@dj_illness said:

the more you look at the call, it's got to be a principle vs. actuality thing.

there was another reciever (and defender) in front of the guy that got pushed out of bounds, and the ball landed in front of them.

that was not a catchable ball for the guy that got interefered with.

oh well.

Regardless of his position a penalty was made. Illegal contact would have been great but again understand the circumstance first.

The ball was thrown 35+ yards with some air under it. A WR could have ran from the 30 yardline and caught that pass...So how is a guy 5 yards away not eligible? Forget him for a moment and look at Calvin Johnson. He would of had to interfere with Pool to prevent him from intercepting the pass. So why is he being tackled when Brodney begins to jump for the INT?

Bad bad play by both defenders. Pool had it dialed in yet they both had their backs to the play and made contact with the WR's. Rationalizations don't discredit facts. Watch play again.

The real issue is our moron coach not your belief in refs out to screw us.

@theclevelandsound said:

Listening to WMMS on the way back home, a few points came up about the end of the game potentially giving us the win.

Apparently, it is a rule that when the QB is out of the pocket, the defensive back can try to force the WR out of bounds. Therefore, if you watch the film, every angle shows that the pass interference play should not have been called.

Also, there should not have been a injury timeout given to the Detroit Lions, because they were completely out of timeouts. Therefore, a few seconds should have been run off of the playclock.

Finally, it is a rule that the player injured on the field for an injury timeout is not allowed to come on the field for the next play. Once again, Dante Culpepper should have been the QB on the one yard line during that goal line play. This is controversial in itself however because the Browns called a timeout and that could have nullified the rule.

Thoughts?

First time here. Thought I would respond to TS on this. The PI call was accurate and could have been called on both players actually. As disgusting a loss as this is, it pains me to say it...We lossed fair and square guys.

First the PI...Take your pick IMO but Poteat seems to be the guy. You site a rule about the QB breaking the pocket. This is correct. The defender can treat the reciever as a blocker(to an extent) and make contact with him. Forcing him out of bounds makes him an ineligible reciever and provides one less option for the scrambling QB. You are 100% right about the rule but failed to understand the events that took place.

Poteat didn't force the Lion WR out of bounds on the scramble, he did so when the ball was in the air. Once the ball is airborne the WR is OFF LIMITS...regardless if the pass came from beyond the pocket or even someone other than the QB. It was a PI regardless of his position relative to the pass. Did he get touched when the ball was in the air? Yes, PI evertime.

Regarding the inury to the QB. We called a TO which waived the requirement for him to sit a play.

I'm as disgruntled and disgusted as the rest of you. However, this doesn't give reason to blind yourself from factual events.

The real issue to question is the 3rd down call with 2 minutes left. The opponent had no TO's left. The opponent is weak up front. Our QB is hardly average. WTF do you call a pass play given those circumstances?