Obviously it's not.
Everyone but the refs saw it for what it was, a missed call. But it's not the first or last call that will be missed.
Obviously it's not.
No, Du, this is what you always do buddy, and I can't let you off the hook. Another poster agrees that Westy was headed down before anyone even got there but to you he got mugged by the entire D. So I again ask you to explain who did it and when, all the details. I can't tell you how many football games I have watched in my life so don't try to give me that garbage. All you are doing is deflecting and I am not going there. Back it up. I will wait, lots of time.
Everyone but the refs saw it for what it was
This thread, and others as well, say just the opposite.
I see by far the majority of people that disagree with you.
I'm not so convinced it wasn't, but I can see the fact of him slowing up may have been a reason they didn't call it. He runs full bore and slams into Watt, it's definitely PI.
After watching that about 10 times I'm not even convinced that Watt touched him at all other than maybe a little tap with his right hand that didn't impede his movement or ability to catch the ball at all. Looks like Westy just stopped the route so he wouldn't run into him and then made a last second lunge when he saw where the ball was which made it look worse than it really was. I don't think Watt "knocked him down" at all.
Its a pretty close call MO. Westerkamp slowing to avoid contact made it so. Not clear cut PI.
kinda looks like a soccer flop
I didn't think it was PI when it happened live, and feel the same after the replay you posted.
Doesn't really look like PI to me. Westerkamp just stopped running and there was minimal contact, if there was any contact at all. If you call PI there you've got to call it on virtually every play in a football game.
I am still looking for all this contact in the reply. It wasnt from the guy beind. 42 is reading the play and heading for Wesy as an underneath cover. Westy is slowing up before 42 arrives and begins to go down early. Had Westy kept running 42 could not have even been close, 42 is going back, Westy is sideways. If Westy runs smack into 42 then maybe you get a call. at the worst, 42 was late to the party and barely got a left hand on Westy, and that not for long as Westy was already headed down. there is much more had checking going on nearly every play.
He starts slowing down way before any contact is made, and he even starts falling down before contact is made. That's not pass interference.
No, Du, this is what you always do buddy, and I can't let you off the hook. Another poster agrees that Westy was headed down before anyone even got there but to you he got mugged by the entire D. So I again ask you to explain who did it and when, all the details. I can't tell you how many football games I have watched in my life so don't try to give me that garbage. All you are doing is deflecting and I am not going there. Back it up. I will wait, lots of time.
This is the first I'm seeing the play and I gotta be honest, I thought it would be more egregious from how everyone talked. I will say that it's hard to tell whether or not the DB behind Westerkamp pushed him down or not but I honestly don't think Watt touched him much. Westerkamp should have just kept running and ran right into Watt.
If you can't see who mugged him (hint: it wasn't their entire defense) then stop watching the sport. I shouldn't have to explain it to you.
You may want to read this thread again. If it's not a split decision in this thread, no PI is the majority opinion.
Here's 11 responses saying no PI, my original response makes it 12.
12 response vs the probably 100+ on this board that say that it WAS pass interference doesn't exactly support your stance, but no big deal. We see it much differently.
I offer proof your response is inaccurate, you offer, well, nothing. Can't say I'm surprised, it's custom here.
Man, watching that replay, i realize, that was a really bad pass and even more terrible deciscion to throw it in that area. All i see is whisky defenders........
Pffft. You obviously haven't looked very well. And no, I'm not going to post the numerous posts that state that it was PI. It would take far too long. If you would like to, please feel free to do so.
Mindlessness continues...
^ Still can't support inaccurate statement ^
Let me explain how this works...
12 < 100+
End of lesson.
Let me explain how this actually works.
Your opinion = hot air.
And the more you respond, the worse it gets.
Welp, I guess I'll just have to stick with the 100+ people on here, as well as the announcers of the game that side with me....while you and your 11 cohorts search for additional recruits. Good luck with all that.
I am quoting this because it is the 4th time I have read this?He starts slowing down way before any contact is made, and he even starts falling down before contact is made. That's not pass interference.
PENALTY—15 yards from the previous spot [S33].
c. Defensive pass interference is contact beyond the neutral zone by a Team B player whose intent to impede an eligible opponent is obvious and it could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass. When in question, a legal forward pass is
catchable. Defensive pass interference occurs only after a legal forward pass is thrown (A. R. 7-3-8-VII, VIII, XI and XII). It is not defensive
pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-III and 7-3-9-III):
1. When, after the snap, opposing players immediately charge and establish contact with opponents at a point that is within one yard
beyond the neutral zone.
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of
either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-IX).
3.When a Team B player legally contacts an opponent before the pass
is thrown (A.R. 7-3-8-III and X).
4. When a Team A potential kicker, from scrimmage kick formation,simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep,
and contact by a Team B player occurs.
Above is the rule written in the book for pass interference. Watching the video, Westerkamp's path to the ball is impeded by Watt(which Watt gave the dead give away hand up in the air) and he is contacted. The main source of argument would be catchable, but with the contact plus impediment the argument would be fairly moot, especially when it says when in question a legal forward pass is catchable by default.
Could Westerkamp have done better running full speed into Watt? Sure he could have, but this isn't a judgment call on the refs part. The two criteria for making the call were met when Watt impeded his path and when contact occurred between Watt and Westerkamp.
Automatic spot foul and a first down. That doesn't guarantee victory but it makes it way more likely.
but those refs have the support of 12 people on this board
Yeah, because what's most important to me is to spend a couple hours of my time cutting and pasting posts to satisfy some ridiculous need of yours to see how your 11 supporters stack up against those numerous people on the board that believe the rule book wasn't applied on that call. Yeah, that is incredibly important to me.
If you appeared to be more than a simpleton to me, I might consider it, but I'm not spending any time collecting multiple posts (that I know far exceed 12) for a simpleton. Ya see, a simpleton then would spend the time to canvass this entire website to add the 2 or 3 extra posts that support his stance, for fear that he might come up short on support. His reputation is at stake, you see. He CAN'T lose his board cred, because this is what he is. And I know with the board simpleton, there is no end to the tit for tat. You're what a sociologist calls his worst nightmare.
Enjoy posting whatever posts you can collect. I'm simply not wasting any more time with this.
PENALTY—15 yards from the previous spot [S33].
c. Defensive pass interference is contact beyond the neutral zone by a Team B player whose intent to impede an eligible opponent is obvious and it could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass. When in question, a legal forward pass is
catchable. Defensive pass interference occurs only after a legal forward pass is thrown (A. R. 7-3-8-VII, VIII, XI and XII). It is not defensive
pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-III and 7-3-9-III):
1. When, after the snap, opposing players immediately charge and establish contact with opponents at a point that is within one yard
beyond the neutral zone.
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of
either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-IX).
3.When a Team B player legally contacts an opponent before the pass
is thrown (A.R. 7-3-8-III and X).
4. When a Team A potential kicker, from scrimmage kick formation,simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep,
and contact by a Team B player occurs.
Above is the rule written in the book for pass interference. Watching the video, Westerkamp's path to the ball is impeded by Watt(which Watt gave the dead give away hand up in the air) and he is contacted. The main source of argument would be catchable, but with the contact plus impediment the argument would be fairly moot, especially when it says when in question a legal forward pass is catchable by default.
Could Westerkamp have done better running full speed into Watt? Sure he could have, but this isn't a judgment call on the refs part. The two criteria for making the call were met when Watt impeded his path and when contact occurred between Watt and Westerkamp.
Automatic spot foul and a first down. That doesn't guarantee victory but it makes it way more likely.
Yeah, because what's most important to me is to spend a couple hours of my time cutting and pasting posts to satisfy some ridiculous need of yours to see how your 11 supporters stack up against those numerous people on the board that believe the rule book wasn't applied on that call. Yeah, that is incredibly important to me.
If you appeared to be more than a simpleton to me, I might consider it, but I'm not spending any time collecting multiple posts (that I know far exceed 12) for a simpleton. Ya see, a simpleton then would spend the time to canvass this entire website to add the 2 or 3 extra posts that support his stance, for fear that he might come up short on support. His reputation is at stake, you see. He CAN'T lose his board cred, because this is what he is. And I know with the board simpleton, there is no end to the tit for tat. You're what a sociologist calls his worst nightmare.
Enjoy posting whatever posts you can collect. I'm simply not wasting any more time with this.
Du called someone a "simpleton"?
Name calling, who would've thunk.
Took me less than 3 minutes to click on the quote feature, but it'll take you hours? Poor guy, you sure enjoy speaking out then wagging your tail when called on it.
Du called someone a "simpleton"?
Hey, I call 'em as I see 'em. And you're a simpleton. I told you many posts ago that we disagree. No big deal. But the primate simpleton has to continue pushing it. I'm quite certain I could find more posts supporting my stance, but choose not to, because it isn't going to change anything, and it will waste a lot of my time. But instead the simpleton has to continue on.
See, that's what a simpleton does. He can only have one thing on his mind at a time. For instance, those post-lunch hunger pangs that you've been having since lunch...are occupying that large amount of empty space in your noggin'...and you can't think of anything else. Which means your TPS reports will once again be tardy. Carry on..
More words without substance, but for some reason, you claim time is important to you.
Simpleton must've been the word of the day at Kellom elementary school today. Congrats on learning a new word at today.
More words without substance, but for some reason, you claim time is important to you.
Simpleton must've been the word of the day at Kellom elementary school today. Congrats on learning a new word at today. Your teacher should he proud.
Here's the thing that you've failed to understand
Here's something you have failed to understand throughout this entire thread.. People aren't going to agree on things. I have alluded to that fact on a couple of occasion in this thread alone. I think it was PI. You didn't.
I said "no big deal" and let it go, because it's not going to change what happened in the game, and it's not going to impact my future. In the overall scheme of things, it doesn't even qualify as a back burner issue. It hasn't even made it out of the deep freeze yet. It's less than small potatoes. It simply doesn't matter.
Just because someone doesn't want to argue about an topic doesn't mean they think they are wrong. It means that he/she thinks it is an inane topic. The simpleton is the one that doesn't realize that it's an inane topic, and continues yammering on about providing proof...hoping that you will somehow 'win' an unwinnable exchange. You've proven yourself a simpleton many times over in this thread.
BTW, I know YOUR teacher would not be proud of the above highlighted sentence. Now go forward with your life, young simpleton..