Did the Lions Get a Game "Stealered" from Them?

[Distant Relative]

They picked the flag up so it wasn't a penalty. Bad call?..... Absolutely! Steelerized?..... No way no how! Not even close.


Go Hawks!

[Hawktown]

]looks to me from this angle that the lions receiver committed the penalty to begin with.

Might want to hit that optometrist and get things checked out.

you may also want to go see that optometrist. if you look at this angle again, the WR had his hand in the face mask for a few quick turns and downward motion of the DB's head before the DB put his hand on the WR. The hand on the WR IMO was not much to worry about either. The DB could have been called for DPI as I have seen much worse called than that. The hold at the beginning of the play is where it should have called on the DB.

[Hawktown]

oops, forgot link again.... https://vine.co/v/OdD5hWMBK2q

dude couldn't even turn to look at the ball if he tried plus his helmet was pulled down over his eyes. So please, explain to me again where the WR did not face mask before the DB put his hands up and either interfered or his hand was pushed in that direction from the WR having his hand removed from the DB's face mask?

[depaashaas]

oops, forgot link again.... https://vine.co/v/OdD5hWMBK2q

There you go, everyone says he should have looked for the ball. How can you when someone grabs your face mask like that. Maybe the lions receiver got some pointers from golden tate, "just act like what ever you did, did not happen even if you have to grab defender or push defender in the back" LOL

[RiverDog]

I think Stafford was throwing a back shoulder ball. The reciever was aware of it. The linebacker panicked and fouled the reciever. It was a clear foul, it doesn't have to be a perfect ball, just catch-able. Nothing else in the what if game matters, it was a foul on the play, period. Nobody is debating Detroit left plays on the field. But the momentum swung right there, especially the way the call was handled, and it had an impact on the outcome.

The momentum didn't swing there, it swung on the ensuing play when the Detroit punter shanked the punt and left the Cowboys with a short field to score the eventual winning TD. Had he done his job and put that ball inside the 10, we might be having an entirely different conversation.

[monkey]

Monkey,

Hitchens' clearly makes contact with and impedes Pettigrew's right arm before the ball arrives. If he had turned around to look for the ball you can argue that the contact was incidental. But because Hitchens never makes a play on the ball and at the same time physically hinders Pettigrew to make a play prior to the ball getting there, it's a PI.

All in all the Lions have themselves to blame for only scoring 6 points on that defense over the last 3 quarters but the refs blew that call for sure. And yes the lack of a Penalty on Dez makes it all moot. Should have been first down Lions.

Absolutely. I guess I didn't make myself very clear, I wasn't saying that it was face guarding, what I was trying to say is that I can understand why the ref picked up the flag if that was all he saw.
Having said that, not only was it interference, it was also defensive holding just before the interference, and illegal hands to the face mask on Pettigrew. The fact is they were both pushing and pulling, hand checking all the way through his route. Flags could have been thrown either way...

Bottom line is, you're absolutely right saying that there could have been a flag there, for SOMETHING..take your pick what for, there were three or four possible fouls on that play (including illegal hands to the face on the TE!); but I can understand why that judge picked the flag up, and more importantly, I do NOT think the Lions got jobbed out of the game just because one call didn't go their way!

They had SO MANY CHANCES to put that game away! The Lions crapped the bed, like they always do. They had an early lead and squandered it by not playing good offense OR defense. They're losers. Period.

[NorthHawk]

I don't think much would have been said about that sequence of events if they had happened in the first half or early 3rd quarter. However at the crucial time of the game, the refs mistakes are magnified and have a lot more significance.
In this case, it might have been the difference between a Lions win or the result we got. We don't know what might have happened had the flag not been picked up.

[monkey]

It may seem like a crucial time, but again, Detroit had the chance to put Dallas away early and failed to, without the refs help.
The truth is, they outplayed Dallas for most of the game, but when the chips were down, they folded. As usual for the Lions.
There were several other bad calls in that game as well, I can think of three other egregious ones, two of them in Detroit's favor. No one is talking about those but they happened too...

[RiverDog]

It may seem like a crucial time, but again, Detroit had the chance to put Dallas away early and failed to, without the refs help.
The truth is, they outplayed Dallas for most of the game, but when the chips were down, they folded. As usual for the Lions.
There were several other bad calls in that game as well, I can think of three other egregious ones, two of them in Detroit's favor. No one is talking about those but they happened too...

I thought that, too, as one of the thoughts that went through my mind when they picked up the call was that it was one of those make-up calls, but I couldn't remember the specifics of the calls that went Detroit's way.

I saw where Tony Dungy thought that the ref's refusal to flag a helmet-less Dez Bryant for coming out on the field to protest a call as a worse injustice than the missed PI.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo ... 29142.html

[kalibane]

There you go, everyone says he should have looked for the ball. How can you when someone grabs your face mask like that. Maybe the lions receiver got some pointers from golden tate, "just act like what ever you did, did not happen even if you have to grab defender or push defender in the back" LOL

1. This reply is for both you and Hawktown since you're both on this facemask thing and you're both wrong about it.

2. There is no facemask penalty that should have been called on this play. The NFL removed the five yard incidental facemask penalty from the game years ago. Only the 15 yard personal foul variety is a penalty now.

3. In order to draw the 15 yard variety you must actually grab ahold of the facemask, not let go and the helmet must be turned, whether it's from the person grabbing it or the player being grabbed moving in an opposite direction. Pettigrew never actually grabbed the facemask. His fingers made contact but he never wrapped his fingers around it and he removed his hand immediately. This is a text book example of the exact incidental contact penalty that was removed from the game.

4. Hitchens never attempted to look for the ball. If Pettigrew really did have ahold of the facemask, which we just established he didn't, and Hitchens attempted to turn for the ball it would have pulled the helmet to the side and a flag would have been thrown. So sorry, he made no play on the ball and this did not prevent him from attempting to.

5. Hitchens clearly held Pettigrew both before the non-facemask and before the pass interference.

There was no penalty on Pettigrew and they never should have picked up the flag. The refs completely blew this call plain and simple. Hawktown, you still need to make that appointment with your optometrist.

P.S. I had mine last month and my vision is perfect.

[kalibane]

Absolutely. I guess I didn't make myself very clear, I wasn't saying that it was face guarding, what I was trying to say is that I can understand why the ref picked up the flag if that was all he saw.
Having said that, not only was it interference, it was also defensive holding just before the interference, and illegal hands to the face mask on Pettigrew. The fact is they were both pushing and pulling, hand checking all the way through his route. Flags could have been thrown either way...

Bottom line is, you're absolutely right saying that there could have been a flag there, for SOMETHING..take your pick what for, there were three or four possible fouls on that play (including illegal hands to the face on the TE!); but I can understand why that judge picked the flag up, and more importantly, I do NOT think the Lions got jobbed out of the game just because one call didn't go their way!

They had SO MANY CHANCES to put that game away! The Lions crapped the bed, like they always do. They had an early lead and squandered it by not playing good offense OR defense. They're losers. Period.

Hand fighting is allowed so I still disagree with you. I'm a very big proponent of the fact that receivers should be flagged more for PI but I see nothing on this play that should be a flag from Pettigrew. Sure he made contact with the facemask when he turned to try and catch the ball but I just covered why that's not a flag. Pettigrew didn't push off so there is no Offensive PI.

All that happened was Hitchens was beaten clean, then he held, then he interfered. Not a "could have" situation... he should have been flagged. Pettigrew should not have.

I don't think it's so much the timing in the game as much as it is the fact that had they thrown the flag the Lions almost certainly come away with at least 3 points because that play puts them in short field goal range. The refs essentially took points off the board and instead there is a shanked punt and the Cowboys get a short field. That's a pretty big swing.

Again I'm not saying the refs stole the game but they certainly made it way tougher on the Lions than it should have been.

[burrrton]

I saw where Tony Dungy thought that the ref's refusal to flag a helmet-less Dez Bryant for coming out on the field to protest a call as a worse injustice than the missed PI.

Weird. I keep bringing this up, but it's only because I'm confused- the rule Dungy cites refers to *removing* a helmet, not simply being on the field without a helmet, and as I've brought up a couple times, we've seen instances where non-helmeted players being on the field have not drawn a flag.

So is Dungy incorrect, or should ET (for example) have been flagged when he ran out and jumped on ML after BQ2, or (most likely to me pondering this) are there special circumstances that warrant the flag and others that do not?

[c_hawkbob]

They made a huge deal out of emphasizing rules about not leaving the bench to protest calls or engage in a brawl or anything not too long ago. They made it clear that it would be zero tolerance and now this Blandino clown is acting like it's a discretionary call ... he's worse than Pereira ever was.

NFL officiating is becoming a joke nearly comparable to NBA officiating. It's a shame.

[burrrton]

They made a huge deal out of emphasizing rules about not leaving the bench to protest calls or engage in a brawl or anything not too long ago.

Ah- makes sense.

[Oly]

I'd like to take a moment of silence to remember the time when defenses could play defense.



I know that this was a penalty, but I sure as hell hope it wasn't. The way I see it, the jersey grab didn't seem to slow down the TE at all, and even if the LB didn't swat away his arm the TE would never have been able to catch that ball. It was thrown into the LB, who had good position. I would like to see this as good defense, but in this offense glorifying league it isn't.

And while I'm at it, you damn kids need to get off my lawn!

But wait, there's more! And that's the facemask thing.

2. There is no facemask penalty that should have been called on this play. The NFL removed the five yard incidental facemask penalty from the game years ago. Only the 15 yard personal foul variety is a penalty now.

3. In order to draw the 15 yard variety you must actually grab ahold of the facemask, not let go and the helmet must be turned, whether it's from the person grabbing it or the player being grabbed moving in an opposite direction. Pettigrew never actually grabbed the facemask. His fingers made contact but he never wrapped his fingers around it and he removed his hand immediately. This is a text book example of the exact incidental contact penalty that was removed from the game.

Totally agreed. Not a penalty.

4. Hitchens never attempted to look for the ball. If Pettigrew really did have ahold of the facemask, which we just established he didn't, and Hitchens attempted to turn for the ball it would have pulled the helmet to the side and a flag would have been thrown. So sorry, he made no play on the ball and this did not prevent him from attempting to.

This is where you and I differ, kalibane. When I see the video (https://vine.co/v/OdD5hWMBK2q), it's clear that while Pettigrew doesn't wrap his fingers around the facemask, he certainly pulls it down. It goes down far enough that there is no way the LB could even see Pettigrew's face, which he'd need to do before even knowing that it was time to turn around and play the ball. Having the helmet tugged, even just a little, prevented him from playing the ball.

But this is where I go back to my old man rant above. To me, both players were using their arms to beat the other guy to the ball. There were a bunch of little things both players did to help them get position, but I wish that the NFL rules allowed it to happen. In other words, I think Pettigrew absolutely made it hard for Hitchins to play the ball, and Hitchens absolutely did what he could to make it hard for Pettigrew to play the ball, and I'm okay with that. The only thing that would change my mind is if Stafford didn't throw the ball into Hitchins, and instead threw it to where Pettigrew could have used his right hand to catch it, then Hitchins swatting his arm would be PI. But I can't look at this play and honestly say that without the jersey grab or the swat that Pettigrew would have been able to catch that pass.


But Bryant should have absolutely been penalized. That, plus the fact that a flag on Hitchins was picked up, is enough to make me think that someone wanted a Cowboys-Packers matchup.

[Distant Relative]

[/quote]

1. This reply is for both you and Hawktown since you're both on this facemask thing and you're both wrong about it.

2. There is no facemask penalty that should have been called on this play. The NFL removed the five yard incidental facemask penalty from the game years ago. Only the 15 yard personal foul variety is a penalty now.

3. In order to draw the 15 yard variety you must actually grab ahold of the facemask, not let go and the helmet must be turned, whether it's from the person grabbing it or the player being grabbed moving in an opposite direction. Pettigrew never actually grabbed the facemask. His fingers made contact but he never wrapped his fingers around it and he removed his hand immediately. This is a text book example of the exact incidental contact penalty that was removed from the game.

4. Hitchens never attempted to look for the ball. If Pettigrew really did have ahold of the facemask, which we just established he didn't, and Hitchens attempted to turn for the ball it would have pulled the helmet to the side and a flag would have been thrown. So sorry, he made no play on the ball and this did not prevent him from attempting to.

5. Hitchens clearly held Pettigrew both before the non-facemask and before the pass interference.

There was no penalty on Pettigrew and they never should have picked up the flag. The refs completely blew this call plain and simple. Hawktown, you still need to make that appointment with your optometrist.

P.S. I had mine last month and my vision is perfect. [/quote]

Here is how the actual Face mask rule is written .Pettigrew put his hands on Hitchens' face mask, which could (and should) have been a penalty for violating Rule 12, Section 2, Article 14 of the NFL rulebook. ("No player shall grasp and control, twist, turn, [b]push or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.")[/b]

[Distant Relative]

Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(j) prohibits "removal of a helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player."

[Oly]

Here is how the actual Face mask rule is written .Pettigrew put his hands on Hitchens' face mask, which could (and should) have been a penalty for violating Rule 12, Section 2, Article 14 of the NFL rulebook. ("No player shall grasp and control, twist, turn, push or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.")

But as kalibane noted, this doesn't include incidental contact. It looks to me like Pettigrew had his arm extended to give himself space, and the contact happened. I don't see an intentional push. It seems like the fingers got inside the facemask and, running like he is with his hand extended, his arm just dropped. Running like he was, it's almost impossible to keep your arm from dipping a couple of inches, and I think that's what pulled the facemask down.

[kalibane]

Oly,

One of the problems that a lot of people don't talk about often is that players don't wear helmets that fit correctly nor do they buckle their chin straps tightly (if at all). This is why we constantly see helmets coming off these days. You just agreed that the contact to Hitchen's face mask was incidental and that he didn't actually grab the facemask.

That makes it impossible for him to pull the facemask down. Rather the force of this hand knocked the helmet down slightly and that is an issue with helmet fit/proper chin strap fastening, not Pettigrew's fault. And regardless of how well he could or couldn't see (pure conjecture on your part) he didn't even make an attempt to find the ball, he was purely face guarding out of desperation because he was beaten on the play, which is fine except in the process he made contact with the receiver's arm that impeded the receiver's ability to make the catch. By rule this is pass interference.

Pettigrew did not push off or in anyway use physical force that prevented Hitchens from moving in any way of his choosing that was physically possible given his momentum and body positioning.

Finally we can lament the ticky tack nature of the way flags are thrown in the passing game until the cows come home but that is a debate for the offseason. What is more important in actual games (and this applies for all sports) is the consistency of calls and this play in today's game is always called PI, and it should have in this case too.

[Distant Relative]

If Pettigrew would have had possession of the ball it would have been a different story as it would have just been considered a stiff arm. No way that was incidental contact, he clearly pushes the face mask to clear room for a ball that was under thrown. If you watch the above link you can see the ball coming in the background and see that it's coming in short. Looks to me like the TE was trying to push the LB away to clear room for the catch.

You don't have to grasp a face mask for it to be a penalty. ("No player shall grasp and control, twist, turn push or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.")

Lots of things went wrong on the play in question. The biggest thing for me was the fact that Dez didn't get called for entering the field of play with out his helmet.

[kalibane]

Distant,

At no point did Pettigrew grasp and control, twist, turn, push or pull the facemask of an Hitchens in any direction. He struck the facemask with his hand and immediately removed it. Under the old rules this probably drawn the 5 yard variety. Acting like this contact with the facemask was worthy of a 15 yard personal foul is ridiculous. He NEVER had a hold on the mask.

They removed the 5 yard variety precisely so plays like this wouldn't result in a penalty just because there happened to be contact to the facemask.

[kalibane]

If Pettigrew would have had possession of the ball it would have been a different story as it would have just been considered a stiff arm. No way that was incidental contact, he clearly pushes the face mask to clear room for a ball that was under thrown. If you watch the above link you can see the ball coming in the background and see that it's coming in short. Looks to me like the TE was trying to push the LB away to clear room for the catch.

You don't have to grasp a face mask for it to be a penalty. ("No player shall grasp and control, twist, turn push or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.")

Lots of things went wrong on the play in question. The biggest thing for me was the fact that Dez didn't get called for entering the field of play with out his helmet.

You couldn't be more wrong Distant. Possession of the ball has zero to do with a facemask call. You will get a face mask by using a stiff arm if you leave your hand on the facemask to long and push the opponents head up or pull it down. Pettigrew does neither.

This is incidental contact that had no effect on which way Hitchens head was positioned and his hand came immediately away from the mask. This was absolutely not a penalty and of all the penalties people are saying "could" have been called on this play this one is the worst interpretation of the rules. If this is a penalty there would be 3-4 personal fouls for fask mask per game. Again it's the EXACT kind of play that they removed the 5 yard minor facemask penalty for.

For God's sake Pettigrew had his hand on the mask for 2 seconds OF A SLO-MO REPLAY it doesn't get more incidental than that.

[burrrton]

Splitting hairs re: the Dez "no helmet" thing: is it significant that the rule explicitly includes language specifying *removal* of the helmet, rather than just being on the field without one?

Or maybe it simply should have been a penalty because he left the bench (with or without his helmet) to protest the call?

[Oly]

Oly,

One of the problems that a lot of people don't talk about often is that players don't wear helmets that fit correctly nor do they buckle their chin straps tightly (if at all). This is why we constantly see helmets coming off these days. You just agreed that the contact to Hitchen's face mask was incidental and that he didn't actually grab the facemask.

That makes it impossible for him to pull the facemask down. Rather the force of this hand knocked the helmet down slightly and that is an issue with helmet fit/proper chin strap fastening, not Pettigrew's fault.

Totally agree. I thought that was clear in my post, but maybe not...

And regardless of how well he could or couldn't see (pure conjecture on your part)

Not really conjecture. When you look at the Vine clip linked above, it's clearly pulled down to the bridge of his nose, covering his eyes. I agree it's not a penalty for Pettigrew to do this, and it very well may be Hitchins' fault for not having a helmet that fits. But regardless of fault, it may explain why he didn't turn around. Which is related to...

he didn't even make an attempt to find the ball, he was purely face guarding out of desperation because he was beaten on the play,

That may well be true, and it seems likely that even without the helmet covering his eyes he wouldn't have turned, but that's conjecture. But regardless, when you say that "regardless of how well he could or couldn't see, he didn't even make an attempt to find the ball," I think it misses the fact that not seeing impedes your ability to find the ball. Good defenders--Sherman is the best example today--read the receiver's eyes to judge when to turn, because you don't want to turn too early. If you can't see, you won't know when to turn.

which is fine except in the process he made contact with the receiver's arm that impeded the receiver's ability to make the catch.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Unless Pettigrew's arm was 2 feet longer, it's not going to reach the ball even if it wasn't pushed. I think that when Stafford threw the ball into Hitchins' back, he made the ball uncatchable.

Pettigrew did not push off or in anyway use physical force that prevented Hitchens from moving in any way of his choosing that was physically possible given his momentum and body positioning.

True, but beside the point given Hitchins' inability to see.

Finally we can lament the ticky tack nature of the way flags are thrown in the passing game until the cows come home but that is a debate for the offseason. What is more important in actual games (and this applies for all sports) is the consistency of calls and this play in today's game is always called PI, and it should have in this case too.

Again, I agree completely. My point is only that the justification for the flag is found solely in the fact that these crap flags are always thrown, not because Pettigrew would have been able to catch that pass without the contact.

[Hawktown]

I see how you come to your conclusion Kalbane. I would have to disagree on the incidental contact to the face mask still though. If you pause the video i linked to you right at the beginning, you will see that Pettigrews hand was on Hitchens face mask at the same time stafford releases the ball. Is this not illegal contact past 5 yards and impeding on the defenders ability to even make a move on the ball? My Perfect vision would say yes it is not incidental contact, Petigrew INTENTIONALLY put his hand there. There may have not been a push but it sure would explain why ANYONE would have a hard time looking toward the ball when your helmet is being forced down your face. Not that i am saying Hitchens tried without success to turn his head either. I am cool with the outcome but it IMO is clearly up to interpretation on that incident.

The rule reads, if i have the right one lol.

GRASPING FACEMASK
Article 5 No player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.
Penalty: For twisting, turning, or pulling the mask: Loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may
be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be of a flagrant nature.
A.R. 12.12 Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1’s
facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn, or pull.
Ruling: A’s ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No Foul.

I, with my PERFECT VISION, see intentional hand to the face as the ball was released and then a slight (very slight) pull on the helmet in the same direction they were running so it makes it harder for a ref, or anyone for that matter, in real time to see. Now we can debate whether or not he INTENDED to put his hand on his face or not but the hand out to IMPEDE hitchens ability to defend was IMO clearly there. The finger tips wrapping the face mask is also an indication. His fingers did not just enter his face mask and remove them without impeding on hitchens abilities.

Before Petigrew even removes his hand from the face mask Hitchens swats at Petigrews hand to remove it himself as Hitchens sticks his hand in the air appearing to attempt and show he is not trying to interfere with petigrew. Now then we could debate whether Hitchens intentionally put his hand on Petigrews shoulder or if that was a product of Hitchens trying to put his hands in the air and Petigrews hand being removed from his face mask made his hand go to the shoulder first or not.

Watch the video i linked again and then watch closely the movement of the helmet around Hitchens face. You can't even see his eyes, only his nose.

Again, either way, i don't care and i actually agree that it shouldn't be flagged. You just called into question my vision and even though we both see clearly what happened, it can be interpreted differently.

[burrrton]

I think that when Stafford threw the ball into Hitchins' back, he made the ball uncatchable.

Er, not sure you're using the term "uncatchable" correctly as it pertains to the NFL.

I think it misses the fact that not seeing impedes your ability to find the ball.

Seeing or not seeing has nothing to do with a defender's obligation to play the ball.

There was a lot of contact from both with most of it falling clearly under the incidental category (except for the DB's hold), then the DB made contact while not playing the ball on a catchable pass (no, the DB blanketing the receiver does not make it 'uncatchable' in the NFL's defintion).

That's as clear an example of PI as you'll generally see.

[edit]

And FTR, I don't know about the facemask- it's pretty incidental, but if you want to argue for offsetting instead of DPI, I wouldn't argue about it.

[Hawktown]

wow! I see a lot went on while i posted this! LOL!!!

[kalibane]

Oly,

1. Whether Pettigrew actually makes the catch without the interference is immaterial. It was in a place within his reach making the ball by definition "catchable" and by restricting Pettigrews arm movement by definition he is guilty of interfering. The ball did in fact end up hitting him in the hand that was restricted by Hitchen's contact.

2. How well Hitchens can see is indeed pure conjecture. I would agree his vision was affected but you have no clue to what degree. I'm sure you've seen people do things, or they you, when one of you thought the other was not in sight.

3. That Hitchens didn't make an attempt to find the ball is not conjecture. At no point did he try to turn and look for the ball. The fact that he couldn't see the receivers eyes does not relieve him of the obligation to try to make a play on the ball while defending a pass. And for the record not that Sherman doesn't read eyes ever he uses positioning and technique and a hand physically on the receiver to keep track of his position while peaking in the backfield. On many of his sideline interceptions he has turned to look for the ball and make a play before the receiver does. (It's also why he has been victimized by double moves on occasion).

4. It's not solely based on the fact that these flags are always thrown. I just said you could argue that topic but it would make little difference. Despite there not being heavy contact if you impede the receiver's hand from reaching for the ball it should be PI every time. Hitchens has to make a turn to look for the ball in order for that to not be PI. Has to. It's the only way you can consider the restriction of the receivers arm movement as incidental.

[kalibane]

I see how you come to your conclusion Kalbane. I would have to disagree on the incidental contact to the face mask still though. If you pause the video i linked to you right at the beginning, you will see that Pettigrews hand was on Hitchens face mask at the same time stafford releases the ball. Is this not illegal contact past 5 yards and impeding on the defenders ability to even make a move on the ball? My Perfect vision would say yes it is not incidental contact, Petigrew INTENTIONALLY put his hand there. There may have not been a push but it sure would explain why ANYONE would have a hard time looking toward the ball when your helmet is being forced down your face. Not that i am saying Hitchens tried without success to turn his head either. I am cool with the outcome but it IMO is clearly up to interpretation on that incident.

This is as incidental as it gets. He never grabbed or pulled. It doesn't explain anything about Hitchen's failure to look for a ball. It is physically impossible to look back for the ball without turning your body in the position that Hitchens was in. He didn't even attempt to turn his head or body after the ball fell incomplete. He just ran through the fallen Pettigrew. It's baffling that you are trying to defend this. His head HAS to come around in some form or fashion and even if god struck him blind in that moment it doesn't prevent him from turning his head. He simply never tried.

I, with my PERFECT VISION, see intentional hand to the face as the ball was released and then a slight (very slight) pull on the helmet in the same direction they were running so it makes it harder for a ref, or anyone for that matter, in real time to see. Now we can debate whether or not he INTENDED to put his hand on his face or not but the hand out to IMPEDE hitchens ability to defend was IMO clearly there. The finger tips wrapping the face mask is also an indication. His fingers did not just enter his face mask and remove them without impeding on hitchens abilities.

I assure you it's quite impossible to pull on something that you don't have a grasp on. At no point did Pettigrew have a grasp on the facemask. It renders your whole theory moot. I have NEVER seen contact like this flagged for a 15 yard penalty. Pettigrew struck his facemask and it came down. That's not a penalty. It's a sign of a poorly fitted or loosely buckled helmet.

Before Petigrew even removes his hand from the face mask Hitchens swats at Petigrews hand to remove it himself as Hitchens sticks his hand in the air appearing to attempt and show he is not trying to interfere with petigrew. Now then we could debate whether Hitchens intentionally put his hand on Petigrews shoulder or if that was a product of Hitchens trying to put his hands in the air and Petigrews hand being removed from his face mask made his hand go to the shoulder first or not.

Again purely irrelevant. As I said. His hand was on the face mask for 2 seconds of a slo-mo video. His hand had contact with the mask for a max of 1.5 seconds (being generous) of real time and never had a hold of it. There is NO way this is a 15 yard flagrant foul.

Watch the video i linked again and then watch closely the movement of the helmet around Hitchens face. You can't even see his eyes, only his nose.

And? Buckle your chinstrap properly and then someone hitting your facemask for a second won't result in your helmet moving to a position that can impede your vision. This has nothing to do with nothing. HItchin's inability to see is not in anyway a factor in whether this is a facemask penalty or not.

Again, either way, i don't care and i actually agree that it shouldn't be flagged. You just called into question my vision and even though we both see clearly what happened, it can be interpreted differently.

My crack on your vision was not literal. But you clearly don't understand the Face Mask rule in the NFL. In 1993 it was a five yard face mask. Today it's nothing.

[burrrton]

In 1993 it was a five yard face mask. Today it's nothing.

This is worth repeating for those thinking the facemask contact is germane.

The only facemask penalty that exists anymore is the 15-yard variety, so if you don't think the receiver's contact rose to that level (and I haven't seen anybody argue it has), you can quit talking about the facemask bump.

[Hawk Sista]

I think it would be interesting to have two test groups to see how the commentating impacts how they feel about the quality of the officials/officiating. One group would watch a series of plays (or even a whole game) with the announcers totally agreeing with officiating calls while in another room... a different group watches the same plays/game with the opposite..... a more Buck and Aikman overreaction type crew. Then measure how each person perceived the quality of the officiating.

The way they went on and on and on about the RTP call in the niner game, you'd think the defender never even touched Wilson.

[RiverDog]

Splitting hairs re: the Dez "no helmet" thing: is it significant that the rule explicitly includes language specifying *removal* of the helmet, rather than just being on the field without one?

Or maybe it simply should have been a penalty because he left the bench (with or without his helmet) to protest the call?

Interesting observation. It's hard for me to tell if "removal" was just a common verb used to define any player with his helmet off or if is operative term in this situation. Ripping off your helmet is an action meant to intimidate another player/ref, so perhaps it does make a difference whether the helmet was already off when Bryant protested.

Nevertheless, it's obvious the ref would have been justified in flagging Dez for his tirade as he did come well onto the field of play, but I do have to appreciate the fact that the ref was trying not to let themselves be the ones that decide a close, season ending game, and that's coming from a guy that despises the Cowboys as much as any professional franchise and doesn't have a whole lot of respect for Dez Bryant.

[kalibane]

It's not even a question Sis. The commentary does skew the perception, maybe not for every single person but the majority of the population definitely will mirror the commentator's feelings. They have the power to very much sway public opinion.

I think one of the great examples of this was when Joe Buck had a conniption over Randy Moss "Mooning" the fans in Lambeau Field. It has to be the most ridiculous controversy I can think of in the last 20 years. Buck, and in turn a lot of fans outside of Green Bay, were acting like he actually dropped trow on the field or something.

Green Bay fans got it because for years they have been mooning opposing players for years and years. So it was kind of a touché moment. I'm willing to bet anything that if Buck had known and/or explained what it was about and chuckled instead of pretending it was a moral tragedy, the national narrative (if one existed at all) would have been that it was an amusing stoking of a decades old rivalry and nothing more.

Even in this case there are a lot of people thinking this flag pick up is one of the worst blunders in NFL history and that's just not the case. Obvious blunder but one of the worst ever? No way. There have been many PI calls/non-calls alone that have been worse than this one.

[kalibane]

Interesting observation. It's hard for me to tell if "removal" was just a common verb used to define any player with his helmet off or if is operative term in this situation. Ripping off your helmet is an action meant to intimidate another player/ref, so perhaps it does make a difference whether the helmet was already off when Bryant protested.

Nevertheless, it's obvious the ref would have been justified in flagging Dez for his tirade as he did come well onto the field of play, but I do have to appreciate the fact that the ref was trying not to let themselves be the ones that decide a close, season ending game, and that's coming from a guy that despises the Cowboys as much as any professional franchise and doesn't have a whole lot of respect for Dez Bryant.

You may be fully aware of this Riv, but the irony is that the removing your helmet rule is actually lovingly known as the "Emmitt Smith Rule" it was in the height of the No Fun League crack downs on individual celebrations. Emmitt used to take his helmet off in celebration after every Touchdown and the league determined that calling individual attention to yourself in such a manner was unsportsmanlike.

I would bet dollars to donuts that after this season there will be a "Dez Bryant rule" that removes the "discretion" aspect of a player who runs on the field to argue with a ref and it will be an automatic penalty much like it would be a Technical Foul in the NBA.

[NorthHawk]

It's not even a question Sis. The commentary does skew the perception, maybe not for every single person but the majority of the population definitely will mirror the commentator's feelings. They have the power to very much sway public opinion.

I think one of the great examples of this was when Joe Buck had a conniption over Randy Moss "Mooning" the fans in Lambeau Field. It has to be the most ridiculous controversy I can think of in the last 20 years. Buck, and in turn a lot of fans outside of Green Bay, were acting like he actually dropped trow on the field or something.

Green Bay fans got it because for years they have been mooning opposing players for years and years. So it was kind of a touché moment. I'm willing to bet anything that if Buck had known and/or explained what it was about and chuckled instead of pretending it was a moral tragedy, the national narrative (if one existed at all) would have been that it was an amusing stoking of a decades old rivalry and nothing more.

Even in this case there are a lot of people thinking this flag pick up is one of the worst blunders in NFL history and that's just not the case. Obvious blunder but one of the worst ever? No way. There have been many PI calls/non-calls alone that have been worse than this one.

Commentary may skew perception, but we don't know in which way because if people are tired of the announcers it might be that the group that was chosen at random might be for the most part like a number of posters on this forum who hate Buck and Aikmen as announcers.

What would be needed is a control group that didn't have any sound from announcers.

[kalibane]

We do know North, it's been studied, not just in sports but in all kinds of settings.

Even when you take into account the vast minority of people who are truly independent thinkers and contrarians, perception among people who watch raw footage and people who watch footage with commentary always vastly differ. The conclusions drawn by those who watch with commentary will always skew much more towards those of the commentators than the control group just watching the footage.

Two scariest things about this phenomena:

1. People can, for example, be shown a tape with some fairly innocuous physical interaction between two people (they may even have smiles and other cues signifying that they are enjoying themselves). People watching raw footage will generally come up with the correct characterization of the activity. While people who watch it while being given a narrative suggesting that it's an attack of some sort by one of the people involved will generally accept that narrative.

2. Even when given a survey before hand where the answers would indicate that their general ideas about an issue run counter to the narrative being supplied many people will still override their own stated point of view and adopt that of the narrator.

People don't like to believe it but commentators have a great deal of unconscious power over shaping perception.

[monkey]

I think it would be interesting to have two test groups to see how the commentating impacts how they feel about the quality of the officials/officiating. One group would watch a series of plays (or even a whole game) with the announcers totally agreeing with officiating calls while in another room... a different group watches the same plays/game with the opposite..... a more Buck and Aikman overreaction type crew. Then measure how each person perceived the quality of the officiating.

The way they went on and on and on about the RTP call in the niner game, you'd think the defender never even touched Wilson.

The commentating ABSOLUTELY affects how fans perceive calls, you make an excellent point Sista!
I've maintained since the day it happened, that we would think of the so called "fail Mary" play completely differently had it not been fro Gruden losing his mind over it.
(I also still maintain to this day that the replacement ref got the call EXACTLY RIGHT!!! I can prove it too! What he got wrong was the no call on the push off before the catch...that should have been called, though in hail Mary plays it never does.)

[mykc14]

This will just add more fuel to the fire.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/st ... conversion

[RiverDog]

You may be fully aware of this Riv, but the irony is that the removing your helmet rule is actually lovingly known as the "Emmitt Smith Rule" it was in the height of the No Fun League crack downs on individual celebrations. Emmitt used to take his helmet off in celebration after every Touchdown and the league determined that calling individual attention to yourself in such a manner was unsportsmanlike.

I would bet dollars to donuts that after this season there will be a "Dez Bryant rule" that removes the "discretion" aspect of a player who runs on the field to argue with a ref and it will be an automatic penalty much like it would be a Technical Foul in the NBA.

To be honest, I wasn't aware that the rule was initiated by Emmitt Smith's behavior. There seemed to be an 'epidemic' of players removing their helmets on field in celebration during that period of time. I didn't like it as I felt they were calling attention to themselves and attempting to get their mug on national TV. I love all the team orientated celebrations, but I simply hate the "look at me" crapola that taking the helmet off represented.

But IMO your observation proves my point. The spirit of the rule obviously was to prevent the "look at me" T.O. type selfish demonstrations and not meant to apply to a player that already had his helmet off. If they do as you indicate they might and make it an automatic USC penalty for any player to come out on the field to argue a call, I would be fully behind it. But it was not a clear violation of the rules and the ref did have discretion and thus it was putting one helluva lot of pressure on him to make that call as he knows that at that point of the game, it's going to be controversial no matter what he decides, so I can have a lot of sympathy for him in that situation.

[Hawktawk]

The Suh admission casts an even fishier smell over this crew. The sequence of events now looks like this.

First the bizarre reversal of an obvious foul, definitely the longest delay I have ever seen and I dont believe Ive ever seen a ball re spotted and then moved back to the pre penalty location. And absolutely no public explanation in real time after a public announcement of the call.

Then as we are told a "blatant" hold on Suh enabling a 4th down conversion.And give me a break, do you really think the officials lost track of Suh for one play of the game, especially on a passing down? Its ridiculous, they chose to let a blatant hold go.
Then as previously mentioned 2 ticky tack fouls called on Detroit DBs helping the drive into the end zone.Ive seen the calls made in some games but based on the one they picked up no way. So basically its an entire sequence of reversed call, no calls,and ticky tack calls, all favoring one team.
But hey they just made a mistake, blew a few calls.

I dont know why the league does this self examination BS. There is no accountability, nothing ever changes. The Cowboys move on and Detroit gets ridiculed for even daring to complain. Hawks fans know the feeling well, better actually....

Watch the refs. They scare me more than any other variable.