Alaskan Grizzly Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 As do I. Not debating that the refs aren't entitled to getting it wrong once in a while. Just that they clearly got it wrong this time. Just wish judgment calls were reviewable sometimes, particularly when they go against the Bears. OMG Crack, aren't games long enough?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 OMG Crack, aren't games long enough?!?! Its not like our game was 5 hrs long....oh wait lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 OMG Crack, aren't games long enough?!?! LOL! Yeah, but there'd still be the same limits on the number of reviews a team could ask for. I'm just saying, there are clearly times when a call can't be reviewed because it's a so-called "judgment call" and the video evidence shows that the ref clearly made the wrong gawd damn judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Even if it was a blown call I accept these calls as part of the game and most often they balance out. As I said before the Patriots got a huge benefit from one blown call earlier in the game for no leg whip penalty (drive continued for points not to mention taking out the defense's best player) and lost points on another judgment call. That's a wash so I see zero net gain or loss to the Patriots from the officials. The Bears/Ravens had a similar "trade off" with identical calls. Not necessarily identical plays. The first was a horse collar I think on Jeffery early in the game. Looked like the defender grabbed the back of the jersey to tackle him. Wasn't a horse collar but the manner in which Jeffery fell looked like it. And later in the game Bowman (I think) committed a similar tackle but his hand was more in the vicinity of the actual collar. Then the second example was Julius' roughing the passer play where Flacco started his feet first slide and in an attempt to do the same Peppers bumped Flacco at the end of his slide. Ridiculous call. But later immediately after McCown threw the ball a defender pushed off McCown with two hands who then "flopped" to the ground. Penalty Ravens. So yes, in a manner of speaking, sometimes they do have a tendency to even out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 LOL! Yeah, but there'd still be the same limits on the number of reviews a team could ask for. I'm just saying, there are clearly times when a call can't be reviewed because it's a so-called "judgment call" and the video evidence shows that the ref clearly made the wrong gawd damn judgment. And I think, lending to Jason's insight, that is where plays like that are reviewed for consistency and graded by the peer group. In other words, if I understand correctly, after each game all officials are graded based on their performance. Obviously they (refs) want to be able to eventually gain the noteriety to officiate in the 'big game' so the lower the score, the less chance they get. The LAST thing we need to do is make the game longer by reviewing reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 And I think, lending to Jason's insight, that is where plays like that are reviewed for consistency and graded by the peer group. In other words, if I understand correctly, after each game all officials are graded based on their performance. Obviously they (refs) want to be able to eventually gain the noteriety to officiate in the 'big game' so the lower the score, the less chance they get. The LAST thing we need to do is make the game longer by reviewing reviews. Agree on not extending the length of time it takes to review plays and we definitely do not need to review even more plays. Per the NFL's officiating boss this play would be reviewed as "neutral" regarding the performance of the refs. Indicating that perhaps the call might have been wrong (he didn't say that) but the process they used in conversation from the appropriate officials as well as the fact that in real time this is a bang bang play where they have to see the timing of both the INT and the interference. They judged them to have occurred at the same time and thus no foul. In slo mo replays from various angles we can see that there was some contact just prior to the replay. They ruined the game somewhat when they decided to review every scoring play. First off, that alone isn't correct because of the ruling is not a TD then no matter how close to the goal line the play is, if not called a score, it doesn't get reviewed. I'll live with the occasional missed call in a game in order to keep momentum swings a significant part of the game. I was content when coaches had their challenges and if correct earned a second one. Otherwise play on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 And I think, lending to Jason's insight, that is where plays like that are reviewed for consistency and graded by the peer group. In other words, if I understand correctly, after each game all officials are graded based on their performance. Obviously they (refs) want to be able to eventually gain the noteriety to officiate in the 'big game' so the lower the score, the less chance they get. The LAST thing we need to do is make the game longer by reviewing reviews. I never suggested reviewing reviews. I said some of the things called on the field are called unreviewable and some of those things ought to be reconsidered. If you watch a replay on TV and it's obviously a blown call yet they can't review it because some things are not included in the replay rules, we end up with exactly what replay is meant to help avoid, contraversy. The NFL doesn't want your nightly news showing how the officials stole a game from your team that afternoon. If we can't review blatant errors, I'd be a fan of removing replay altogether and then just dealing with the results. Oh well, they're human. But if we mean to improve the calls on the field, we ought to do that with all options available. And before I get another bitch about making the game longer, all of the above could be accomplished while maintaining the same number of coaching challenges available per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I never suggested reviewing reviews. I said some of the things called on the field are called unreviewable and some of those things ought to be reconsidered. If you watch a replay on TV and it's obviously a blown call yet they can't review it because some things are not included in the replay rules, we end up with exactly what replay is meant to help avoid, contraversy. The NFL doesn't want your nightly news showing how the officials stole a game from your team that afternoon. If we can't review blatant errors, I'd be a fan of removing replay altogether and then just dealing with the results. Oh well, they're human. But if we mean to improve the calls on the field, we ought to do that with all options available. And before I get another bitch about making the game longer, all of the above could be accomplished while maintaining the same number of coaching challenges available per game. I agree with this and the last post from AZ54. I'm thinking about that roughing the passer call in the SF/Saints game. If I'm Harbaugh, I would have loved to challenge that or any other bogus flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I never suggested reviewing reviews. I said some of the things called on the field are called unreviewable and some of those things ought to be reconsidered. If you watch a replay on TV and it's obviously a blown call yet they can't review it because some things are not included in the replay rules, we end up with exactly what replay is meant to help avoid, contraversy. The NFL doesn't want your nightly news showing how the officials stole a game from your team that afternoon. If we can't review blatant errors, I'd be a fan of removing replay altogether and then just dealing with the results. Oh well, they're human. But if we mean to improve the calls on the field, we ought to do that with all options available. And before I get another bitch about making the game longer, all of the above could be accomplished while maintaining the same number of coaching challenges available per game. Good points. I'll go with what AZ suggested as that is more amenable to the "middle ground" of this type stuff. And...did you call me a 'bitch'? GFY! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Then why isn't it defensive holding? Peace 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Exactly!!! And funny how former NFL FOOTBALL PLAYERS said it was a horrible call. The reason it was uncatchable is Gronk was held as he was trying to come back to catch the ball. But they don't know what they are talking about either. Because everyone knows JASON KNOWS ALL and he said so. BUAHAHAHA. Certainly not all, but I definitely no more about the rules and officiating than you or anyone else on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-patriots...-141509835.html This.... 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 THIS! You're 100% right Mongo. To rule the ball uncatchable in that situation is to assume that the player being dragged toward the back of the endzone wasn't capable of adjusting his route. We aren't talking about an interception that took place 10 yards in front of a would-be interference call. This all transpired in the same general area. Not that I lost any sleep over seeing Brady lose. I hate that arrogant POS. And I predicted a Carolina win so I had that going for me. But the playoff implications for the beloved are clear. That's definitely unfortunate. So, despite what know-it-all Jason says, this was clearly a blown 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 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. PFFFFTTTTT.... You saying I'm wrong only proves otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 And I think, lending to Jason's insight, that is where plays like that are reviewed for consistency and graded by the peer group. In other words, if I understand correctly, after each game all officials are graded based on their performance. Obviously they (refs) want to be able to eventually gain the noteriety to officiate in the 'big game' so the lower the score, the less chance they get. The LAST thing we need to do is make the game longer by reviewing reviews. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I never suggested reviewing reviews. I said some of the things called on the field are called unreviewable and some of those things ought to be reconsidered. If you watch a replay on TV and it's obviously a blown call yet they can't review it because some things are not included in the replay rules, we end up with exactly what replay is meant to help avoid, contraversy. The NFL doesn't want your nightly news showing how the officials stole a game from your team that afternoon. If we can't review blatant errors, I'd be a fan of removing replay altogether and then just dealing with the results. Oh well, they're human. But if we mean to improve the calls on the field, we ought to do that with all options available. And before I get another bitch about making the game longer, all of the above could be accomplished while maintaining the same number of coaching challenges available per game. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 PFFFFTTTTT.... You saying I'm wrong only proves otherwise. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 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. OK, I'll expand on my thoughts since you asked so "nicely"... In this case, the receiver wasn't out of position due to his momentum, he was out of position because he was grabbed with both hands and ridden out of the play. I wouldn't even be surprised if the contact was well before the ball was in the air but I've never seen a replay that shows Brady and the endzone at the same time. Anyone who can't see that this was a blown call is dingy. How the official is graded is irrelevant because frankly they have to take into consideration the human element on the field. And they've got each other's backs as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't think there's ever been a discussion on this board about officiating where you didn't take the side of the refs! That play should've been reviewable at a minimum. Refs throwing a flag, having a chat about it, then reversing themselves means that, by default, two people saw the play differently. In those cases, it seems to me, there ought to be a third set of eyes that can take a look at it. and all of those slow-mo elements might actually help determine all of the things we've been talking about in this thread. But these dudes walked off the field basically saying it's a judgment call, f*ck off if you don't like it. If you stop being a pompous ass and complete dick about everything maybe you'll get better results from people like me who don't take your shit. Until then, expect short inflammatory responses under those circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Honestly I don't think name calling is necessary. Jason was just providing his educated opinion. If you disagree with it then do be it but name calling and personal attacks shouldnt be involved. And no cracker I'm not calling just u on this. Talking to all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GakMan23 Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 OK, I'll expand on my thoughts since you asked so "nicely"... In this case, the receiver wasn't out of position due to his momentum, he was out of position because he was grabbed with both hands and ridden out of the play. I wouldn't even be surprised if the contact was well before the ball was in the air but I've never seen a replay that shows Brady and the endzone at the same time. Anyone who can't see that this was a blown call is dingy. How the official is graded is irrelevant because frankly they have to take into consideration the human element on the field. And they've got each other's backs as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't think there's ever been a discussion on this board about officiating where you didn't take the side of the refs! That play should've been reviewable at a minimum. Refs throwing a flag, having a chat about it, then reversing themselves means that, by default, two people saw the play differently. In those cases, it seems to me, there ought to be a third set of eyes that can take a look at it. and all of those slow-mo elements might actually help determine all of the things we've been talking about in this thread. But these dudes walked off the field basically saying it's a judgment call, f*ck off if you don't like it. If you stop being a pompous ass and complete dick about everything maybe you'll get better results from people like me who don't take your shit. Until then, expect short inflammatory responses under those circumstances. pretty much sums it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Hey Jason you say that according to the rules that the ball was not catchable do to momentum and such. I can understand that but if that isn't catchable why is it when I saw a play earlier in the same game when a ball was clearly 10 feet over the intended receivers head that they throw a flag on for DPI. Which would mean they thought the ball was catchable that time. I don't know about you but I've never seen anyone have hops like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Hey Jason you say that according to the rules that the ball was not catchable do to momentum and such. I can understand that but if that isn't catchable why is it when I saw a play earlier in the same game when a ball was clearly 10 feet over the intended receivers head that they throw a flag on for DPI. Which would mean they thought the ball was catchable that time. I don't know about you but I've never seen anyone have hops like that. I'm not buying that the ball was uncatchable. Gronk was not moving so quickly that he could not have stopped and made a move for the ball. What was clear was that the defender had solid position to squash the play, as the ball was well underthrown. However, the ball had at least a chance of being caught. Uncatchable is an absolute by English standards. Not sure what the definition in the NFL rulebook is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 i really think the name calling has got out of hand. I believe I am administrator on this site still (not sure, been a while since I have done anything). I don't think we need to remove content unless it gets completely out of control or it's spam. I believe we need to self-police. Let's be respectful of each other. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 i really think the name calling has got out of hand. I believe I am administrator on this site still (not sure, been a while since I have done anything). I don't think we need to remove content unless it gets completely out of control or it's spam. I believe we need to self-police. Let's be respectful of each other. Peace Agreed. Its why I said something before one of us admins was forced to step in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Agreed. Its why I said something before one of us admins was forced to step in. I thought Jason said locker room talk was acceptable? Alright gents, I probably crossed a line and I'll step back. Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.