever since his uncalled push off on the Fail Mary play.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



There was contact, just not the sort of contact I'd normally associate with pass interference. You're not forbidden from touching someone. You're prevented from intentionally engaging someone attempting to make a catch. If the contact is incidental because you're running forward, they're backpedaling, and they slow down slightly so your arm briefly makes contact with theirs (but no so violently as to knock it away) and doesn't stay there long enough to interfere with the action of catching the ball or being in position to catch the ball, not a penalty.

Not directed at you BTW - Either way, don't understand why everyone feels the need to see a conspiracy everywhere they look. Blindly distrusting authority is just as naive as blindly trusting it. Several questionable calls with similar impact that went against the Cowboys (the running into the kicker penalty with Detroit on their own 6, the non-call with a detroit player hitting the punter three steps after he kicked it) and you just as easily could form a "THE GAME'S FIXED! THE MARKET FOR COWBOYS MERCHANDISE IS SATURATED, THERE ARE A LOT MORE CASUAL DETROIT FANS THAT WOULD BUY JERSEYS AND OTHER MERCHANDISE IF THEIR TEAM WERE A LEGITIMATE CONTENDER" argument based off of the calls in the first 56 minutes of the game. Admittedly, the entire series of events during the play in question was bizzare. But far worse has happened to the Packers and worse calls get made most weeks in the NFL. It's not always some grand conspiracy.
DakotaT
10 years ago

(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Pettigrew had armed extended creating separation which also ended up becoming the facemask.

(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.

This is in reference to incidental contact "WR and DB running and tangle their feet" If the DB is looking back playing the ball, NO PI. If he isn't than they would call him for PI.

The only thing that prevented the WR from having a chance to catch the ball, was it hitting the defender in the back.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



This argument makes about as much sense as you and the rest of the dipshits make when we argue the ethical standards of Republicans. 🙄
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (11h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (11h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (11h) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (11h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (12h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (13h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (13h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (13h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (15h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (15h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (17h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (17h) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (18h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (18h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (18h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (18h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (19h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (19h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (20h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (20h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (20h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (20h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (20h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (20h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (20h) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Around The NFL / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.