Thanks for such a well officiated game refs.

[TD Riggo]

The Crackgirlz offensive line held on EVERY play! *E.V.E.R.Y.* play! Did they EVER call holding against "America's [Ghey] Team" yesterday?!

[Mooka]

The refs took their time at the end of the first half, and ended up getting it right.

If one of the officials knew right off the bat what the proper call was after that convoluted sequence of events - out of bounds or incomplete pass?, under two minutes, delay of game penalty, booth review of play prior to delay of game penalty, booth review allowed because another snap had not occurred due to delay of game penalty, play before delay of game overturned by booth review thanks to delay of game penalty, delay of game penalty waived off because... who knows why?... - I would have saluted that ref. But I think it's unfair to call the officiating "horrendous" because they took some time to sort through that mess in order to get it right.

They caused that convoluted sequence of events by getting it wrong multiple times before getting it right.

Review comes from the booth.

Next play was never snapped.

...that's it. Its not that complicated.

[Dan T.]

They caused that convoluted sequence of events by getting it wrong multiple times before getting it right.

Review comes from the booth.

Next play was never snapped.

...that's it. Its not that complicated.

The review call came after the delay of game penalty. That was the complicating factor.

[LoneStarDaddy]

Thank you!

I cant believe some of the things I'm reading. I looked at the reply in regular time and noticed Kosier dive 5 yds past the LOS to chop Golston. It's plain as day it should be a penalty. That's a 10yd penalty.. It would've been 2nd & Goal from the 20yd line! We definitely still had a chance.

Why must you complain when you apparently don't bother to consult the rulebook:

1. It is NOT illegal player downfield when the inelligible receiver is blocking his opponent from the line of scrimmage, or engaged with a defender -regardless of how far past the LOS he is. Please look it up, it's as factual as your picture showing Gholson being chopped down.

2. Even if it was a penalty (which it is NOT by definition and rule), it is a 5 yeard penalty

[Popeman38]

Why must you complain when you apparently don't bother to consult the rulebook:

1. It is NOT illegal player downfield when the inelligible receiver is blocking his opponent from the line of scrimmage, or engaged with a defender -regardless of how far past the LOS he is. Please look it up, it's as factual as your picture showing Gholson being chopped down.

2. Even if it was a penalty (which it is NOT by definition and rule), it is a 5 yeard penalty

Explain Gurode. You can't. Ineligible receiver down field, 5 yd penalty, still 2nd down. Points off the board. As well as Romo sits to pee played yesterday (severe sarcasm) there is no guarantee you score in 3 plays from the 15. Thank you. Any other questions?

[goflyhelo]

Oh and btw.

Is right in front of your face!!!!!!!!! :finger:

This play is about to be discussed on ESPN 980 on the Sports Fix.

[NoCalMike]

Question:

Didn't the Redskins have a TD nullified IN DALLAS on basically this very same type of situation last season?

Also, why does DeMarcus Ware get to jump offsides so much and get away with it? Is it because he had a rep for jumping the snap count two years ago? On Campbell's INT to seal the game it was obvious he was offsides.

[Mooka]

Why must you complain when you apparently don't bother to consult the rulebook:

1. It is NOT illegal player downfield when the inelligible receiver is blocking his opponent from the line of scrimmage, or engaged with a defender -regardless of how far past the LOS he is. Please look it up, it's as factual as your picture showing Gholson being chopped down.

Your interpretation is way off.

Are you claiming you can run 20 yards down the field and start blocking CB's on a passing play?

Here:

What distance constitutes an "ineligible man" downfield and what is the rationale behind the violation? In other words, what advantage does an offense incur by having a non-eligible man downfield? -- Steve L., Glencoe, Ill.

It is a foul when an ineligible offensive player, which is difficult to describe but is often an offensive lineman, advances beyond his line of scrimmage after losing contact with an opponent at the line of scrimmage. It is also illegal when an ineligible offensive player moves downfield without contacting an opponent at the line of scrimmage. These restrictions end when the ball leaves the passer's hand. The offending player must be more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage prior to the pass to be illegally downfield. This guideline is used in college and professional football.

I'm not blaming the refs for the loss. I'm giving that particular ref the finger for not calling the penalty in front of his face.

[LoneStarDaddy]

Your interpretation is way off.

Are you claiming you can run 20 yards down the field and start blocking CB's on a passing play?

Here:

I'm not blaming the refs for the loss. I'm giving that particular ref the finger for not calling the penalty in front of his face.

I'm not saying an O lineman can block a CB, that would be illegal man downfield because he was have to be disengaged to get to the CB. The lineman must be engaged from the LOS. In this case, they were engaged with Gholson from the LOS.

[Mooka]

I'm not saying an O lineman can block a CB, that would be illegal man downfield because he was have to be disengaged to get to the CB. The lineman must be engaged from the LOS. In this case, they were engaged with Gholson from the LOS.

Kosier does not engage anyone.

He looks back and see's Romo sits to pee scrambling and runs upfield. Once he crosses the 9 yard line, Romo sits to pee cannot throw the ball.

[LoneStarDaddy]

Look at your boy Mooka's post and tell me how far Gurode is from the LOS...

[budski]

Officiating is not to blame for the meager 6 pts we put up.

[grego]

Why must you complain when you apparently don't bother to consult the rulebook:

1. It is NOT illegal player downfield when the inelligible receiver is blocking his opponent from the line of scrimmage, or engaged with a defender -regardless of how far past the LOS he is. Please look it up, it's as factual as your picture showing Gholson being chopped down.

2. Even if it was a penalty (which it is NOT by definition and rule), it is a 5 yeard penalty

lonestar, while i disagreed with some officials calls and ultimately think blache and zorn had more to do with the skins losing, i think you are mistaken on this play.

watch the clip. golston gets chopped at around the 7-8 after he disengages from another block. there are 2 blocks on him, in other words. watch the clip and you'll see.

[LoneStarDaddy]

Kosier does not engage anyone.

He looks back and see's Romo sits to pee scrambling and runs upfield. Once he crosses the 9 yard line, Romo sits to pee cannot throw the ball.

Kosier and Gurode engaged him on the snap with a doubleteam.

Look, the Redskins played hard, and as a Cowboys fan we were lucky to escape. I knew the Skins would play hard in the game, anyone watching these teams for an appreciable time knows to throw records out the window anyway. I just don't think that the officials had the say so in this game, I've seen many worse calls throughout the NFL. It was mildly controversial at best, and you could still argue that is was a legal play all the way around (I belive it was legal).

Anyway, what about the Jason Campbell play with the insane 8 minute break? Forget whether his foot was out of bounds or not when he threw it, the pass never made the LOS, which is intentiional grounding (10 yards and loss of down). Suisham missed the fieldgoal anyway, but it's not like this was officiating in favor of the Cowboys.

[wildbill1952]

second and goal at the 9 wasn't it?

No, see the graphic. It was second and goal, but the ball was not at the 9. They had lost yardage on first down and the start of the graphic shows them backed up to the 12 or 13 yard line. So both Dallas OL were ineligible receivers downfield. That's what the line judge is supposed to see...and call...and flag. The second OL might have been missed easily. But the guy on the ground is right in front of the ref.

Did it cost the Skins the game? Moot. History. In the archives. I'll leave it as a question for those who like to draw out the misery.

Just another example of a call that went against the Skins. Expected in Dallas.

[grego]

Kosier and Gurode engaged him on the snap with a doubleteam.

what are you watching? when golston was chopped it was long after that.

are you watching the replay or are you going from memory?

[LoneStarDaddy]

lonestar, while i disagreed with some officials calls and ultimately think blache and zorn had more to do with the skins losing, i think you are mistaken on this play.

watch the clip. golston gets chopped at around the 7-8 after he disengages from another block. there are 2 blocks on him, in other words. watch the clip and you'll see.

The deal is, at the end of the day the officials didn't rob the Skins of anything. 2 missed field goals did. Turniong the ball over with 2 minutes left only needed a field goal did. Nobody took those chances away. They were there.

I know how you feel, it's like teh game 3 years ago in Texas Stadium when we put Mike's, Troy's and Emmit's name in teh Ring of Honor. We had a 13 point lead and basically lined up and kicked the Skins all over the field for 55 minutes. Then 2 gut punching TDs from Moss in 5 minutes and we lost by 1. Your left thinking, what the hell?

[grego]

The deal is, at the end of the day the officials didn't rob the Skins of anything. 2 missed field goals did. Turniong the ball over with 2 minutes left only needed a field goal did. Nobody took those chances away. They were there.

I know how you feel, it's like teh game 3 years ago in Texas Stadium when we put Mike's, Troy's and Emmit's name in teh Ring of Honor. We had a 13 point lead and basically lined up and kicked the Skins all over the field for 55 minutes. Then 2 gut punching TDs from Moss in 5 minutes and we lost by 1. Your left thinking, what the hell?

i agree with you and said so just a few posts up.

but as far as the play you are talking about, you are incorrect. gurode and kosier engage at the snap. gurode stays engaged for a few seconds while kosier turns around- doing a complete 360 looking for someone to block. he then runs to about the 8-7 and cuts golston there after gurode had let golston go.

did you watch it yet? if so, what do you think now?

[LoneStarDaddy]

I did watch it, and even if you don't think Kosier's actions constitute "engagement" (the definition of which "what does and what does not" I admittedly do not know), then you still have to admit he is only 2 yards total from the LOS - the significance is when consulting the rulebook there was language that the official gives 2 to 3 yards leeway. In the posts above tehre is an official rulebook quote of 1 yard past. This is ticky-tack.

[Popeman38]

I'm not saying an O lineman can block a CB, that would be illegal man downfield because he was have to be disengaged to get to the CB. The lineman must be engaged from the LOS. In this case, they were engaged with Gholson from the LOS.

Dude, you ain't watchin the right play then. Gurode is standing directly in front of the umpire at the 7 yd line when Romo sits to pee releases the ball. The screen capture ealier shows Romo sits to pee getting ready to throw. Gurode takes 2 full steps beyond where he is in the above screen capture. Kosier cuts Golston, who was in a full sprint to get in front of Romo sits to pee to prevent a rushing TD. Kosier was in front of Golston, saw him coming, and cut him. He was not engaged from the LOS, making him an ineligible receiver downfield. There were 2 ineligible receivers downfield, and both were no more than 5 feet in front of the umpire. His job is to look for 2 things: 1) holding, and 2) ineligible receivers downfield. The sidejudge is also responsible for ineligible downfield, as well as offsides and illegal forward passes.

[Popeman38]

I did watch it, and even if you don't think Kosier's actions constitute "engagement" (the definition of which "what does and what does not" I admittedly do not know), then you still have to admit he is only 2 yards total from the LOS - the significance is when consulting the rulebook there was language that the official gives 2 to 3 yards leeway. In the posts above tehre is an official rulebook quote of 1 yard past. This is ticky-tack.

Gurode is at the 7 with no one to block when Romo sits to pee throws the ball. That has to be flagged, especially when Rabach is flagged for this call in a 3rd and goal situation last year and he was less then 3 yds upfield blocking someone. Consistency is all anyone asks for, and that is lacking in NFL officiating these days.

[shakinaiken]

I'm sorry, but blaming the refs. is just making excuses for the offense's ineptitude.

no we realize the offense is inept: its been said over and over again on this board. But the refs cost us 6 points on that play, not the offense

[grego]

I did watch it, and even if you don't think Kosier's actions constitute "engagement" (the definition of which "what does and what does not" I admittedly do not know), then you still have to admit he is only 2 yards total from the LOS - the significance is when consulting the rulebook there was language that the official gives 2 to 3 yards leeway. In the posts above tehre is an official rulebook quote of 1 yard past. This is ticky-tack.

according to the rule mooka posted on the previous page, its an illegal man downfield call. call it ticky tack, but its illegal regardless. and it is a little bit ironic that rabach was called for it last year in your place when review showed, as i recall, that he wasnt illegally downfield. and that call negated a TD.

i'm still curious why you signed up to post on this topic and just now decided to back down from your claim that kosier and gurode were both engaged with golston from the snap.

you should have at least looked at the video before posting. gotta keep those 'pockets straight' in enemy territory.

[LoneStarDaddy]

according to the rule mooka posted on the previous page, its an illegal man downfield call. call it ticky tack, but its illegal regardless. and it is a little bit ironic that rabach was called for it last year in your place when review showed, as i recall, that he wasnt illegally downfield. and that call negated a TD.

i'm still curious why you signed up to post on this topic and just now decided to back down from your claim that kosier and gurode were both engaged with golston from the snap.

you should have at least looked at the video before posting. gotta keep those 'pockets straight' in enemy territory.

first of all, I haven't backed off at all. I'm just saying that even if you don't consider them engaged, then they STILL didn't constitute illegal man downfield given the 1 yard rule and the fact that Gholston was cut 2 yards from the LOS when officials typically give three.

And for the record, I can see. At the snap they both engage Gholston, period. I do not know what does and does not constitute a disengagement because there is no language on that rule.

Finally, give some credit where credit is due, thank Suisham please. He's finally performing like he did in Dallas - thanks for nothing. You had ample chances and nobody robbed you.

[grego]

first of all, I haven't backed off at all. I'm just saying that even if you don't consider them engaged, then they STILL didn't constitute illegal man downfield given the 1 yard rule and the fact that Gholston was cut 2 yards from the LOS when officials typically give three.

And for the record, I can see. At the snap they both engage Gholston, period. I do not know what does and does not constitute a disengagement because there is no language on that rule.

Finally, give some credit where credit is due, thank Suisham please. He's finally performing like he did in Dallas - thanks for nothing. You had ample chances and nobody robbed you.

i'm going to tell you one more time, since you are bordering on trolling- i never blamed the refs for the loss. i've said this twice to you specifically, but youre still bringing it up.

second, quote me the rule where an o linemen is allowed 2-3 yards past the LOS before it is illegal.

third, i dont know how you can argue kosier and gurode were both engaged with golston the whole time. you can clearly see kosier leave gurode alone with him while he looks around, does a 360, and runs 3 yards part the LOS to chop golston. how are you claiming that he was constantly engaged from the snap? if you dont know what engaging and disengaging in a block is, you cannot be helped.

btw, i was being nice and trying to help you. if you want to stick around, you need to be a more gracious winner and get your rulebook and facts in order before showing up here thumping your chest.

just my 2 cents. do with it what you will.