ADVERTISEMENT

Here's video of the PI...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
 
The blatant hold on their touch down pass was worse, and they had players move early on that play. I saw two obvious false starts that weren't called, couldn't believe it. The td was one of them, I yelled false start and hold before they even scored. Replay was obvious too, and the hold was right out in the open for the refs to see.
Worst refs since A&M in 09 (I think 09)
 
I see by far the majority of people that disagree with 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.

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.


OK Du, let me help you. There were two guys in Westy's area. Which one hit him and knocked him down? Typically evasive once again. Its OK to complain but please know what you are complaining about and have some way to back it up. To just say it happened and can't you see it doesn't cut it.
 
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.
 
Some of you guys got me doubting that I even know what a DPI is.... So after reading the rules and the phrase "obvious intent to impede." #42 for Wisconsin should have been flagged, no doubt. What I see is Westy slowing down to try to undercut 42(basically let him run past) but he can't because 42 is ONLY looking to impede JW. So yes, JW does some acting to get the call, but IMO the call should've been made.... But, apparently many see it differently, so whatever doesn't matter now.
 
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.
 
I offer proof your response is inaccurate, you offer, well, nothing. Can't say I'm surprised, it's custom here.

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.
 
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........

Having said that Tommy played about as good a game as you could hope for. I don't care about the int's, in the end did they even hurt us? Watching him run for his life AGAIN and having Wisky in his grille all night and watching him battle his ass of like he did, nothing but mad props for his effort. I thought it was not a wise pass and placed poorly, but whatever. That's what happens when you play a great defense that's well coached on the road and you've been getting your head kicked in all night.

People attempting to blame the ref's for this loss aren't doing us any favors as a fan base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeans15
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.

Classic example continues.
 
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.
 
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.

12, just in this thread.

You continue to pop off without supporting your (inaccurate) statement, I'm loving it.
 

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.
 
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.
I am quoting this because it is the 4th time I have read this?
Are you guys that blind? Westercamp was slowing to make the cut, how can you not see that? Problem is he couldn't do it, because the defender was there... Hence Pass Interference
 
That's a good no call.

It appears JW expects the ball to be put there before he gets to Watt so he dials it down. Then once that pass goes too far in front of him, he flops a bit to try and draw a flag.
 
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, but those refs have the support of 12 people on this board, so don't bother with posting any rules of college football that completely disagree with the call. Rules schmules. If you can't copy and paste posts from a college football board, you've got no leg to stand on. Burn that damn rule book already. It has no application here.
 
I personally feel that you can make a case either way

in reality I would guess that PI is called in that situation far-far less than 1/2 the time - the same with the hand fighting/arm grab with Morgan ....

perhaps by the letter of the law they are PI but when old men are trying officiate world class athletes going at full speed these situations very rarely result in flags

would have loved to have got either call but in reality you aren't going to get them very often
 
I still contend if that exact play happens in the first quarter of a 0-0 game the flag comes flying. That's why I have a problem with the call.
 
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"?
 
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.


There's a rule book and there is a set of philosophies that are applied to the rules, as well as, conference and crew thresholds for penalty calls.


For Defensive Pass Interference, the action by defender has to fit into one of the 6 DPI Categories (philosophies) below. It's obvious Watt's actions COULD have fit into #1 or #5, however, Westerkamp slowing down and awkward fall forward took away for sure DPI call.

In my judgement there was enough there for DPI. I would have not made the DPI call.



See below for the wording from the CFO on Officiating Philosophies on DPI....

Defensive Pass Interference Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include, but are not limited to, the following six categories:

1. Early contact by a defender who is not playing the ball is defensive pass interference provided the other requirements for defensive pass interference have been met, regardless of how deep the pass is thrown to the receiver.

2. Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

3. Grabbing and restricting a receiver’s arm(s) or body in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

4. Extending an arm across the body (arm bar) of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of the fact of whether or not the defender is looking for the ball.

5. Cutting off or riding the receiver out of the path to the ball by making contact with him without playing the ball.

6. Hooking and restricting a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving
 
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.

You wasted time talking out of your rear, which you do quite a bit on here. It's okay my man, I knew you were full of it before you entered this thread.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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..
 
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. Your teacher should he proud.
 
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.

Here's the thing that you've failed to understand
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 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..
 
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..

Time is important to you, but you keep responding.

It's obvious who the simpleton is, look in the mirror for a hint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT