|
In his webcast he does some work to basically justify not calling the hurdle to some extent as well as talk about the tone and volume of his voice by saying he wasn't yelling or even talking loud enough for the players to hear. However the bad part I take from this is how he phrased his displeasure of the call. He said, "We're not call that." As opposed to, "That was not a hurdle." There is a mile between those two. One says that even if there was a foul we are not going to call it while the other says that the action did not meet the requirements of the definition.
His comments about the state interpreiter said that another play showed a worse action that should not have been called a hurdle. Well what I saw was a player jump with his knees leading the way and a lineman move over toward him. The "hurdler" tried to jump between players and not over a player. The interpreiter says that the lineman is not vertical enough to call this. I would say what matters is the position of the hurdlee when the "hurdler" commits to his act and not if the hurdlee is straight enough with jumped. I still say that the original play was a hurdle and the example play was not.
|