Wild Card Weekend 2015: Detroit Lions @ Dallas Cowboys

[peplaw06]

They're the same bulletin point dickface.

It's cute when you get all pissy when you get owned. If you want to argue about whether the contact restricted the opportunity to make the catch, then argue that... Don't say...

What does without playing the ball have to do with anything ? It doesn't. a shoulder touch with no force? Not worth the grassy knoll conspiracy theorists. It happened to twill on a deep ball. Earlier. Get a grip

You didn't know the definition of the rule, which is why you asked what not playing the ball had to do with it. Don't act all I-knew-the-rule-same-bulletin-point-see....

He absolutely did not interfere. I promise you. Watch the play. He does touch pettigrew but pettigrew is not influenced by hitchens in any way. Hitchens is facing him, touches him, and pettigrew decides to leans back looking for the angle to catch an underthrown ball.

I've seen the play over and over and over... I don't need to see it again to know that when Hitchens put his arm on Pettigrew, Pettigrew's shoulder turned.

Now, was Pettigrew turning to try to catch the ball on his own power, or did Hitchens turn him? I don't know... and no one really does, I don't care how many times you watch the replay.

What is clear to me is that Pettigrew does try to reach around Hitchens to catch the ball, and he's restricted from making the catch by Hitchens.

Hitchens made contact without playing the ball and the contact restricted Pettigrew from making the catch. It wasn't incidental contact. I think it was PI, but it was close.

 

[bbgun]

They're the same bulletin point dickface. He absolutely did not interfere.

ok, fine. let's settle for holding

 

[Doomsday]

This wouldn't even be talked about if 1.) Detroit hadn't followed this with that terrible shanked 10 yard punt and 2.) Detroit's defense had like, stopped Dallas at some point after.

On to Green Bay.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

I stopped reading at "it was close" but that was the the last part of the post. I'm also drunk and watching foxcatcher.


But you're being a dickface about "it was close".

Pettigrew is 6'8" and 255. Hitchens did not physically alter him the entire play. No way. It looks not so great bc he's chasing. Out of control. Not in a dominant position. But you posted the rule yourself and it's black and white. Hitchens doesn't impede pettigrew whatsoever. The hold doesn't even affect pettigrew but if you called the hold I wouldn't complain. The jersey certainly is stretched out. What is happening is is stafford underthrew his guy on a route while hitchens looked vulnerable and pettigrew went down to catch an underthrown ball. Hitchens really made a great play keeping his hands up, it made it clear he was chasing but not roughing up pettigrew and trusting he was enough in the way (not a penalty to face guard) to avoid a completion. Show me where pettigrew is thrown off line or "interfered"

It's cute when you get all pissy when you get owned. If you want to argue about whether the contact restricted the opportunity to make the catch, then argue that... Don't say...



You didn't know the definition of the rule, which is why you asked what not playing the ball had to do with it. Don't act all I-knew-the-rule-same-bulletin-point-see....

I've seen the play over and over and over... I don't need to see it again to know that when Hitchens put his arm on Pettigrew, Pettigrew's shoulder turned.

Now, was Pettigrew turning to try to catch the ball on his own power, or did Hitchens turn him? I don't know... and no one really does, I don't care how many times you watch the replay.

What is clear to me is that Pettigrew does try to reach around Hitchens to catch the ball, and he's restricted from making the catch by Hitchens.

Hitchens made contact without playing the ball and the contact restricted Pettigrew from making the catch. It wasn't incidental contact. I think it was PI, but it was close.

 

[peplaw06]

I stopped reading at "it was close" but that was the the last part of the post. I'm also drunk and watching foxcatcher.

But you're being a dickface about "it was close".

You're the one in here acting all indignant that anyone would dare to admit that it was PI. I'm posting the rule when you ask a question about the rule... and I'm being the dickface? Nah, you're being a fuckwad.

I admit it was close, I posted the rule, and it seems to fit the rule. The only reason I think it was close was because it was minimal contact. But that's a judgment call, and the rule doesn't require a ton of contact. It just has to be contact that restricts the receiver from making the catch, with the defender not making a play on the ball. That's it.

Pettigrew is 6'8" and 255. Hitchens did not physically alter him the entire play. No way. It looks not so great bc he's chasing. Out of control. Not in a dominant position. But you posted the rule yourself and it's black and white. Hitchens doesn't impede pettigrew whatsoever. The hold doesn't even affect pettigrew but if you called the hold I wouldn't complain. The jersey certainly is stretched out. What is happening is is stafford underthrew his guy on a route while hitchens looked vulnerable and pettigrew went down to catch an underthrown ball. Hitchens really made a great play keeping his hands up, it made it clear he was chasing but not roughing up pettigrew and trusting he was enough in the way (not a penalty to face guard) to avoid a completion. Show me where pettigrew is thrown off line or "interfered"

The rule doesn't require these things for PI to be called. All it requires is a defender make contact without playing the ball, and the contact restricts the receiver from making a play on the ball. I don't think it's that difficult to see that happened. It's close... but only because that's a tough judgment to make at full speed.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

I love you.

Enter me.