Jump to content

Cowboys v Lions


rage-a-holic

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mileslong said:


If you fumble it forwards and it goes out of bounds they bring it back to that spot and retain possession. Why should that change just because it’s at the goal line?

Fumbling forward needs to be penalized in some way. The offense should not go unpenalized for fucking up. If they want to change it to a fumble forward is a 10 or 15 yd penalty instead of turnover I'd be fine with that too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Skipper didn’t report. The bald guy did. Doesn’t matter anyway because the left tackle was uncovered so immediate illegal formation.
That's not what they called though. They said 68 didn't report, which he clearly did and he did so before 70 got to the ref. We got handed a gift.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He was the second lineman from the qb, usually reporting has to do with your number, but you still have to be in an eligible position, right? It seems to me he’s ineligible either way.

After watching it more times you're right, it's weird. Skipper wasn't in an eligible position. Only 68 needed to report, but it is 100% clear from the replays that the referee pointed at and recognized Skipper as eligible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, msucolt45 said:


Yes - all 68 had to do was say “hey ref I’m here and eligible” just a wave/acknowledgment? But all tv said was 70 was eligible?

Hook’em!!!

58(Sewell) was the guy next to 68(funny that the numbers look very similar when your uniform is scrunched up) initially talking to the ref.  then 70, Skipper, comes over late to the ref but 70 was inside 58 on the right side.  

58 was declared eligible by the ref I think but was covered.  or if he wasn't covered then there are 5 in the backfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

After watching it more times you're right, it's weird. Skipper wasn't in an eligible position. Only 68 needed to report, but it is 100% clear from the replays that the referee pointed at and recognized Skipper as eligible. 

Didn't he point at 58 who was with 68 talking to the ref initially?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Whether he reported or not, the formation was illegal. A penalty should’ve been and was called and the correct result of that play occurred. Campbell should’ve kicked the extra point when the penalty was called.

No, if Decker had reported and been recognized the formation was legal. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep and again that's stupid. The referee tells the defense the number that is reporting eligible. Any attempt to be sneaky about it is stupid Aggie shit from Campbell.

It looked like after 68 caught the pass that a couple of cowboys pointed at him as if to say that he wasn’t the guy they were told reported as eligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billy Pilgrim said:

Whether he reported or not, the formation was illegal. A penalty should’ve been and was called and the correct result of that play occurred. Campbell should’ve kicked the extra point when the penalty was called.

I think the formation was ok but he was an ineligible receiver. You can’t report and make yourself eligible just by saying it, you still have to be in an eligible position. Otherwise why wouldn’t every lineman just report just in case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

He  was lined up 2 down from the center (in left tackle position) on the line of scrimmage and then had a receiver on that side also on the line. If the receiver is on the line, any other player also on the line inside of that receiver on that side of the ball is ineligible.

the receiver to the left of 68 is off the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

He  was lined up 2 down from the center (in left tackle position) on the line of scrimmage and then had a receiver on that side also on the line. If the receiver is on the line, any other player also on the line inside of that receiver on that side of the ball is ineligible.

The receiver was off the line. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mileslong said:


Here are some screenshots, Skipper never reported, he never got any closer than are what’s showing here. He tried to pull something and got caught.

99fd7264a9014642a5daae1747704179.jpg


20ca636e8de255146a19a6259b642516.jpg

Dude it's been clarified that 70 was recognized as reporting eligible, the refs told the Lions that was what happened. And the referee clearly points at Skipper and nods at him and recognized him before your screenshots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

He  was lined up 2 down from the center (in left tackle position) on the line of scrimmage and then had a receiver on that side also on the line. If the receiver is on the line, any other player also on the line inside of that receiver on that side of the ball is ineligible.

Unless someone can explain this away, I’m convinced he was ineligible. Again, you can’t just declare yourself eligible and be eligible. The point of reporting is because the number on your jersey is otherwise ineligible. You still have to line up as an eligible receiver. Every time I’ve seen that is because they put a lineman in as a tight end and they have to report to let the defense know that a guy wearing 68 is playing a position that usually wears a number in the 80s. I think they tried to play a cute game and got caught, I need a good explanation to believe otherwise. Just approaching the ref isn’t enough even if you claim you called yourself eligible. Yet again, if that was the rule, why wouldn’t every lineman “declare” themselves eligible on every play? I feel like the commentators are ignoring this for the exposure of controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude it's been clarified that 70 was recognized as reporting eligible, the refs told the Lions that was what happened. And the referee clearly points at Skipper and nods at him and recognized him before your screenshots. 

So you’re saying it’s a conspiracy by the refs that they were told by everyone that they were eligible but chose to ignore it? Everyone that needed to report, didn’t period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they planned to get away with something in a way that if they got caught they could claim controversy. I just don’t see how he’s an eligible receiver from where he line up, even if he reported. They had him go to the ref specifically so they could pretend he “reported” even though he knew he couldn’t become eligible by declaring it like Michael Scott “declaring” bankruptcy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

He  was lined up 2 down from the center (in left tackle position) on the line of scrimmage and then had a receiver on that side also on the line. If the receiver is on the line, any other player also on the line inside of that receiver on that side of the ball is ineligible.

Receiver wasn’t on the line. The formation is fine and the ref botched the call. Plain and simple. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here are some screenshots, Skipper never reported, he never got any closer than are what’s showing here. He tried to pull something and got caught.

99fd7264a9014642a5daae1747704179.jpg


20ca636e8de255146a19a6259b642516.jpg
Here's a screenshot of 58 and 68 walking to the ref and being acknowledged about 2 seconds before your two screenshots.

4b970c9fdc28b7241f01c4423145430d.jpg
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
That ref is going to deservedly get held over the coals. Not only for tonight's mistake but also for being part of the crew for those two other games. Why is he even bothering to explain his side when the replay clearly shows it couldn't have happened that way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ref is going to deservedly get held over the coals. Not only for tonight's mistake but also for being part of the crew for those two other games. Why is he even bothering to explain his side when the replay clearly shows it couldn't have happened that way?

You have no idea what was said by anyone. You think he heard it and just ignored it?
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:
3 minutes ago, Mileslong said:

You have no idea what was said by anyone. You think he heard it and just ignored it?

You think it's more believable 58 and 68 just walked over to him for kicks? Right before the biggest play of the game?

The official clearly announced 70 as eligible. At that point, Detroit has to correct it or 68 isn’t eligible.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...