Except you are forgetting, in your rush to defend the zebras, that Switz was HIT after catching the ball... IF your scenario was true, there should have been a flag... on wake.
If the receiver gives a signal and then runs he can be hit and it's not a penalty. Switzer never gave a signal so the ref could not have seen one , he just got confused as the wake coverage let up when Switzer kind of nonchalanted it to decoy them. What I can't get through to jazzba is an inadvertent whistle is much worse than a wrong call especially to those in the referee community. There are wrong calls in every game but how many inadvertent whistles do you hear? Inadvertent whistles are the epitome of incompetence and not being in the game mentally..Except you are forgetting, in your rush to defend the zebras, that Switz was HIT after catching the ball... IF your scenario was true, there should have been a flag... on wake.
If the receiver gives a signal and then runs he can be hit and it's not a penalty. Switzer never gave a signal so the ref could not have seen one , he just got confused as the wake coverage let up when Switzer kind of nonchalanted it to decoy them. What I can't get through to jazzba is an inadvertent whistle is much worse than a wrong call especially to those in the referee community. There are wrong calls in every game but how many inadvertent whistles do you hear? Inadvertent whistles are the epitome of incompetence and not being in the game mentally..
OK got your point.No, you are missing the point. When Switz caught it, BEFORE he started running, a wake player hit him. Go look at the Vine again and you will see. Didn't tackle Switz, but definitely hit him. So IF the ref saw the "fair catch" there was ZERO chance he didn't see the wake player hit Switz...
And it is a good one.OK got your point.