11/05/24
January 04, 2015
Cowboys Defeat Lions After Controversial Penalty Non-Call: The Dallas Cowboys rallied to defeat the Detroit Lions 24-20 in the NFL playoffs, scoring a go-ahead touchdown with under three minutes remaining after a Lions drive ended on a pass interference call that was announced and then cancelled by referee Pete Morelli. He explained the reasoning to a reporter after the game, stating that head linesman Jerry Bergman had the best angle and thought it was face-guarding, not pass interference.
I genuinely don't get how two officials can disagree and the referee ends up going with the non-call. Did the back judge not actually see any interference? Did he throw the flag thinking, That might be interference. I hope someone else had a better angle and can fill in the gaps in my vision?
posted by Etrigan at 09:18 AM on January 05, 2015
If two refs disagree, why should the one who threw the flag matter more if someone else was closer? If Morelli didn't announce the call and the refs huddled before he picked up the flag, I don't think it would be as huge an uproar.
posted by rcade at 09:31 AM on January 05, 2015
I would have been far more comfortable with everything if there had been some kind of explanation for the wave-off.
Like rcade, I didn't have a problem with the call, and I wouldn't have had a problem with a non-call, either.
posted by Bonkers at 10:11 AM on January 05, 2015
face-guarding, not pass interference
Per the rules: face guarding is pass interference. Bad call. Worse explanation.
posted by cixelsyd at 10:42 AM on January 05, 2015
If two refs disagree, why should the one who threw the flag matter more if someone else was closer?
If the back judge saw interference enough to throw a flag, then how can the head linesman come in and say that it wasn't interference? The head linesman said that Hitchens was only blocking Pettigrew's view, which is clearly not the case and doesn't address the fact that Hitchens wasn't playing the ball and interfered with Pettigrew's arms. Mike Pereira agrees: "It's clearly pass interference. I strongly believe that was not a good pick-up of a flag."
If Morelli didn't announce the call and the refs huddled before he picked up the flag, I don't think it would be as huge an uproar.
That's part of it, but the lack of explanation and suchlike is just icing on the cake.
And in regards to the facemask, that would have been offsetting penalties, which makes it 3rd and 1 instead of 4th and 1.
I'm not saying it was a conspiracy in favor of the Cowboys or against the Lions. It was just a bad, bad call.
posted by Etrigan at 10:47 AM on January 05, 2015
Whether or not it was interference, Dez Bryant had his helmet off and ran onto the field to argue the call. That one does not need interpretation - that's an automatic first down, and one it's hard to have missed given they weren't even huddling on the previous call.
posted by dfleming at 11:19 AM on January 05, 2015
Per the rules: face guarding is pass interference.
There's nothing in the pass interference rules about face guarding being illegal. All of the wording is about contact. If the refs did not feel like the contact was interference, it doesn't matter that Hitchens was face guarding.
This blogger claims that face guarding without contact isn't illegal in college either.
I've heard announcers at both levels say forever that face guarding is a foul.
I think there was enough jostling for Hitchens to get flagged, but I don't share the certainty of some folks here that it was definitely a foul. The reason it wasn't caught had more to do with where it was thrown than what Hitchens did to Pettigrew.
As for Dez Bryant joining the officiating crew without his helmet on, there's no argument there. That's a flag.
posted by rcade at 11:59 AM on January 05, 2015
Gerry Austin's take: Not a penalty, but once the flag was thrown it should've stayed thrown, and Bryant left the field quickly so no flag there.
Although Detroit fans won't want to hear it, because the non-call is a great scapegoat and I would blame it too in their position, the Lions led 14-0 after the first quarter and only managed six points in the final three against the No. 26-ranked passing defense. Dallas needs DeMarco Murray to run well to keep the defense off the field, but he was held to 75 yards. Detroit's offense lost it for them despite their defense doing what it needed to do.
posted by rcade at 12:11 PM on January 05, 2015
Gerry Austin's take: Not a penalty, but once the flag was thrown it should've stayed thrown, and Bryant left the field quickly so no flag there.
The problem is people get flags taking their helmet off arguing a call while actively leaving the field pretty regularly. Very rarely is it the demonstrable "take helmet off and throw it" example.
He came on to the field with it already off, which means his intention was not to actively leave the field for the duration of his helmet being off. That's why I think it's a guaranteed flag - it's one thing to be on your way off, another to be on your way on. The leeway has to be based on the perceived intent of the player (i.e., a player who's become less of a risk is given it, those increasing their risk are not), otherwise reffing descends into anarchy.
I get there's a nuance to all of the rules, but the nuance in this instance seems to be leeway in favour of a team that had just received a very favorable call reversal.
Although Detroit fans won't want to hear it, because the non-call is a great scapegoat and I would blame it too in their position
It is a universal truth in all close games that teams could have done things differently to avoid needing a call to go their way at the end. It doesn't negate that controversial calls at the end of the game are magnified in their importance to the end user of the product.
Anything can happen always, but the statistical probability of victory getting one of those two penalty calls in that instance was pretty damn high. That's what smarts, whether or not it's an objective look at 60 minutes worth of football. The same call earlier in the game has less of an immediate probability of victory swing as it does there.
posted by dfleming at 01:00 PM on January 05, 2015
Detroit's win probability was 0.79 WP before that play. It peaked at 0.91 with six minutes left in the third when the Lions led by 13.
Even after the non-call and the shanked punt, Detroit got it back to 0.75 WP before Tony Romo's fourth-and-six completion to Jason Witten.
Unless Detroit scores a touchdown after the play in dispute, Dallas still is within one touchdown of taking the lead. That limited the statistical significance of the play we're discussing.
posted by rcade at 01:28 PM on January 05, 2015
The immediate dip on the incompletion was .79 to .69 (the shitty punt bringing it down to.58), but that's not including any WP bump they would've gotten from even a first down at Dallas's 31 as a result of one of the penalties.
Actual vs. potential, the swing was a lot higher whether they scored or not, and higher at that time than the same play would've been in the 1st quarter.
That's not to say that I don't agree with you that Det had ample opportunities before or after this play to win the game (and that the 4th and 6 completion wasn't more important statistically, due to the timing and the nature of the completion being a 21 yarder), but scenario 1 vs. scenario 2 was a big statistical swing for one play, and particularly poignant when you saw a reason for it to be called a different way.
posted by dfleming at 02:52 PM on January 05, 2015
Dean Blandio says the Cowboys got away with one and maybe two, but not the one you expected.
posted by dfleming at 03:21 PM on January 05, 2015
Did you just seriously quote Dean Blandino?
posted by phaedon at 03:46 PM on January 05, 2015
I think they're listening, phaedon.
posted by dfleming at 04:24 PM on January 05, 2015
A sinister air is creeping in. One or two more shady subplot revelations and Oliver Stone is going to start breaking down the game film and requesting unedited crowd pans. If just one guy in the stadium is seen holding an umbrella, this is going to another level.
posted by beaverboard at 05:28 PM on January 05, 2015
Dez Bryant running onto field without helmet a worse no-call
posted by phaedon at 08:28 PM on January 05, 2015
Sam Martin may be the least clutch punter in the NFL. A ten yard punt in that situation is inexcusable.
The call was frustrating but the Lions have nobody to blame but themselves. Stafford had an opportunity to prove he belongs in the ranks of the NFL's elite and instead he lost two fumbles on the final drive. The Lions have struggled on offense all year and this was no different.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:27 PM on January 05, 2015
League's mission accomplished. Make the game as compelling and watchable as possible (let Suh play), then do whatever it takes to make him suffer.
If Suh had stepped on Ryan Lindley instead of Rodgers, the league wouldn't have noticed or cared. Suh got a mere 15 yard penalty for whacking McCown last month. No fine, no disciplinary action.
posted by beaverboard at 01:03 AM on January 06, 2015
Sam Martin did save Detroit's bacon early in the game by selling minor contact into a penalty on a punt in their end zone. That drive went the length of the field and put Detroit up 14-0.
posted by rcade at 08:34 AM on January 06, 2015
Et tu, President Obama?
posted by rcade at 01:50 PM on January 08, 2015
Even if the explanation is sound, I feel like that flag would have been picked up 1 out of 100 times after being thrown. Detroit fans will remember the name Jerry Bergman like I have remembered Fred Swearingen for 36 years.
To me, there was enough for a call or a non-call. But the call gets made all the time and is not called only occasionally. One wrinkle: Pettigrew pulls Hitchens' facemask briefly before the ball arrives, which only is visible on one angle of the replay. I couldn't decide whether this pulled Hitchens closer to him or not.