Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: Atrocious officiating on Monday Night
Message-ID: <1853@hao.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 16:27:27 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1853
Posted: Wed Nov 13 16:27:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 07:26:07 EST
References: <284@ucdavis.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 61

> I will forgive the 
> questionable (to put it kindly) pass interference call on a crucial third down
> play in the Broncos' last scoring drive

  You are dead wrong here. The replay CLEARLY showed that the defender
HAD HIS HAND ON WATSON'S CHEST, while the ball was in the air, and was not
looking for the ball. Say what you want about the current interference rules,
but according to the rules as stated, that was interference. You can say that
the Broncos were 'lucky' if you want, but I disagree. An infraction was 
committed and was properly flagged. If the defender hadn't committed the
infraction, there would be no 'luck' for the Broncos.

> but the missed call of interference 
> against Denver in the End Zone disgusted me.

  I'll give you that one. The officials blew the call. The replay showed that
Harden hit the receiver before the ball got there. However, Harden was at least
looking for the ball. In this case, the determination is whether Harden
deliberately hit the receiver to prevent his catching the pass, or whether he
was going for the ball. I think it was interference, but it's tougher to call
in this case. The major difference between these two plays is that in one
case, the defender had his eyes on the ball, and in the other, he didn't.
According to the new rules this year, that is critical.

> Without its fine, classy fan that threw the snowball at Matt Cavanaugh in the
> second quarter, the Broncos would be 6-4 at this point.  

  I think that is really leaping to conclusions. Psychologically, the game
would have been different had they made that field goal, plus the fact that
there is no guarantee that they would have made it had there not been
a snowball. We don't know for sure that the snowball was the reason 
Cavanaugh bobbled the snap. And we don't know Weirshing would have made
the kick had he fielded the snap properly. BTW, I do not approve of throwing
ANY kind of projectile onto the field. Someone could get hurt. I am not trying
to defend the snowball thrower, I just think that's a pretty lame excuse
coming from a 49'ers fan who is feeling sour grapes. If the 49'ers had scored
a touchdown when they had first and goal from the three, or had Earl Cooper
not dropped an easy touchdown pass, we might not be arguing this. The 49'ers
blew it, pure and simple. They had plenty of opportunities to put the game away
in the 3rd quarter, and THEY BLEW IT. No excuses.

> It's beyond me that 
> the officials did not call an unsportsmanlike against the crowd at that point.
> According the rules, that is within their power.

  Is it? Apparently that is a matter of some controversey. I understand
the league office is instituting some new rules specifically to cover
incidents like this.

> More angry than most,
> Gary Huckabay.

  Make that sour grapes. If the 49'ers didn't blow games that they could have
won, they wouldn't be 5-5 and you wouldn't be using snowballs as excuses.

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY