Author Topic: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call  (Read 12343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« on: January 05, 2015, 10:03:03 PM »
While I can understand disagreement of whether it was DPI on the play (I personally believe no DPI), why has no one pushed back on the NFL explanation that face guarding is illegal in college. 

  What -- that was news to me!

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-35
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2015, 01:29:52 AM »
Is it an official NFL statement or just Morelli's own opinion? I think the latter, and I don't assume that all NFL officials are well versed in the current NCAA rules.

Lhaynes90

  • Guest
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2015, 02:52:57 AM »
I immediately commented on the error in the discussion section of the ESPN article I read it in - however the statement of it being illegal in college was the belief of the person who wrote the article and not something I believe was said by a member of the officiating crew. However, could be wrong

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2015, 06:12:43 AM »
The article I read had it in quotations as something Morelli said in the post game interview.  Why should we expect someone who has been off the college field for 17 years to know the college rules (although I don't think faceguarding was a NCAA foul even 17 years ago).    And what real significance is it anyway?  The issue is a NFL game where a strange situation has happened.  Has nothing to do with college football

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-35
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2015, 07:33:16 AM »
It seems that the NFL VP of officiating shares the misconception, but he doesn't have an officiating background if I understand it correctly.

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2015, 07:57:22 AM »
Funny thing is, if the back judge would have called an offensive face mask penalty. no one would have said a word and this "controversy" would never have come to light

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2015, 08:07:02 AM »
Funny thing is, if the back judge would have called an offensive face mask penalty. no one would have said a word and this "controversy" would never have come to light
Dean Blandino has been quoted as saying that would have been a stretch.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2015, 10:25:44 AM »
But from the BJ's view you could see that he could have called it. I would have just due to the way his head turned with every pull. It wasn't much of a pull but it was significant

Offline fencewire

  • *
  • Posts: 439
  • FAN REACTION: +20/-74
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2015, 01:38:25 PM »
Has nothing to do with college football

It has everything to do with college football if you call college or TX HS, becauuse.... Many people, INCLUDING and not limited to Coaches, get their information on rules and the like from TV and ESPN.  They are the ones that are hearing that face guarding is illegal in CFB and I would almost guarantee that this comes up next year in discussions, or tirades, on the sidelines.  With the coach being adamant that face guarding is a foul in CFB (TX HS) because they heard it on ESPN from a NFL official, who undoubtedly knows more about football rules than you do... 

Just my opinion.

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2015, 02:06:51 PM »
It has everything to do with college football if you call college or TX HS, becauuse.... Many people, INCLUDING and not limited to Coaches, get their information on rules and the like from TV and ESPN.  They are the ones that are hearing that face guarding is illegal in CFB and I would almost guarantee that this comes up next year in discussions, or tirades, on the sidelines.  With the coach being adamant that face guarding is a foul in CFB (TX HS) because they heard it on ESPN from a NFL official, who undoubtedly knows more about football rules than you do... 

Just my opinion.

  This is really my point in posting this thread.  Someone needs to get on the air [RR], or issue a press release [NCAA] and tell everyone that face guarding is not a penalty in the NCAA -- only in some HS games  -- so that we in Texas are not saddled with this problem.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2015, 02:13:14 PM »
Why do you believe it is the NCAA's responsibility to correct the NFL's lack of knowledge of NCAA playing rules?
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2015, 02:30:47 PM »
Why do you believe it is the NCAA's responsibility to correct the NFL's lack of knowledge of NCAA playing rules?
  Because I do not think the NFL cares enough to clear an obvious error that doesn't effect them.  The NCAA should make sure "football fans" are not left with the wrong view of an important rule that will be seen over and over again on Friday and Saturday nights.  It does us, as officials, and the coaches and teams, a disservice to have the public have a perception of a rule that is wrong because then officials are "conspiring" to cheat a team for not calling face guarding  because "they" said it was a foul in the NCAA.

   We will persevere regardless -- its just a though to be proactive to avoid the inevitable confusion that is going to come.  Better to be able to say -- "we" corrected the record at the time.

  I mean how hard would it be to issue the Press Release.  Then maybe the "experts" can make a mention in the next Cowboy broadcast when the play surely comes up.  Just my opinion.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8762
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-265
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2015, 02:35:43 PM »
Really guys!?!?!   The NCAA has nothing better to do than respond to misstatements by people not even connected to their game or about one of their games?  The sheep who get misinformed by Morelli get just as misinformed every week by the talking heads DURING college games with no NCAA response.  It is no big deal. 

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2015, 02:46:57 PM »
I know it gets things really more complicated for us down here in Brasil... but I didn't expect the NCAA to correct them. Just maybe one of the NFL officials to give a call up to Mr. Blandino al let him know that he's messing up with rules information on (inter)national television

I know NFL officials do not officiate college, but I know at least one of them coordinates an NCAA conference

I don't expect much knowledge from comentators but I did expect correct information from the NFL's head of officiating... if he doesn't know about something, either research or don't talk about it

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2015, 03:19:27 PM »
While they are at it just have them respond every time an announcer screws up a ruling. That would take a whole committee of members to fix all those wrong statements LOL

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2015, 03:45:01 PM »
  Because I do not think the NFL cares enough to clear an obvious error that doesn't effect them.  The NCAA should make sure "football fans" are not left with the wrong view of an important rule that will be seen over and over again on Friday and Saturday nights.  It does us, as officials, and the coaches and teams, a disservice to have the public have a perception of a rule that is wrong because then officials are "conspiring" to cheat a team for not calling face guarding  because "they" said it was a foul in the NCAA.

   We will persevere regardless -- its just a though to be proactive to avoid the inevitable confusion that is going to come.  Better to be able to say -- "we" corrected the record at the time.

  I mean how hard would it be to issue the Press Release.  Then maybe the "experts" can make a mention in the next Cowboy broadcast when the play surely comes up.  Just my opinion.
When did the air get thin in Texas?  cRaZy
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Sonofanump

  • *
  • Posts: 327
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-3
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2015, 04:15:31 PM »
Funny thing is, if the back judge would have called an offensive face mask penalty. no one would have said a word and this "controversy" would never have come to light

I did not think that the facemask grasp was enough, but did think that the TE push off was enough to deem that both offensive and defense were making minimal (I guess we call it chicken fighting)  contact on each other and not to call it either way.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2015, 07:44:42 PM »
I have a theory that the official who ultimately talked the B off the flag did so by having a pretty thorough explanation of all that occurred on the play.  I haven't been involved in a lot of these types of conversations in my experience, but I'm betting the conversation went something like this: "I know you have the defender with contact and he's not playing the ball, but there was also a lot of pushing and shoving off the line by both guys and the WR had the defenders FM.  I had a no-call because both players are guilty of fouls on the play and you are a long ways out on this one.  You can keep it if you want, but I promise you this is not a clean call."

What is an experienced NFL B going to say to that?

Offline BrendanP

  • *
  • Posts: 350
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-252
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2015, 08:20:25 PM »
President Obama offers his two cents on this issue:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/06/obama-lions-fan-aggravated/21363661/

As for my opinion for what little it's worth, that's PI to me.

Offline psv

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-14
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2015, 11:13:24 PM »
I think the no call was correct.  yes there was some contact, but, it didnt, in my opinion, rise to the level of needing to be called.  And there was contact from both guys.  (also, I am a cowboys fan, so take that for what it is worth).

There are MANY folks who believe face guarding is a foul in NCAA, and I agree with DallasLJ, I would like to have that inaccuracy cleared up.

It is inaccurate, why let it stand?

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2015, 04:44:50 AM »
Transcript of detailed interview with Blandino (NBC Sports/Pro Football Talk):

Florio: Let’s just break this down from the beginning, regardless of what was said or wasn’t said on the field, when you see that play, when you see the replay, is that pass interference on the defender?

Blandino: When I look at the play it’s a judgment call, I think it’s debatable.  I think the defender’s not playing the ball, I think that’s the first thing the official looks for and then he has to see significant contact that hinders the receiver’s ability to make the catch.  There’s contact on the shoulder with the left hand the back judge felt there was enough for pass interference, the head linesman came in from his perspective felt it wasn’t enough that it was minimal contact, the side judge as well, so they decided to pick it up. I think it’s a judgment call, it’s close.  I would have certainly supported the call had they left the flag down, but I do think it’s a very close judgment call that could have went either way.

Florio:  What do you make Dean, of the shirt grab that you can see, and it looks like that happened right before the ball was thrown, Anthony Hitchens the Cowboys linebacker, clearly grabs and tugs the shirt of Lions tight end Brandon Pettigrew.  Should that have been holding, is that part of the interference? What is that?

Blandino:  That’s holding.  I mean there’s no two ways about it that that’s a jersey grab, that’s a point of emphasis, that’s a foul for holding that could have been called. a jersey grab like that before the ball is thrown it is defensive holding.

Florio:  And you say could have been.  Could have been or should have been?

Blandino: Should have been, sure.  I think had somebody seen it then they should have called it and it obviously wasn’t recognized on the field but that’s defensive holding.

Florio:  Now, the administration of the penalty was I would say not ideal.  What should have happened in that situation?  Because you have Pete Morelli, the referee, declare that it as pass interference and then Morelli said there was no foul on the play.  What should have happened ideally in that situation?

Blandino:  Yeah, ideally I think mechanically it could have been handled much better. I think we don’t want to make an announcement that there’s a penalty, start to put the football down, and then make another announcement that we’re picking up the flag.  We want to get together get all of the information before there is an official announcement, and I think had that happened it would have mitigated some of the response to this.  But the head linesman came in, he didn’t recognize that there was a foul initially, he went over to the back judge as Pete was making the announcement.  Would have preferred Pete not to make the announcement that quick and to wait get together, talk about it and then decide if we were going to pick up the flag or not.  So that part of it I think we could have handled better.

Florio:  Dean, it seems like an art form to come up with the right way to explain the things that happen, and every referee has his own style. Ed Hochuli is notoriously verbose in explaining things, but what we got from Pete Morelli was, the initial call, defensive pass inference, and then we got there is no foul for pass interference.  What should he have said at that point to better explain to everyone what was happening in real time?

Blandino:  I think we wanted to make a clear, concise, distinct, announcement as to why the flag was picked up.  That there wasn’t enough contact for pass interference and hopefully that will help explain it, clarify it, so we’d like the referee to give some type of explanation.  He did make an announcement, it was as Troy [Aikman] and Joe [Buck] were talking so it didn’t come out very clear over the broadcast, but we certainly wanted to explain concisely why the flag was picked up.

Florio:  One of the criticisms raised about this is we’ve got an all-star mash-up of officials who haven’t worked together and that makes it difficult to properly communicate.  Rock, scissors, paper, who’s right?  Who gets listened to?  How much of that is a factor in this and will this renew discussions of just using entire crews rather than instead of putting guys together who haven’t worked together all year?

Blandino:  I don’t think that was ultimately the factor that led to this situation happening.  I think when you look at the crew makeup, this crew makeup we have four officials who have worked together both the head linesman and line judge were on the same crew all year, and the back judge and umpire were on the same crew all season.  We are, right now, we have an individual-based system and that’s been negotiated in the CBA, the current CBA with the referee union.  So they bargained for that, so we can’t really do anything other than the crew-based system until after the 2015 season, but I think there’s pros and cons to both.  I think communications, most of these officials have worked together some point during their career, I think our mechanics have been standardized, we standardized all our mechanics in the last two years, put together a manual, so it’s not like a team where they have a different game plan and different terminology.  It’s pretty standard across the board so officials can move seamlessly in and out of different crews and that happens during the year as well as you have injuries, illnesses and conflict with the schedule so I don’t think that was a major contributing factor.  Something we’ll obviously continue to look at after the 2015 season because I think there’s pros and cons to both crew and individual-based assignments.

Florio:  Now, another issue that arose after the flag was initially thrown, Dez Bryant, Cowboys receiver runs out onto the field without a helmet on.  It’s not the return of the days of two-way players, he’s not coming out to play defense, he’s coming out to argue the call.  No flag thrown.  Do you agree with that decision?

Blandino:  I think we have to look at the rules.  It’s not an automatic penalty and the helmet off, I think we have to take that away because the helmet removal only applies to a player who is in the game that he takes his helmet off to either confront an official or an opponent or some kind of demonstration after a play.  The officials have discretion there.  They have discretion when a player comes off the bench, what he’s doing, is he confronting me, is he confronting an opponent. Certainly would’ve supported a call for unsportsmanlike conduct there had it been made, but it’s in the judgment of the officials and in the heat of the moment they gave the sideline some leeway and, again, it’s not an automatic call in that situation but certainly would’ve supported a call there.

Florio: Now there’s also some still frames floating around of what looks to be either offensive pass interference or grabbing the facemask by Brandon Pettigrew of Andrew Hitchens.  Anything that you saw that would suggest that the tight end did anything he shouldn’t have done on that play?

Blandino:  I didn’t see much.  There is some contact with the mask.  He didn’t grab it and pull or twist the head.  I felt that was minimal contact.  I think if you take the hold out of this hold, the jersey grab, take that out of this whole equation, I think that’s just a tight judgment call, it’s debatable and could have went either way and I didn’t see anything Pettigrew did that would have warranted a foul there.

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2016, 01:54:21 PM »
I was researching and while reading my rule book during the off season, I found that it appears that face guarding is DPI according to this approved ruling.  I'm not sure when it was added.

Approved Ruling 7-3-8
I.   A Team B player, defending against a legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone, has his back to the ball and is waving his arms in the face of an eligible player of Team A, who, in his attempt to catch the pass, bumps into the Team B player. RULING: Pass interference by the Team B player, first down. He was not making a bona fide attempt to catch or bat the pass.
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2016, 02:36:24 PM »
Only because of the contact.  Not just because of the face guarding.

Offline Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 953
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: Cowboy / Lions Non-Call
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2016, 03:15:27 PM »
Exactly, goodgrr. Its not the waving, it's the fact that there was contact that prevented Team A from making a play and Team B was not playing the ball. 7-3-9-f specifically says "Physical contact is required to establish interference." Face guarding is never a foul in NCAA.