jason

But what would you say if McCown continues to produce, the Bears leverage that against Cutler and he ends up walking, then next year the Bears start McCown and have a mid-round (3-5) QB that Trestman loves as the project for 2015? If that allows the Bears to get one or two marquee FA's on defense - and considering McCown's performance this year - I don't think it's a terrible idea to use McCown as a stop-gap for one year. Hell, maybe McCown really is Rich Gannon 2.0?!

I'd have to squeegee the screen if the Bears selected Nix in the first. While I think the DT position is better than the DE position, I think that would go a long way towards shoring up the defense. It would improve Melton, the young LBs, and the DEs.

I think the Bears front office needs to look long and hard at yesterday's film and think about next year. Sure, injuries killed the Bears, but the players in the game were pretty bad. That got me to thinking about a fix... What players could be traded, and what would the Bears get in return? I'd love to see multiple trades to stock up on draft picks so the Bears can try to get a playmaking DE and Safety in this year's draft. Does anyone have a good idea about who could be traded and what the Bears could get? Realistically?

I'll chime in to say: WHAT THE HELL was he looking and thinking about on the Tavon Austin score? The Bears had strong pursuit, some push up the middle, and the edge all but sealed on the direction of the play. McClellin is either stupid (because he doesn't understand the defensive strategy), a bad teammate (because he doesn't trust that his teammates have their responsibilities covered), or selfish (because he doesn't care about the previous two and he's just trying to get a star on his helmet). If you look at the play, it's the entire reason why the TD happened. His poor play allowed for an extra blocker to come free. That forced Jennings into ensuring outside leverage (which he did well) and allowed for Conte to get isolated (where Austin was allowed to set up the block). He basically hung those dudes out to dry. I'm all for rushing the QB and getting in their fast, but when there is a handoff to the fastest guy on the other team, you maintain your edge. Oh, and BTW, the long Zac Stacy run just a little while later went the other way. Guess who bit inside from the DE position?

I am honestly surprised when I see posts like this one, which is why I try to address the post. I just don't think most fans truly understand officiating, and even when they do have a decent understanding, they can't see other than through their rose-colored glasses. Where, specifically, were the Bears hosed? I thought the Bears just played like shit. Sloppy, 2am, Taco Bell shit.

Agreed. Game after game I see opponents and other players getting to the QB with frequency. Collapsing the pocket constantly. And I think, "Why don't the Bears do that?" Two main reason: 1) Scheme - They simply don't bring much beyond the front-four, and when they do the rushers prioritize leverage over pressure. Sometimes that makes sense, and sometimes it simply gives the QB a comfortable pocket to step into as the DEs go flying around the edge. 2) Players - In my question above, the quick reply is, "The Bears tried to address it, but McClellin was a turd of a pick." But the other issue is, Peppers just isn't what he used to be. He doesn't dominate. And he certainly doesn't dominate to the tune of 16m per year. It's time to clean up the defense this offseason.

One thing I saw was sloppy/stupid play that negated THREE scores. 1. On Forte's incredible run, the block in the back by Bennett was obvious, stupid, and unnecessary. So much so that he learned from it and changed behavior on a similar situation later in the game. The announcers even mentioned it. 2. On Devin's return the flag for holding by Steltz was thrown very early on a person trying to go down and cover the punt. It wasn't even during the actual return. From the brief snippet we were shown - I'd like to see the entire play - it looks like Steltz just tackled his opponent. That's an obvious holding. 3. On the TD pass there was no mistaking the clothesline Bushrod used to hold him. That's as textbook as they come. The first and last were so obvious that they didn't even upset me. I just shook my head in disbelief. The hold on the return play hurt me deeply though, as I thought that was a turning point in the game. But since the video we got on TV was brief, it hurts more. Of course, this article echoes my thoughts on the subject.

Can you not just click on my user name and then click "send message"? Understood. Consistency in this case is very difficult. Too many moving parts. I can assure you, however, that there are literally thousands of conversations every year about the same topic and how to correct it. I understand what you're saying about the gambling money, etc. I think you've probably noticed over the years that there have been more and more officials' conferences on the field. Most of the time that's an assurance of proper rule and philosophy interpretation. With seven sets of eyes on the field, there is a good chance that two sets are on crucial plays most of the time. And there is an even better chance that the non-calling official would mind his own business unless he was pretty damn sure - most say 110% sure - that the call needed to be discussed/reversed. It'd be really difficult to get two guys involved in a conspiracy like that with as large as the stage is. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's very unlikely. Holding is just a difficult thing to really get. It gets called when it's an ugly hold and it's very pertinent to the play. A late, correct flag is better than an early, incorrect flag. I'm sure the officials are looking at the play, processing it, saying to themselves, "Did it affect the play?" and then making the decision. As for the illegal contact, a variation of that goes from the NFL to pee-wee. But, again, it's only going to get called when it's paramount. WR gets chucked, the QB looks to his second read, throws it successfully for a gain? No call. WR gets chucked, the QB pumps, pulls it back, then gets sacked? More likely to see a flag. I don't think it's possible to take judgement out of the game. Sadly, I did not. I did, however, see the last play and have replied in detail in the other thread about officiating.

I've been saying for weeks that the final game (Green Bay) is the deciding factor as to whether the Bears make the playoffs.

Look at the timestamps and promptly return the GFY. When I posted there were already many people coming out on Incognito's side. Of course now, the tides are swirling with people on both sides.

It's a good question. It's about athletic potential, severity, and zone. Whenever possible the officials are told to allow for a player's athletic potential. As we saw last night with Graham breaking the goal post, these dudes are freak athletes with abilities about which we can only dream. So on a ball that's thrown high, the officials are basically told to err on the side of the player's ability. As for it being 10 feet over the player's head, I guess that's when the judgement comes in (it's not like you can break out a ruler while the ball is in the air). I'd say if it was 10 feet over his head, and the player was roughly 6 feet tall, that puts the ball at 16 feet and it's uncatchable. I'm sure from the field, however, the official who ruled on it probably looked at it as 5 feet or so, making it slightly higher than a basketball goal, which Graham obviously showed can be reached/exceeded. On severity, it probably has to do with the contact as well. Let's say the pass is right on target. Less contact will draw the flag for DPI. The further the pass away, I believe the more contact would be required (I've never actually heard a higher up say it like this). So in your scenario with the high pass, if the contact was minimal but significant enough to draw DPI on a regular play, it could be more easily passed than if the defender just tackles the receiver. On those it's more blatant. When I say zone, I'm referring to where the ball is and what the foul is. If the ball is far left and a hold happens far right, it's a no call. Same for DPI. The only things that draw flags regardless of zone are safety and unsportsmanlike issues. So, for instance, if there were two receivers who could potentially get the ball in this scenario, and they were moderately close, the one that's further from the ball would have to get mugged to get the call. The one closer to the throw obviously requires less contact for a foul.

Questions: 1) Are you saying that Gronk's original momentum didn't aid in his movement toward the end line? 2) Are you saying that if Gronk was not being contacted he would have been able to reverse his momentum and beat the defender (the one who intercepted it) to the ball? The door swings both ways. You are the one with all the insults and name-calling. I'm just trying to tell you, no matter how much you dislike it, that, in terms of the NFL rules, interpretations, and philosophies - something I'm far more informed about - you are wrong. If we happen to stray into something you have expertise in, and I definitely don't, you can expect me to say something like, "Ahh...I didn't know that." Look for it in just about every thread about the salary cap (something that I ignore enough to be puzzled by the various intricacies).

And you replying like a 5-year old only invalidates your point of view when I'm trying to provide rationale explanation of how the officials interpret rules, how the rulebook is worded, how officiating philosophy applies, and how they are graded on all the above.

This I actually agree with. I think there should be better decision-making about which calls are reviewable. Of course, this is not one of them since it's obviously not blatant given the permissible acts section of the rulebook. Nor are most other judgement calls. Then we'd get into the issue of whether or not early contact happened in real time, with human vision, versus whether the contact happened early with the advantage of slow-mo. Then we'd have to say how many milliseconds early constitutes early contact enough to warrant a flag. It's a slippery slope and would be just as argued as this is.

Not only are they reviewed, evaluated, and judged, the crew does their own evaluation. The crew gets game film as they are walking out of the stadium. Yes, on their way out. By Tuesday of the week they already have the coach's cut of the video (two other angles). They get their reviews and evaluations by mid-week. And, according to the link I posted a few posts up, one of the senior coordinators of officials said these guys won't be downgraded for this particular call.

And despite your final comment, you're still wrong. If you include the momentum of Gronk and the momentum of the defender who intercepted the pass, it's uncatchable. The only thing I agree with out of your post is the fact that the referee should have done a better job of explaining the call before bailing.

First, who the F is Tony Manfred? Nobody. He doesn't understand the rules as they are designed and written. He makes a compelling argument, but only if you don't understand the rule book and philosophies behind the rules. This is a pretty good article that explains what's really happening. The video explanation is not as good, but it's from higher up (i.e. he's tap-dancing somewhat). http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--uproar-o...-025036034.html

Certainly not all, but I definitely no more about the rules and officiating than you or anyone else on this board.

Because the contact happened after the ball was in the air. That eliminates out defensive holding by rule. It has to be DPI. Hell, I was at a banquet last night where one of the coordinators of NFL Officiating said the exact same thing when asked about it.

Certainly not. I'm sure if we could see their evaluations we'd be able to easily confirm this. There are problems in literally every game. But on the play in question, the ultimate decision was the correct decision.

No, it's quite literally too disjointed to reply to every.single.sentence the way you have. But I'll do it this time for you. The point to all this is that I'm an official, have been for several years, have talked with multiple Super Bowl referees down to the beginning rookie in pee-wee ball about officiating philosophy, and it's just something that most people truly understand. PM me your address and I'd be glad to try to round up a digital version of the rulebook for you. It's an ugly read. It happens, but I don't believe it happens as often as you believe it does. If we were talking basketball, where interaction is almost always one-on-one and without the chaos of football, I'd be more inclined to agree. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I'm not a cog in the machine in terms of the categories of OPI and DPI. It is PRECISELY what officials are coached, trained, and told to categorize. If they can't put it into one of the categories then they are supposed to leave the call alone. It just so happens that Alshon's OPI calls last year were exactly the definition of one of the categories. I found a handy link that serves as a primer on the subject. I'd love to answer this question, if I could. And it's a valid question. I don't have the hiring/firing record of the NFL. I'm not sure anyone could get it. What I do know is there is minimal changeover. That could be interpreted a variety of ways. But there are always people chomping at the bit to take their spots. So if they weren't doing excellently, why wouldn't the NFL get an aspiring official currently working SEC, B12, B10, PAC12 games to replace a poor official? The answer is, the NFL would get the best person possible. Further, I'm quite sure that when an NFL official is let go, most of the time he's allowed to pretend he's retiring or something similar. Why throw the guy under the bus? So it'd probably never say "fired for incompetence" or "completely dicked up the Chicago vs. Detroit game."

I love how in this thread Cracker has called me multiple names and told me to F myself, yet it hasn't upset me and no admin has said a word. It completely proves my point about the ribbing. I'd take the ribbing in stride while Cracker would most likely cry...while making a horribly inappropriate and probably inept analogy about the entire ordeal.

That was the correct call. It's a philosophy talked about in officiating circles as it pertains to permissible acts. When a defender is committing defensive pass interference BEHIND where the pass is intercepted, then the pass is ultimately uncatchable, and the the DPI shouldn't be called. The two officials that conferred with the back judge probably told him that. And, guess what? The Back Judge is the most inexperienced on the crew. Back Judge - Since 2008 Umpire - Since 1998 Side Judge - Since 2002 It was heat of the moment, he didn't see the whole thing, didn't process the philosophy, and that's why he was overturned.

He was inside the side portion of the shoulder pad. And he pulled him down by it. That's a horsecollar. Read a little about it here.

You guys are freaking hilarious. The helmet-to-helmet is NEVER called on the guy with the ball. Never! The only way that's getting called is if the defender is standing erect, and the ball carrier lowers his head and hits the defender square in the middle of the sternum. Never gonna happen because the defender is also always going to lower his body/head to make a tackle. Oh, and BTW, it was most definitely a horse collar. In fact, it was textbook.