Gatorubet;1571966; said:Very questionable, but you can make an argument (weak, yes - subjective, certainly) that the Hog instituted helmet on helmet contact in the play.
Not saying my orange and blue glasses don't fog up, just that I can see a way that the ref might have seen him as leading with his helmet. I need to know the angle of the ref and what he saw. But H-2-H would explain a "personal foul" call.
Finally, both of the questionable calls were on first down - I think - and while it sure got us closer to field goal range, we had three more downs to get ten in each case, and you cannot say that without the call the game would absolutely been different, like in a 4th down situation.
(And the Swindle in the Swamp gives us the right to get several more of these - karma wise. )
If they would have called the blatant offensive interference, it would have been 3 downs to get 25.
Upvote
0