Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 7/26/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ejv
From: ejv@drutx.UUCP (VaughnEJ)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: RE: Bad officiating Monday night.
Message-ID: <659@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 15:58:54 EST
Article-I.D.: drutx.659
Posted: Wed Nov 20 15:58:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 05:02:47 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 17

>I also agree that the interference call was very questionable.  
>According to the revised rules of this year, the defender was doing nothing
>wrong.  Yet, it is a fairly new change in the rules.  I have seen this error
>made in other games this year, too, so I can understand it.  I don't think
>it is a good excuse, but I can understand the confusion.

I've heard this from alot of people who don't seem to realize an important
part of the revised rules. incidental contact can only happen if the DB is
PLAYING THE BALL. In the play refered to by the above the DB was definitely
not playing the ball. The play was made by watson who "suckered" the DB into
thinking the ball wasn't coming. I don't think there was that much contact.
But I think the call was made on the basis that the DB prevented watson from
coming back to make the catch.

				Ed