Yep, seeing the replay reinforces that it should not have been called. He hits Sproles’ shoulder at the same time he gets to the ball. He was clearly making a play on the ball (and clearly wanted it more than Sproles did, too). The ref from the front side should have overruled the ref on the back side. Certainly not a “refs had it in for the Packers” call, but certainly wrong, IMO.
And yet, if the exact same interference call had been called on a Packer’s pass, not a single Packer fan would be second guessing it.
I agree that it’s arguable, although it looks to me like the contact with Sproles’ head is enough to “restrict his opportunity”. It’s on the ticky-tack side for sure.
There’s a documented phenomenon in baseball where the umpires call balls & strikes in such a way as to extend at bats. That is, with two strikes, borderline pitches are usually called balls, and with three balls, borderline pitches are usually called strikes. I believe the psychological explanation is that the umpires are avoiding making an unrecoverable bad call.
I wonder if there’s ever been a similar study of how NFL refs call things. If the ref doesn’t call that interference, then the game’s just over and NO loses; if he does call it, then the game keeps going and GB can still recover from the possibly bad call.
At full speed, you see Matthews hit Sproles before the ball gets there, and the ball bounces away. That’s going to get called. The Zapruda-like analysis of whether or not the premature contact caused the incompletion amounts to little more than whining. Matthews hit him early. Pass interference. It wasn’t a “wrong” call. It’s what the official saw.
Or, perhaps, even Hawk hitting Sproles. 
(All those longhaired blonde Packer linebackers start to look the same after a while…)
They all look like Darren Woodson.
Nicely done 
You know, I didn’t think there any possible way that people would be moaning about this call because it was so clear cut. Yet, here I am the day after and people are somehow seeing something completely different from me.
Hawk clearly launched himself into Sproles shoulder and head knocking him forward and to the ground.
Hamlet, I’m pretty shocked by the dishonesty of your post. The entirety of the section of rules that you linked to is this:
I’m sorry, but cherry picking a rule that out of context supports your case and obviously editing out the rule which specifically contradicts your point is tantamount to lying. It’s the type of thing you see in the worse types of political ads. Hawk VERY clearly played the ball through the back of Sproles.
Most of the time when we have our little disagreements about football, it’s in good fun. But let me tell you I find your assertions that I’m dishonest, cherry picking, and lying is extremely infuriating and asinine. By and large, you and I can disagree peacefully, but apparently I underestimated your willingness to resort to this kind of crap in an attempt to tear me down. It’s petty, vindictive, and an all around shitty thing to do.
Had I attempted to be misleading, lying, or cherry picking, why the fuck would I link to the goddamn rule in the very post? Wouldn’t it make more sense to NOT link to the thing you think disproves my point?
I didn’t include it because Hawk didn’t “play through the back of a receiver”. He made a bit of contact, but I don’t consider that even in the same ballpark as playing through the back of the receiver.
Hey, you can disagree. But resorting to the kind of shit you pulled there is pathetic.
I think you’re overreacting quite a bit here, but I stand by the point. The way you edited that article was self-serving and misleading. Editing it that way was intended to imply that a defender playing the ball is never guilty of interference.
You acknowledge that there was contact prior to the ball arriving. Hawk was behind Sproles. That’s pretty much the definition of playing through the back.
I think it was a spectacular play and I wish it hadn’t been flagged. However, Hawk was clearly in contact with Sproles’s back the whole time he’s going up and over. You can see Sproles reaction to it; well before the ball got there, he had been interfered with.
Hamlet, he did play through the back of the receiver, sorry. Hawk tried to jump all the way over, but he didn’t.
That said, P.I. was better than the apparent TD reception, so it was a good play.
I tend not to shrug off accusations of dishonesty, cherry picking, and lying.
Stand by it all you want, you’re still fucking wrong.
Wrong about the call, or wrong about the “creative editing”?
That doesn’t look like pass interference to me. I thought Hawk made a great play.
With no rooting interest in the game, it looked like a bullshit call to me. You’re allowed to touch the receiver, you just can’t impede him. Incidental contact – which IMO is clearly what this was – is not PI.
I thought it was a great pass defense play, and if that play was wrong, I want to gut the nfl rulebook.
Yeah, pretty much this. I hate the way the rules have evolved to favor the offense so blatantly. Bleh.
As I said earlier: “the call was one of dozens that occur in every game that are purely judgment calls. I’m not going to bitch and whine about the call, there is a reasonable interpretation on both sides.” I think you’re wrong about the call, but that really doesn’t bug me all that much. You’ve been wrong about a lot of things. So have I.
That’s the one that pisses me off. We couldn’t just disagree with the call, you had to say I was dishonest, cherry picking, and lying, because I thought it obvious that a nudge on the back didn’t amount to “playing through the back” enough to be mentioned. We can disagree on football issues. Hell, we do it quite often. But when you take it a step beyond, when you say I’m somehow a liar or dishonest for daring to disagree with you, that’s you being … how to put this in a way that won’t get me warned … overly combative.
[MODERATING]
Omniscient, accusing another poster of lying, which you have done - you may spare me claims that your wording was anything but - is against the rules of this forum. You will not do it again. This is the second time in the very recent past I have had to ask you to tone it down in the Game Room. I assure you the next will be accompanied with a formal warning.
Hamlet, you will dial it down please. If you have a complaint about another poster, you know how to report a post and you know where the Pit is.
Thanks,
RickJay
Moderator
Incidental means two people coming into contact as they both try to make a play on the ball. Hawk jumped over Sproles back to make a play and doubled Sproles over in the effort. That can’t possibly be incidental. Look here. Sproles is almost knocked to a knee a full second before the ball got there. I can’t even begin to imagine what has to go through your head to think that isn’t P.I..
Not that it was the wrong play, it was absolutely the right play. Hawk potentially saved the game. But it was without a doubt a penalty.