True, and if I were the Detroit coach knowing that you defense is wearing down he should have gone for it on the 4th and 1, he punted and the punter picked a bad time for the shank of a lifetime with 9.5yds net, ouch..
I'm not going to let one penalty get in the way of a lot of other things. Going for it on 4th and 6th and Romo hitting Witten for the conversion. That scramble and strike to Williams. Bailey missing a chipshot early. Stafford having 2 minutes to drive his team that resulted in a fumble (and a gift back to Detroit) and then another stripsack fumble that sealed the game.
Dallas wore down Detroit. Suh had to sit out some play sucking air on the sidelines. Murray started getting his grove going and Dallas was running the ball better. Romo made some great passes late in the game.
Sucks that all those things will get lost in a odd penalty situation.
A lot of people do - it's those same people who get all butt hurt by my posts. It's the internet, and they're words. If people don't like them, they don't have to read them.
People have to read your words first in order to know if they like or hate them...
NFL head of officials Dean Blandino said Monday that the non-call on pass interference against Detroit Lions tight end Brandon Pettigrew by Dallas Cowboys linebacker Anthony Hitchens was debatable, but holding definitely should have been called on the play.
Blandino said that when he reviewed the play, it appeared as a "judgment call that could have gone either way." But he saw a clear "jersey grab" by Hitchens that should have resulted in a defensive holding call that "should have been called."
Except, on closer review, there was more than just face-guarding going on. Hitchens could fairly be described as doing any of, and I'm quoting the NFL rulebook now, (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, or (e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.
I read that earlier. Hitchens was so beat he had an egregious hold on the jersey that should have been called. His interpretation of the "facemask" is also correct IMO (i.e. incidental, not a face mask--and does it even happen if Hitchens is not preventing Pettigrew from playing the ball because Hitchens most definitely was not playing the ball and even before Hitchens pushed Pettigrew (DPI) he had impeded Pettigrew from making a play to the ball).
I think he is being diplomatic about the DPI by saying it could have gone either way. It could have gone "either way" as DPI are judgment calls to begin with in regards to the catchability of the ball, was the receiver/defender playing the ball or not, was the contact incidental, did it interfere with the catch, etc. That is why PI is such a pain to call and why receivers get away with it all day long, even after the new rule "emphasis." The NFL doesn't routinely enforce the rule so you have games where the refs are ticky-tack on incidental contact but on the flip side have horrible no-calls right in front of refs (last year the no-call on the Gronk play against Carolina or the push on Baldwin against KC this year; the NFL admitted the later was clear DPI and should have ben called). Ditto holding. I get tired of one game (or half) where players can tackle each other and then another game where boarderline movements are called.
But IMO I don't think this is boarderline at all. Receiver was playing the ball. Defender was not. Receiver made a break for the ball and defender cut off his path. Defender's hand was clearly and firmly on the receiver well before the ball arrived and impeded the receivers ability to make the catch. The best summary of I have seen of the play in relation to the written rules:
Defenders have an equal right to space on the field only when they are playing the ball. Hitchens clearly wasn't playing the ball. 2 weeks ago people were mad that Earl Thomas wasn't called for DPI on Fitz but the refs got it right--ET was playing the ball and going for the INT. In fact replay shows Fitz was the one playing ET to prevent the pick and not the ball (should have been OPI which is called about as often as a Cowboy playoff win.)
But hey, I am happy. Seattle, if they take care of business, gets to have an epic NFCCG against a good Dallas or GB team!
Exactly, as I tried to tell folks -- the facemask was incidental and Hitchens was CLEARLY not playing the ball. The contact to his facemask in no way prevented him from playing the ball.
Also, someone in this thread (I believe) tried to claim Hitchens throwing his hands up at the end was an indicator it was an offensive penalty. I don't know what kind of logic that is -- typically if you've been busted, you're going to throw your hands up and act innocent and protest so it isn't called on you.
How can you turn your head to make a play on the ball when your mask is being held?
I already said there was clear holding, but both sides were clearly doing it. Until you want to also talk about the other missed or phantom calls that helped the Lions, I'm pretty sure this topic and conversation have run their course and have been exhausted.
His mask was not being held -- that is what we've been saying the entire time. The facemask contact was incidental.
But you're right, I think this conversation has run its course.