That's not correct. By rule, incidental contact occurs ONLY "when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball" (Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5.) In this case, Wayne was competing for the ball, but Hobbs was not, so the contact is not "incidental."
Like I said, the issue is whether Hobbs MUST initiate the contact to be pass interference or, because Hobbs was not playing the ball, contact initiated by Wayne in a bona fide effort to catch the ball constitutes interference by Hobbs.
Good post. I've watched that play at LEAST 10 times since it happened and yes, IMO, there WAS contact made by Hobbs BEFORE the ball got there. Now, it wasn't much contact but there WAS contact. That, plus the fact that Hobbs was obviously not playing the ball made it an easy call for the official to make. I believe, had Hobbs turned his head to look for the ball, the call wouldn't have been made. But, it WAS made and thats the bottom line. Besides, there was a total of 30 points scored in the game AFTER that play so, its not like the pats had no chances after that.
The refs missed the PI on Caldwell in the endzone but, hey, they probably figured he wasn't gonna catch it anyway, lol. The roughing the passer call against Manning was the right call, at least, in the way its interpreted. You cannot hit the quarterback in the head, PERIOD. Freeney's been hit with that one a couple of times this year himself. Each team got some calls, each team got jobbed on a couple. In the end, IMO, neither team really benefitted from the officials more than the other. The Gaffney touchdown in the back of the endzone, for instance, was a judgement call by the refs that went the pats way.
However, I'm guessing Piolichek and company are more concerned with the way they got STEAMROLLED by the Colts in the second half, to the tune of 32 points and more than 300 yards in offense, and by the fact that they've now lost 3 in a row to the Colts, 2 of them at home. Just a hunch.
What puzzles me is, why did the Herald go ahead and print that story without ANY confirmation from the league itself? Why on earth would Vic Ketchman, of all people, be the one the NFL chose to report this story to? Vic, you see, has a long and festering hatred for the Colts that dates all the way back to his youth in Baltimore. He's accused the Colt's of anything and everything over the years and spends more time talking about them than he does about the team he FREAKIN WORKS for, the Jags. How he manages to keep his job is beyond me. He had an ALL Colts column on the jags website, just last week.
and just recently published a column in which he says he believes that there is a conspiracy in the league to get Peyton in the Super-Bowl. The man is a nut-job, plain and simple. He would be the LAST person the league would relay that info too.
So, my question is, what business does ANY newspaper have publishing a rumor like that as fact? Why on earth would they do so without getting confirmation from THE LEAGUE ITSELF, instead of believing the ramblings of a long-time Colt's hater, written on the website of another NFL team? Thats the craziest part of all of this, IMO.
