Officials tried and failed to give game to Cowboys

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Thanks, that is the first picture I've seen that clearly shows the football touch the ground. I didn't see that on any of the replays, but I feel better about the call now. Still not really sure it was "indisputable", but that helps clear it up.

That was from the reply..I dvr'd the game, and went to that play, paused it and snapped the pic..

so everyone did see that angle
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I have no idea how the official standing right next to Tramon on last pick thought it was incomplete. It wasn't even close. Looking at the game high highlights and the reaction of the Dallas sideline right next to the official, they knew it was pick.
Disagree. They hurried up because the Cowboys were in a hurry up offense and it was under 2 minutes. The side judge probably thought it hit the ground.

As to the poor officiating overall, I have to agree.

Why would they have to hurry if it was an incomplete pass? The clock was stopped.

They had a receiver run out of bounds to stop the clock on the previous play and there was no rush to get the next snap off. They rushed to try to get the next play off for no other reason than knowing that they had gotten away with one and were trying to save it.
 

P-E-Z

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
602
Reaction score
51
The only problem I had with the Tramon INT being overturned was that they called it an INT on the field and I did not think there was enough to overturn it. Just the same if they had called it incomplete I would have said there was not enough to overturn it and make it an INT.

Oh well no use in crying over spilled milk after a victory.

ball clearly moved hands not under it it was good reversal
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
Why would they have to hurry if it was an incomplete pass? The clock was stopped.

They had a receiver run out of bounds to stop the clock on the previous play and there was no rush to get the next snap off. They rushed to try to get the next play off for no other reason than knowing that they had gotten away with one and were trying to save it.
Good point. Hadn't thought of that.
 
OP
OP
GoPGo

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
I see the nose on the ground...Not sure how the rule states this..but I would say he didnt catch because the nose is clearly on the ground and no hands under it..

In chat I too said that it can go either way..

If this was Nelson it would be ruled an incomplete pass too
You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Bert Emmanuel Rule: the ball may contact the ground if it doesn't move in the player's hand. You can't tell from the video whether it moved because of the ground or if it moved because Williams was moving his hand with the ball in it. Either way, the word indisputable, meaning undeniable, does not apply and it should have been left alone. "Probably" isn't the standard to overturn.
 
OP
OP
GoPGo

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Disagree. They hurried up because the Cowboys were in a hurry up offense and it was under 2 minutes. The side judge probably thought it hit the ground.

If it was incomplete, there was no need to hurry because the clock was stopped.

And the side judge needs a seeing eye dog, some shades and a cane.
 
I

I_am_smoked_cheddar

Guest
The officiating was biased toward Dallas, many calls and non-calls were very evident. I have seen it happen before on many different levels in many different sports. I am proud of the Packers for winning against Dallas and the Officials.

I would never serve as an official as it is beyond the human eye to see every angle clearly all the time. It is a no win scenario for the official and video does not always show the hidden truth.
 
I

I asked LT to delete my acct

Guest
1st int it hit the ground.

The nfl is going look into having people in a central location reviewing plays

CLEARLY hit the floor too. And the comment made by another poster was out of order. Questioning another fans loyalty because he wasn`t wearing green/gold glasses and actually called a play as it was. The ball hit the floor AND we WON.
 

ls1bob

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
48
Location
La Grange NC
Just wondering. Is this the same official who called offsides instead of a false start that gave them a first down after the int reversal on dallas' last td drive?
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
There's an awful lot of complaining here about a call that was reversed in our favor. Even when the system works, some fans want to see conspiracy.

One thing the NFL needs to clean up is the possession-to-the-ground rule on a catch.

Here's the rule:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

So, we have Dallas completing a key 3rd. and long late in the game trying to hold the lead. I believe it was the 3rd. and 12 to Bryant for 13 yards with about 4 minutes left. He makes the "catch", turns up field while simultaneously being tackled, and the ball pops out as he contacts the ground. It's ruled a catch, no fumble.

The commentators question whether it's a fumble. The Packer players are calling for a fumble. MM reaches for his flag but doesn't throw it because the replay shows no fumble. Nobody here, and evidently nobody on the field or calling the game, questioned whether it was a catch.

The league used to say, for official guidance though not stated in the rules, that the player needs to "complete a football move" first to constitute a catch. Evidently, they don't publicize that guidance any more because of it's vagueness, but it seems to be what the officials go by.

In the Bryant case, I don't see a completed football move before contacting the ground. I fail to see a difference between this call and the controversial Megatron no-catch call from 2010.

Then we have the Aikman commentary on the Williams no-INT reversal. He said that it was hard to tell if he had full possession before the tip of the ball hit the ground. That's not an atypical comment. That doesn't matter...the player must have possession to the ground.

Nobody seems to clearly understands this rule. They should change it to something that makes sense intuitively and can be more clearly understood, applied and reviewable: two feet down with possession anywhere in the field of play is a catch. Whatever happens after than does not affect whether the ball was caught.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
Every team every game thinks they get the short end of the officiating. I am no exception. It seems there were a quite a few holding calls that could have been made on Dallas that weren't. Also saw a few PI calls that could have been made - grabbing a Packer jersey and turning his body. The pass was too this player - so you know the officials have to be looking there.

And yet Aikmen made comments last week that Packer WRs get away with a lot of pick plays.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
There's an awful lot of complaining here about a call that was reversed in our favor. Even when the system works, some fans want to see conspiracy.
I think they are discussing the 'non interception' play. Packer 'caught' the ball but as he tucked it in, the nose touched the ground. The question is, did he have control when the ball touched the ground. Packers challenged the 'no catch' ruling and was not overturned in the Packer favor.
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
The refs didn't cause the Packers' failure to show up in the first half, did they? We're lucky to win the game because of the stupidity of the Cowboys and Romo not to run the ball at the tail end of the 4th when they had the lead. I can't remember being as upset as in the first 1/2. Not since Thanksgiving, anyway. I hope the tears that MM said he had trouble holding back were tears of anger.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I think they are discussing the 'non interception' play. Packer 'caught' the ball but as he tucked it in, the nose touched the ground. The question is, did he have control when the ball touched the ground. Packers challenged the 'no catch' ruling and was not overturned in the Packer favor.
They're complaining about both calls in this thread. And the final result was correct in both cases.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I saw a couple of blatant holds on Daniels. Holding probably occurs on almost every play and it’s hard for the officials to see but what bothered me about those blatant holds was they were in plain view as Daniels had broken through the line and was pursuing the QB while a Cowboy was holding him.

I disagree with some on the call that Tramon almost intercepted. IMO replays showed it did move as it was touching the ground. I think of this rule as ‘did the ground help the player gain possession’. If part of the ball touches the ground but the ball doesn’t move in the player’s hands, the answer is no. I saw the ball move to help Tramon gain possession of it but it was a close call. Yes, sometimes that isn’t overturned but I’m not going to complain because IMO the right call was incomplete pass. And because of all the cameras at the “game of the week” there was a great shot of it. LTF’s post shows a snapshot of the replay which shows the ball moving.

The non-call I really could not and still cannot understand is the INT that ended the game:
Especially when the side judge was staring right at it 10 feet away with a great angle on it.
That’s exactly right. That official was in the perfect spot to see that catch. If he were toward the middle of the field, Tramon’s body may have blocked him from seeing it. But he was on the sideline and he was in the perfect spot to see that the ball never came close to touching the turf.


I like the college review better. IMO there’s no reason to have an official on the field look at it when the one in the booth can review it faster and should have a better view of the monitor.
 

DevilDon

Inclement Weather Fan
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
268
Just going to throw my personal opinion on the officiating: I saw bad calls go both ways.
I believed and still believed that Tramon's first interception was controlled but bounced off the field. Should not have been overturned since there wasn't evidence to reverse it. The most blatant calls were Neal for encroachment when the OT clearly moved and Tramon's 2nd interception when he wasn't ever within 3 inches of the ground.
I hate using officiating as a crutch but the Packers won so I feel okay complaining. Some of those calls were egregious.
 

PackwillBEback

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
464
Reaction score
27
I'm not a Packers fan for defending officials calls or against their harassment. It wasn't the best officiating, but it wasn't that bad. One can argue that their should have been a DPI or D-Holding call on the very same overturn on replay. Two wrongs don't make a right in officiating, but to say they tried to give the Cowboys the game is awful. You are accusing the officials of cheating, and having no integrity. That's unacceptable to me doing that without evidence.

Honestly the worst call of the game was that on the very next play, the Encroachment call. RT flinched. That is an automatic all....those are ones officials should never miss because you prepare yourself for those plays, and unlike any other play...Presnap/Snap plays are ones you see more than any other play because the teams line up and the ball is snapped EVERY TIME.
 
OP
OP
GoPGo

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Just wondering. Is this the same official who called offsides instead of a false start that gave them a first down after the int reversal on dallas' last td drive?
If the guy who made the horrendous INT call at the end of the game was the field judge then the line judge screwed up that false start. If it was the side judge then it was the head linesman that screwed it up. It was the line official on the same side of the field.
 
OP
OP
GoPGo

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
I saw a couple of blatant holds on Daniels. Holding probably occurs on almost every play and it’s hard for the officials to see but what bothered me about those blatant holds was they were in plain view as Daniels had broken through the line and was pursuing the QB while a Cowboy was holding him.

It was bad. They basically tackled him from behind on one play.

One I almost forgot. On the punt where we were called for fair catch interference, someone clearly shoved Bush with two hands right on the numbers on the back of his jersey. How much more obvious does that get?

I disagree with some on the call that Tramon almost intercepted. IMO replays showed it did move as it was touching the ground. I think of this rule as ‘did the ground help the player gain possession’. If part of the ball touches the ground but the ball doesn’t move in the player’s hands, the answer is no. I saw the ball move to help Tramon gain possession of it but it was a close call.

Deion said it was an INT, so you're probably right.

The non-call I really could not and still cannot understand is the INT that ended the game: That’s exactly right. That official was in the perfect spot to see that catch. If he were toward the middle of the field, Tramon’s body may have blocked him from seeing it. But he was on the sideline and he was in the perfect spot to see that the ball never came close to touching the turf.

That official should be investigated ala Tim Donaghy. I bet 90% of high school officials would have gotten that one right. You can see by the replay that the ball probably never got closer than 6" from the ground. Given the clear view he had, there should be a big red flag on that guy's head. Something about that particular call reeks of the guy having some money on the game or something.

I like the college review better. IMO there’s no reason to have an official on the field look at it when the one in the booth can review it faster and should have a better view of the monitor.

You can thank Ed Hoculi's ego for that one. He's the main one who threw a hissy fit about being overturned by someone upstairs when they brought replay back.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
For what it's worth, for all those who are saying it was obviously incomplete, Mike McCarthy said yesterday that he is absolutely sure that Williams had control of the ball and that it should have stood after replay. This is from a guy who almost always holds his tongue on the officiating.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
I like the college review better. IMO there’s no reason to have an official on the field look at it when the one in the booth can review it faster and should have a better view of the monitor.
The reasoning at the time is they did not want the decisions being made by an unseen person. They wanted to keep the decisions in the hands of the guys on the field to provide a hands-on and seamless responsibility/control of the game. Well, who cares? I don't know if I heard any fan who feels that way.

Personally, I would have the master ref in the booth. I would even have them calling down on every call they felt a need to interject on. I would allow instant communication to all the refs on the field, 'Steve, spot the ball 2 feet further, his knee didn't touch" - "Hey Ed, watch #22 - he keeps bumping the WRs downfield."

I like that the NFL will start a master ref center that can provide input at any time for any game. The original system was established, obviously they did not have the technology. Why not do it now? It can only make things more fair.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,111
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I think Brad's hold on Witten - but aside from that ... the BS Call Teeter-Tatter was in favor of the 'Boys today.
This one got glossed over by everyone, but I believe it was Brad Jones dry ******* Witten from the moment he broke in his route until the ball bounced off Wittens hand/arm and to Tramon Williams. The refs should have called pass interference which would have nullified any potential interception.

Additionally, the ball moved slightly when the nose hit the ground. That's an incomplete catch per the rules, whether he is "adjusting" his grip or other.

There was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top