iramurphy Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 No question that should have been 15 yd unsportsmanlike call on Bryant. Typical Bryant gaffe. He is a loose screw. Didn't see any league explanation of that no call which was worse than the pass interference fiasco. Quote
MafiaMan Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 No question that should have been 15 yd unsportsmanlike call on Bryant. Typical Bryant gaffe. He is a loose screw. Didn't see any league explanation of that no call which was worse than the pass interference fiasco. Imagine the outrage across America today had the team roles been reversed and a certain Lion whose last name is Suh pulled that stunt... Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 REALLY? Yes, really. Got a problem with that? Quote
The Sicatoka Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Imagine the outrage across America today had the team roles been reversed and a certain Lion whose last name is Suh pulled that stunt... If Umdonkeykong Suh had run onto the field without his helmet they wouldn't start talking about this week's games until Saturday morning ... if then. It might have even overshadowed the Stuart Scott tributes ... too soon? Quote
jdub27 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 No question that should have been 15 yd unsportsmanlike call on Bryant. Typical Bryant gaffe. He is a loose screw. Didn't see any league explanation of that no call which was worse than the pass interference fiasco. They actually did (kind of) explain it: Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant came onto the field without his helmet to argue the initial pass-interference call Sunday, an act that had many wondering why he wasn't flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. But Blandino said that Bryant's actions weren't an automatic penalty, as the rule against players taking their helmets off on the field applies only to players in the game at that time. "The ref really wasn't listening to what I was saying," Bryant said Sunday. "I gave him my opinion. I thought it was a bad call. He was blocking me out and telling me to get back (to the sidelines) and the coaches, they were grabbing me. Since the play was dead, I thought it was OK." The official on Sunday had "discretion" to decide whether Bryant's actions warranted a penalty and decided against it, although Blandino said he would have supported a penalty on the Cowboys' star receiver if one had been called. Quote
Ray77 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 They actually did (kind of) explain it: Yeah, it was amusing hearing that explanation. Basically: If a player on the field takes his helmet off, it's an immediate penalty, but if a player who was not on the field goes running onto the field after a play to argue with a referee, it's not an automatic penalty - it's up to the referee's discretion. Makes total sense...got it! 2 Quote
Shawn-O Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Yeah, it was amusing hearing that explanation. Basically: If a player on the field takes his helmet off, it's an immediate penalty, but if a player who was not on the field goes running onto the field after a play to argue with a referee, it's not an automatic penalty - it's up to the referee's discretion. Makes total sense...got it! I smell a rule change at the next owner's meeting. Quote
MafiaMan Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 I see. So any player who wants to can run from the sidelines onto the field for a quick conversation with the ref about a penalty now? D'okay! 1 Quote
Cratter Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 There's the Tom Brady Rule and the Dallas Cowboys Rule. Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 There's the Tom Brady Rule and the Dallas Cowboys Rule. I believe this is the infamous "Tuck Rule" playoff game in 2002. Considering how strained the relationship between Al Davis and the rest of the league has been over the years, it makes you wonder. Quote
jdub27 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 I believe this is the infamous "Tuck Rule" playoff game in 2002. Considering how strained the relationship between Al Davis and the rest of the league has been over the years, it makes you wonder. You realize that play was correctly called by the rules at the time correct? It was only originally ruled a fumble because that ensured they could review it as incomplete passes aren't reviewable (which is what the referees were taught to do). The Patroits were also on the other side of the exact same call earlier in the season. And also this little tidbit: On a timeout, Raiders cornerback Eric Allen, while lurking at the Patriots sideline, heard Brady talking to the offensive coordinator. Allen states that he heard Brady call a 3 by 1 slants route. Right after hearing the play, Allen rushed to his sideline and told his team what he had heard. While they were slightly out of field goal range, Brady dropped back to pass, using the same play he had told his coordinator. While pumping the football, Brady was hit on his right side by Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson. While it appeared that Brady had dropped the ball, the referees were not sure and ruled it a fumble so they could review the play. Quote
Cratter Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Except tom Brady had already tucked the ball in as both hands were on the ball when it was fumbled. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pDQAmuZ8t94 Quote
petey23 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Watching the game, I thought it was clearly pass interference. Watching replay, it was a close call. I wonder if the flag was thrown for face guarding. If so, I don't believe that was accurate. The Dallas guy had his left hand in contact with the receiver, but didn't raise both hands up making it look like face guarding until after ball got there. I think he raised them trying to show he wasn't touching the guy. The fact there was contact could have drawn the flag but NFL refs are so inconsistent, this sometimes gets called and sometimes not. I haven't reffed in about 30 yrs but I would have thrown the flag and wouldn't have let someone talk me into picking it up. Cowboy defender also had a handful of jersey earlier in the play. On the 4th down conversion to Witten the NFL has also now admitted they "missed" the bear hug on Suh which would have made it 4th and very long. Also on the penalty on Levy where he tackled the dallas runningback on the screen play and Romo completed the pass to him laying on the ground...on that same play the Detroit rusher coming up the middle has the Cowboy lineman's hand grabbing his facemask which would have been 15. Quote
jodcon Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 I see. So any player who wants to can run from the sidelines onto the field for a quick conversation with the ref about a penalty now? D'okay! Not anybody, only a Dallas crybaby receiver like Pearson, Irvin, and now Bryant. And obviously Ray Lewis could have, because...you know... Quote
MafiaMan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 On the game-winning drive, the Lions were called for what, was it THREE penalties? And now the NFL admits that Suh was held on a key 4th and 6 which would have resulted in a 4th and 16? Wow, just wow. I've cracked the code. Roger Staubach and Tom Landry were the shooters on the grassy knoll. 1 Quote
MafiaMan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Yes, really. Got a problem with that? Just a bit stunned that such a big fan of the political party that prides itself on diversity and tolerance would use such a slur, that's all. 1 Quote
sioux rube Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 On the game-winning drive, the Lions were called for what, was it THREE penalties? And now the NFL admits that Suh was held on a key 4th and 6 which would have resulted in a 4th and 16? Wow, just wow. I've cracked the code. Roger Staubach and Tom Landry were the shooters on the grassy knoll. NFL admitted to Lions today that officials missed a hold on Ndamukong Suh on the 4th-down conversion from Tony Romo to Jason Witten with 6 minutes left in the g...ame (after the controversial Brandob Pettigrew play and before the Dallas TD). Had holding been called, it would have put Cowboys in 4th and 16 on Detroit side of the field. Dallas would have punted and Detroit still would have the lead. One person said that this is "even worse than the PI call/no call." Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Just a bit stunned that such a big fan of the political party that prides itself on diversity and tolerance would use such a slur, that's all. What, Cowgirls? That is tame compared to some things I could have posted (not without being suspended that is). And Fudge Packers? That is an old one, surprised that you were shocked at its use. And please remember, while most politically correct people are progressive, most progressives are not politically correct. And that goes double for me. Quote
jdub27 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Wait, what?? NFL tells Cowboys they missed seven penalties on Lions as well Hill specifically mentioned two calls that the NFL admitted it missed. There was an illegal hands to the face that knocked offensive tackle Jermey Parnell's helmet off, but no call. And on the play before the fourth and 6 that Witten converted, the one that Suh was held, the NFL told the Cowboys they missed a defensive holding. That would have given Dallas a first down. So, of course, logical and smart people know the game wasn't fixed. Officials fixing games don't often fail to call seven penalties that would help the team they want to win. Quote
MafiaMan Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Wait, what??NFL tells Cowboys they missed seven penalties on Lions as well Obviously trying to cover their tracks...what's that, TEN missed penalties in a key playoff game? If this crew is so inept, I can only assume they won't be working this weekend's games, right? Quote
jdub27 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Obviously trying to cover their tracks...what's that, TEN missed penalties in a key playoff game? If this crew is so inept, I can only assume they won't be working this weekend's games, right? Honestly, I would think that isn't that far out of the ordinary. Per the article, teams send in a list of plays every week for review, but it usually is never made this public. But what better way to "prove" you aren't rigging the games than missing calls that benefit the team you have already decided is going to win. Brilliant! Quote
darell1976 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Time to start fining or fire officials. If they can't do their job get them out. There are plenty of college officials that would love a shot at the bigs. Quote
jdub27 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Time to start fining or fire officials. If they can't do their job get them out. There are plenty of college officials that would love a shot at the bigs. Uhhhh, those guys miss calls too. If you think college officials would come in and automatically be better, you don't understand how the refereeing hierarchy works. Refs are graded on every game. The good ones get more assignments and playoff games. None of them are going to catch everything especially with how fast the game happens. And while there were no D-1 refs, the replacement guys sure did an excellent job during the referee lockout a few years ago didn't they? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.