[BostonCard]

.......that we seemed to get the benefit of the PI calls last night.
Somebody else did too.

My main response to that is ... lame.
Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

And the most appropriate quotation from the article was, "Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he did. I'll watch it on the tape and see."
Yes, you are wrong. And maybe you should watch the tape before mouthing off so you have at least some idea what you are talking about.

Overall, most importantly, in any football game you get some calls, you lose some calls. There is a reason that coaches go nuts getting their players not to fret over calls - and you cannot do that if the coach is fretting over calls.

More particular, all those calls were fine, and two of the three were absolutely must-calls. The first one was technically interference but the ball might have been uncatchable - though the interference made it hard to tell. The craziest comment was on the last one,
"Then the one they called late on Aashari. He stumbles into the guy. That ball is thrown 15 yards out of bounds. It's uncatchable."
There was no stumbling, it was a blatant push in the back. If there were stumbling, that does not make interference allowable (intention is not at issue). The ball wasn't thrown out of bounds, it went through Wilson's hands (even after the push) just outside the numbers (about 5-10 yards in bounds)."
https://youtu.be/6SfMS6ByW44?t=685
(keep watching, there is a clearer shot on the replay)

Maybe he should have watched the tape first.

Lame.

I agree with your take, especially about the second two pass interferences.  On the game thread, I noted that the first one might have been questionable, but that's always somewhat of a subjective take since a pass may look "uncatchable" because of pass interference.   On that first one, I think an agrument could have been made that the pass was too underthrown, and the contact was too late, for it to have made a difference in whether the receiver could have caught the ball.  Not so on the other two, especially the catch you highlighted for the reasons you highlighted it.  The receiver was clearly pushed in the back when he had a step on his DB, and not only was the catch "catchable", Wilson actually got his hands on it even though he was off balance from the push.

BC

[BostonCard]

.......that we seemed to get the benefit of the PI calls last night.
Somebody else did too.

My main response to that is ... lame.
Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

And the most appropriate quotation from the article was, "Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he did. I'll watch it on the tape and see."
Yes, you are wrong. And maybe you should watch the tape before mouthing off so you have at least some idea what you are talking about.

Overall, most importantly, in any football game you get some calls, you lose some calls. There is a reason that coaches go nuts getting their players not to fret over calls - and you cannot do that if the coach is fretting over calls.

More particular, all those calls were fine, and two of the three were absolutely must-calls. The first one was technically interference but the ball might have been uncatchable - though the interference made it hard to tell. The craziest comment was on the last one,
"Then the one they called late on Aashari. He stumbles into the guy. That ball is thrown 15 yards out of bounds. It's uncatchable."
There was no stumbling, it was a blatant push in the back. If there were stumbling, that does not make interference allowable (intention is not at issue). The ball wasn't thrown out of bounds, it went through Wilson's hands (even after the push) just outside the numbers (about 5-10 yards in bounds)."
https://youtu.be/6SfMS6ByW44?t=685
(keep watching, there is a clearer shot on the replay)

Maybe he should have watched the tape first.

Lame.

I agree with your take, especially about the second two pass interferences.  On the game thread, I noted that the first one might have been questionable, but that's always somewhat of a subjective take since a pass may look "uncatchable" because of pass interference.   On that first one, I think an agrument could have been made that the pass was too underthrown, and the contact was too late, for it to have made a difference in whether the receiver could have caught the ball.  Not so on the other two, especially the catch you highlighted for the reasons you highlighted it.  The receiver was clearly pushed in the back when he had a step on his DB, and not only was the catch "catchable", Wilson actually got his hands on it even though he was off balance from the push.

BC