Cowboys vs. Packers: Random thoughts a day after
by Dave Halprin on Nov 30, 2007 5:15 PM CST
in Dallas Cowboys News
Email
PrintWhew, this win is feeling even better as time passes. Immediately after we won, it was all good but I had some minor worries about not being able to put them way early, the success of Aaron Rodgers, and the penalties and mistakes we made. But now, almost 24 hours removed, the perspective feels a little better. One, we have Tony Romo. Seriously, anybody who isn’t on this kid’s bandwagon by now has decided to walk, and it’s going to be a long walk, because Romo is going to be here for a long time. Franchise QB, that’s a good thing. You also got to love the work by Terrell Owens. I know, a huge drop that turned into an INT, but look at his body of work this year, especially over the last five or six games. Plus, he even gets an old curmudgeon like me to actually enjoy a TD celebration. You guys know I’m against them on principle – well, at least the most extravagant ones – and I’m against them because of the penalty that usually follows. But that popcorn in the face was just plain funny and somehow T.O. managed to avoid a penalty. So just this once, I’m going with the celebration.
But the group that is really blowing my mind is the offensive line. Everything works like it does only because the offensive line gives it a chance to work. Sure, Romo is the trigger guy and we have so many weapons for him to use, but with bad pass protection there’s no way we put up 33 points a game. The genesis of our explosive offense is the five 300-pond behemoths up front. Marc Colombo was all over Aaron Kampman last night. And usually, when the fourth quarter rolls around, they roll the defense and MB3 kills the clock.
OK, here’s my final thoughts on the pass interference play and the T.O./Al Harris quick whistle play.
Pass interference – I think it was a good call, but not a sure call. There is some wiggle-room here and a case for the penalty not being called, but I believe that's a weak case. The preponderance of evidence goes against the Packers on this one. First, the corner puts his hands on the receiver and tried to give him a little hook, it really didn’t have any effect, but still, strike one. Then seconds after that, he trips the receiver. This could be incidental contact but the defender wasn’t making a play on the ball. He was trailing the receiver and didn’t even know exactly where the ball was. If he had been stride-for-stride with Austin then maybe he has a better case. Austin does know where the ball is and is trying to adjust to it as he gets tripped. He was moving from the middle towards the outside with his body. Also, it appears that the Packer guy has his hand on Austin's back and helps him fall from the trip. He’s probably just putting out his hand to get his balance or break his own fall, but it looks like it’s right in Austin’s back. Finally, the ball is just on the edge of catchable/not-catchable. I don’t think Austin makes the catch, but he has to get the chance, however slim, to make the effort. So when you add up all those things, I think it was a good call. But, I will admit, if the situation was reversed, I would have been mad.
Quick whistle – Watching that play again, I think that whatever was called on the field would be the ultimate decision if the whistle wasn’t blown prematurely. The ref who blew the whistle was blocked out from seeing what was going on with the ball by T.O.’s and Harris’ bodies. The ref behind the play saw the ball transferring from T.O. to Harris and ran up after the play and ruled it a turnover. He was overruled because the whistle had blown. But, without the whistle, the call on the field would probably have been a turnover because that other ref was very animated in his call and had the best view. If it had gone to the booth that way, it would have been a tough ruling. There’s a point where Harris has the ball firmly in his hands with two feet inbounds, but T.O. still has a hand on the ball. That’s a tough call. I think they would have ruled inconclusive evidence and let the call stand as a turnover. But I agree this one is wide-open to interpretation without the quick whistle.
Let’s talk about where the Cowboys stand in the NFL hierarchy. Obviously, the Patriots are the top dog, but there is some hope for the rest of the league. Dallas hung with them for three quarters with an injured secondary and the Eagles and Colts showed that they can be beat, well, that there is a possibility they can be beat. Dallas is the second-best team in the NFL right now by a razor-thin margin over the Colts. The only thing that’s slowing down the Colts is injuries so if they get healthy, they could be the #2, but they’re at #3 right now. Plus, they have a huge showdown on Sunday with Jacksonville, which might be making it’s own bid to join the elite. Then come the Packers, who also could be right in the #2 mix if they were healthy.
If Dallas were to meet the Patriots today, I would give them a shot even though I think the odds would be in New England’s favor. But, it this team continues to gain confidence and continues to improve on the field, by the Super Bowl - if we make it - I think we could give them a solid game, and could get the win if things went right.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
should pass interference be reviewable?
I agree with what Collinsworth said at the time, and what some other commentators are saying now, that perhaps PI calls should be reviewable, because PI can be such a huge game-changing penalty. Although you express that this play is still a close one even on review, and reading the back and forth on a previous thread shows that even with multiple viewings it can be interpreted differently, but especially when the refs actually disagree on the call, they should have a chance to see the replay and look at the details, the attempted hook, whether he was playing the ball, etc. I tend to agree that they probably would not have overturned this one, but if they had reviewed and not overturned it there would less question about it today.
And maybe have inadvertent PI be a 5 or 10 yard penalty rather than the spot of the foul?
The controversial PI call
I really don't care if Packer Nation is whining about the pass interference call, but I'll chime in with this point, which hasn't been discussed at all:
That play happened on FIRST DOWN with the Cowboys driving. The way Dallas was playing on offense, it's hard to argue that the drive would have stalled if PI wasn't called (they still had 2nd, 3rd and even 4th down to bounce back). In addition, after the penalty, Green Bay still had a chance to hold Dallas to a FG attempt, and failed. On top of it all, the call was arguably correct.
PI was NOT the game-changing play. The game-changing play was Romo's 35-yard completion to Crayton on 3rd and 19 from their own 11 late in the 3rd Quarter. Green Bay has no one to blame but themselves for allowing that one.
by render on Nov 30, 2007 5:54 PM CST reply actions
On NFL Network
Mike Perera head of officiating said tonight because the defender wasn't playing the ball, meaning he didn't have his head turned when the incidental contact was made it's an automatic PI. If the defender just looked back at the ball prior to when there legs got caught up it wouldn't have been PI.
Some of the radio personalities were crying today saying it was a bad call. I'm also tired of people saying if they had Woodson and KGB it would've been different. Yeah, ok keep crying. I have news for them Green Bay is going to get knocked out of the playoffs long before we see them again. I wasn't impressed. We let them off the hook. We stopped ourselves more than they stopped us. There wasn't a moment in the game I felt Green Bay was going to stop us.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 1, 2007 1:08 AM CST up reply actions
And we could say that if we had TG...
... our Cowboys would've beat the Packers by more!!!
I believe all of that plastic cheese that the
Pack's fans wear is permeating their frontal lobes.
celebration prop
I'm surprised TO didn't get a penalty for using a prop, but I also thought the popcorn thing was very funny.
plus it set up the joke for the slippery fingers on the later Int.
Anybody have info on Colombo?
I read on another blog (on occasion I do read other sites ... but only very quickly) that Colombo worked the end of the game on a bum ankle.
How bad? I mean Colombo is one of my favorites and he has played very well this year. A hurt Colombo would probably have a big impact on our offense.
In fact, I'm watching NFL network right now and they are showing Kampman just push around the RT for the Lions and make him look like a little girl with a fat butt. Truly, the work Colombo did last night was very, very solid.
by JJshairgel on Nov 30, 2007 7:44 PM CST reply actions
I did notice him limp during that game
Colombo is a really tough guy, you need underrated guys like him and Crayton to win championships.
PI Call, and other Controversies..
Just watched NFL Network.
They had the VP of Officiating on, talking about the Dallas - GB game!
He talked about the two most controversial calls.
a) the Al Harris "interception" on TO, during the 1st Quarter.
Basically, he said, after tape review; though the ruling on the field was correct, because the one Offical (behind TO/AH) called "forward progress" and blew the whistle; he said in hindsight, it was correct that AH intercepted the ball, had possession, and went out of bounds, and the ball should've gone over to GB.
So, basically, the Offical screwed up, but once he signaled "forward progress", and made the ruling, what happened subsequent to that, was irrelvant.
My take on this is Okay; guess what, the Officials made a mistake; I've seen Dallas get hurt by bogus calls/mistakes before/inadvertant whistles.
Anyone who is a "purist"; hates to see that happen; but it's not our fault, it's not Dallas' fault, it's not TO's nor even Al Harris' fault; unfortunately it happens sometimes in football.
It's over, move on...
b) on the Second PI call against GB, with Miles Austin. He showed the tape, and he insisted, despite all the GB bellachers, the CORRECT call was made.
He said, the rule book is clear, and he even replayed the tape to prove it!
If the defender and the receiver are playing the ball, BOTH of them, and the feet become entangled, it is incidental contact, and no PI.
If the defender and the receiver are both NOT playing the ball, and the feet become entangled, it is NOT PI.
But, IF the Defender is NOT playing the ball (i.e. NOT looking back), and the Receiver IS looking back/playing the ball, and the feet become entangled, then it IS pass interference.
He said the Rule Book is VERY specific in that regard, and if you watch the tape, again, SLOWLY (That's you Deke!) you'll see that Austin is playing the ball, and the Defender is clearly NOT!
Ergo, according to the Rules, and CORRECTLY Ruled, on the field, it was PI!
Now, you can aruge till the cows come home, that PI ought to become "Reviewable", that the ball was uncatchable, etc., but none of that is Relevant to this case!
That's the Rule Book, that's the way it was called, and it was the CORRECT call; Case Over!
If Green Bay doesn't like it, or Deke for that matter, then get the rule changed!
So, for the Randy Galloway-esque "hater", Deke; GET OVER IT!
The Cowboys won, it WAS PI, and the points the Cowboys scored were NOT "tainted"!
Besides if you want to split hairs on the non-AH interception, and say those points were "tainted", then fine, Dallas STILL won by a TD, and despite Aaron Rogers coming in and doing a fine job, the Cowboys WERE dominent in stretches of this game, espeically when they went up 27 - 10 at one point.
Where GB really got screwed by the Ref's was the placement of Ryan Grant's 1 yard run, later in the game; he clearly, IN MY OPINION, made the 1st down, and the Ref's blew that one too!
But again, I Don't like it, and it's unfortunate that such mistakes are made in Professional Football; but I can remember many such instances of calls going against the Cowboys as well, especially the past seven years!
Bottomline: it was a GOOD win, against a Quality opponent, and all the crying ain't going to change it!
by Dale in Atlanta on Nov 30, 2007 8:23 PM CST reply actions
inadvertent whistle
there was a recent game, now I don't remember which one it was, but I'm sure someone else will recall...
but anyway, there was a fumble on like the 5 yard line, and the defensive player recovered and was headed to the other end zone but was stopped by whistles as the play was called dead, down by contact.
the defense challenged the play and was successfully in having the down by contact call overturned, so it was ruled a fumble and turnover.
The ref said that despite this, however, that an "inadvertent whistle" had been blown and at that point the play was dead, so whatever happened after that point was irrelevant. Thus the defense got the ball at the place the fumble was recovered, but was deprived of the TD runback that would have resulted if the play had been called correctly on the field and not blown dead. But because it was blown dead, the play was over, tough luck.
Same thing here, except in this case the play was blown dead due to forward progress even before he fumble/interception occurred. Whatever happens after that does not matter.
A fair break? Probably not. But according to the rules? Yes. And that's the game of football.
I remember this too
Google suggests that it happened in the SD-Colts game, where an Indy defender got a turnover in his own endzone and returned it to SD's 7-yard line before being tackled. An inadvertent whistle resulted in the Colts getting their ball on their own 20, instead of SD's 7.
At first I didn't think that was the play that I was thinking of, then I saw the replay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Sed...
It's at about 1:00 into the clip. You may remember the ridiculous bouncing of the ball off of a defender's calves to keep it off the ground.
[Stuff] happens. But I gotta say, the entire complexion of our game might have been different if GB got the ball back right away on our first possession last night.
Right. "Them's the breaks, basically."
I may have been confusing two different plays in my mind, somehow I'm seeing a fumble, but I think this is the play I was thinking of.
If you watch the highlight video at NFL.com starting at about 1:10 you can see the play with better quality, and the ref give the explanation:
"The ruling on the field is an interception. However, there's been an inadvertent whistle that had taken place while the football was in the endzone. The ruling now will be that it is an interception, the ball declared dead in the endzone, first down Indianapolis on the twenty yard line."
And the commentator summing it up at the end.
"Them's the breaks, basically."
Dale in ATL
Good post, and very clear explanations. Thanks.
I was watching the game at a sports bar, and I have to say the TO call looked correct at first, but as they kept slo-motioning the replay it was clear that Harris had the ball. But whistle had blown end of story.
On the Miles Austin PI call, I didn't see any controversy. The GB defender tried to grab Austin, pretty clear, then their feet got tangled. One thing was certain, the GB defender never attempted to turn to locate the ball.
cowboys vs pass interference
i'd feel a lot worse about the pass interference call if i hadn't watched the cowboys get victimized by dozens of really marginal ones over the last several years. it seemed like our dbs' were in position (or close) but couldn't make a play and ended up getting flagged for many many big gain ticky tack fouls. we'd play some pretty good d, and then give up huge chunks on balls that most likely wouldn't be caught.
that's a big reason why i'm not concerned about the secondary (and jacques reeves in particular) giving up a few passes underneath, because not only do they rarely get beat deep, but they aren't getting flagged for interference 40 yards down the field very often either. i don't have time to try to look up the historical records, but judging from my blood pressure when the cowboys are on d, i'm fairly certain this is an area they have improved significantly.
That still depends
on the matchup. Let's call it NFL Heirarchy.... Dallas against an equal or lesser opponent gets a favorable call here or there; Dallas against Indy or NE will get the shaft on marginal calls. So PI on our DB's may not be an issue until Dallas meets with the "Elite" down the road.
Questionable Calls?
The thing is when I reflect on "bad" calls I tend to remember those that went against the Cowboys, but I think that the officials in the NFL tend to get it right. On the TO/Harris play the call was wrong about the interception, but it occured out of concern for the safety of the players. The officials are supposed to whistle the end of progress in order to prevent the player from getting creamed while they are upright and in a vulnerable position. The pass interference call looked like a solid call when it happened and even more so after I knew exactly what to look for. The defender clearly had no idea where to ball was, but he was beaten and had to do something about it. In the end I don't believe that the outcome hinged on either of these calls. Every time that Green Bay drew near the 'Boys trotted out on the field and drove for another score. At the same time the officiating crew knew exactly how important that the game was and may have been a tiny bit anxious to "get it right". I think that the crew is to be commendated for the way that they halted play and held conferences to make a decision on the correct call.
by Magic Puzzle on Dec 1, 2007 9:51 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
