Mario Kart
Footballguy
On a Friday night, not much going on, looking for votes and thoughts.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bigger blown call by the refs? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mario Kart
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Voted Packers. I pin the Lions' one mostly on Schwartz. Refs are going to miss calls sometimes, coaches should always know the rules.
I was in the pool
Footballguy
I can at least see the remote argument for the Packers call.
SSOG
Moderator
Which call are we referring to from the Lions game? If it was the down by contact, that was a bad call, but it happened in real time and the refs just let the play go as they've been taught to do. Missed call, but not a huge deal- it happens. That's why replay was instituted. The play didn't get reviewed because of a stupid rule, but refs don't write the rules, they just enforce them.
If it was the blown fumble call on the punt, I think you have a much better case, because replay was pretty damn conclusive, but I still think the Packers call was more egregious.
If it was the blown fumble call on the punt, I think you have a much better case, because replay was pretty damn conclusive, but I still think the Packers call was more egregious.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Both calls were bad but I agree in game speed the refs can miss Forsett being down. On the punt it was plain to see..I recorded the game and you can see the ball hit the Texan player in the leg and change direction..then he is scrambling to find the ball because he knows it hit him. Lions still had many chances to win the game though. The GB call was bad as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Voted Packers.
Both calls sucked...voted GB though because it may have actual playoff implications (I don't think the Detroit call will).
That and the timing of the call and the finality of it in the GB/SEA game.
We can't say what would have happened had they rightfully ruled Forsett down.
We can say what would have happened had SEA not been given the TD.
Both calls sucked...voted GB though because it may have actual playoff implications (I don't think the Detroit call will).
That and the timing of the call and the finality of it in the GB/SEA game.
We can't say what would have happened had they rightfully ruled Forsett down.
We can say what would have happened had SEA not been given the TD.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lobary
Footballguy
The Forsett TD occurred in the middle of the third quarter of a close game that went almost five full quarters. There were missed INTs, dropped passes, and doinked FGs that would've won it for both teams. On the other hand, the Green Bay/Seattle call was the last play of the game, a walk off review that actually determined who won and who lost. That by definition makes it a bigger blown call.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
Green Bay/Seattle wasn't a blown call.
SSOG
Moderator
Right. Goodell caved and brought the real refs back because those replacement refs got that call exactly right. The game was just too well-officiated for him to stand.Edit: I'm a Broncos fan living in Texas. Your location reads "Pacific Northwest". I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I probably have a little bit more distance and room for objectivity on this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Green Bay getting jobbed by a wide margin. It had a direct, immediate and final impact on who won. It reverberated for days and single handidly forced the settlement of the officials lockout. It may affect playoff seeding. It was a blown call on several levels (Tate's OPI, clearly an interception).
The Forsett play was fairly obvious in real speed, and blatant in slo-mo. The punt fumble recovery was almost as bad. But in spite of that, the fact remains the Lions crossed midfield on their last six (!) possessions and came away with zero points. Stafford taking two sacks when they were within Hanson's range in regulation, Pettigrew's fumble, conservative play calling - take your pick. They had plenty of chances to win, and the blame is wide spread why they didn't.
But the outcome is unlikely to affect the playoff seedings. It will be remembered, and that silly will change ASAP, but it's not anywhere near the magnitude of that travesnockery in Seattle.
The Forsett play was fairly obvious in real speed, and blatant in slo-mo. The punt fumble recovery was almost as bad. But in spite of that, the fact remains the Lions crossed midfield on their last six (!) possessions and came away with zero points. Stafford taking two sacks when they were within Hanson's range in regulation, Pettigrew's fumble, conservative play calling - take your pick. They had plenty of chances to win, and the blame is wide spread why they didn't.
But the outcome is unlikely to affect the playoff seedings. It will be remembered, and that silly will change ASAP, but it's not anywhere near the magnitude of that travesnockery in Seattle.
wormburner
Footballguy
Especially when the umpire has been moved to the offensive backfield.
babydemon90
Footballguy
I thought Tate clearly had possession of the GB player with the ball, was down in bounds. Possession of the guy with possession is a catch.
Lobary
Footballguy
The punt that supposedly touched Quin? That wasn't even close to conclusive, despite Nantz and Simms' statements on the broadcast to the contrary. I've watched it numerous times and I still can't say for certain that the ball hit any player, let alone whether it was touched first by Quin or Detroit LB Ashlee Palmer. That was a really close call that could have gone either way, but the officials were correct to uphold the ruling on the field because there was no clear view that conclusively supported overturning the call.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
SSOG
Moderator
The ball changed course in midair. And the Houston player turning and looking for it was a dead giveaway, too.Edit: trying not to read too much into the fact that the guy from the Pacific Northwest thinks Tate clearly had possession, and the guy from Texas thinks there wasn't any conclusive evidence that the ball touched Quin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
I decided I couldn't conclusively tell that the ball had changed direction.The guy turning around and looking for it meant he clearly thought it touched him though...I'm not sure where the line of indisputable evidence to overturn is drawn.
Lobary
Footballguy
Believe it or not, it's possible to be a fan of a team and still be able to objectively discern what your own eyes tell you. Mine have watched that replay numerous times from every angle broadcast and I still can't say for certain that the ball changed course in midair after it bounced, or that it touched Quin, or that Alexander touched it first and caused it to graze Quin's leg. It's not at all clear, and this notion that Quin turning around to look for the ball is somehow evidence of that ignores an obvious reality: he turned his head to look for the ball. Do you not think he heard the thing bounce at his feet, or his teammates yelling "BALL BALL BALL?"Dead giveaway that it actually touched him? Not at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
Voted lions. Simultaneous was bang bang. For sett had on knee and on low on the ground t the same time, was clear as day he was down. He was Almost on his stomach. It was a call rookie refs should make with relative ease.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
The irony of his post is pretty thick.
SSOG
Moderator
Actually, it's not possible to be a fan of a team and still remain objective when evaluating the evidence. Motivated reasoning causes 50/50 calls to suddenly become clear calls in our favor, and clear calls against us to become 50/50 calls. It's not an indictment of us, it's an acknowledgement that human reasoning faculties are not designed to objectively analyze the evidence and render an impartial verdict. They're designed to manipulate the evidence to conform to our preconceived notions. Case in point, let's take your explanation for why Quin might have been looking around for the ball. You suggest that he might have heard it land, but then why wouldn't the Lion he was engaged with also have heard it and begun looking around? You speculate that his teammate might have been yelling "BALL BALL BALL", but conveniently forgot that on a punt return, when surrounded by Detroit players, no Texan would possibly be trying to touch/recover the ball unless it had already touched a Houston player and was therefore live. So if Quin's teammates were screaming at him to pick it up, that's because they also saw it hit him and also knew it was live. Which hardly exonerates him for looking.
You could probably come up with plausible-sounding explanations for those, as well. That's what motivated reasoning does- it takes our preferred narrative, and causes us to create plausible-sounding explanations to support that narrative. In the end, though, the simplest explanation is that the ball grazed Quin, Quin felt it, and he immediately began looking around in a panic. And, indeed, slow-motion replay confirms that the ball's flight was disrupted slightly. And Mike Periera, a guy who is no stranger to instant replay, concurred in real time that the evidence was indisputable. And the only people who disagree seem to be Texans fans, which is telling.
Lobary
Footballguy
That's a lot of words to miss the point entirely. They weren't screaming at him to pick it up, they were screaming at everyone to clear the area. It's incredibly presumptuous to mind read a head turn WHEN THE BALL CAN BE HEARD BOUNCING. The fact of the matter is that I have no preferred narrative here, I could not care less about that call because it really wasn't determinative of anything other than a whiny narrative Detroit fans would rather indulge. If the ball actually did hit Quin, fine. However, in both real time and in every subsequent replay I've watched, it's very difficult to determine whether or not the ball was touched at all or whether Alexander grazed it with his hand as he ran past it. And common sense says he'd try to touch it since that's their objective...down the football.
Lobary
Footballguy
And what does Pereira have to do with it? He's not even on CBS so I don't know where you're getting this "even Mike said so in real time" argument. I looked at his twitter timeline and, oh guess what? That is NOT what he said.
"I think it touched them both which would mean Houston keeps the ball anyway. Not enough to overturn the call on the field."
"I think it touched them both which would mean Houston keeps the ball anyway. Not enough to overturn the call on the field."
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
How is this debatable? The GB/Sea blown call ended the game and directly changed the outcome of the game since it was on the last play of the game.
Lobary
Footballguy
Exactly.
Well the call against the Lions was higher on the horribleness value meter of a "blown" call, imo, and I think that's why Lions are winning this poll. You're only focusing on the effect the "blown" call had on the game, not the horribleness value of the call itself.Polls like this are often flawed in this respect. People interpret the question multiple ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Kuhn
Footballguy
Packers/Seahawks was worse because it was the last play of the game, although the last Schaub INT was technically the same simultaneous catch scenario. Lions had only themselves to blame for the loss- dropping back 60+ times to pass while tied/ahead all game, not running the ball on two drives in the 4th to stay in FG range rather than take a sack, Pettigrew secretly being a Texans fan...
The funny thing about the Packers/Seahawks controversy is that they could meet up again for the wild card.
The funny thing about the Packers/Seahawks controversy is that they could meet up again for the wild card.
SEA/GB was way worse. Not even close.
Probs with SEA/GB call
1. Missed pass interference
2. Wrong call in real time on who caught the ball
3. Call was reviewed and wrong call was made despite the fact that it was conclusive that the GB player caught the ball (I know that the people who say this wasn't a blown call argue this point and says that the replay was inconclusive. I think that any non-blind, objective observe would disagree. Not going to have this debate again though)
4. Game was unequivocally decided by that call.
Probs with DET/HOU call
1. Missed that Forsett was down
That's pretty much it. The fact that it became non-reviewable was not a problem with the call, but a problem with the rule.
However, I suppose that some will interpret the question to include the unfairness of both the call and the rule. I guess that's a valid interpretation. But even if you think that is the case, the call did not definitively decide the game. Houston could have still scored on the possession. I'm sure someone can look up the probability of a team scoring a TD on a drive from wherever Forsett was down. If that is X%, then there is at least an X% chance that the game would have turned out about the same (of course there would be a some time used up, more plays run, and it would have been psychologically different, so we can't say it would have been exactly the same). For the GB game, the chance that the game would have turned out about the same is exactly 0%. And since X% is greater than 0%, I would say that SEA/GB call was worse.
FWIW, I'm from Seattle.
Probs with SEA/GB call
1. Missed pass interference
2. Wrong call in real time on who caught the ball
3. Call was reviewed and wrong call was made despite the fact that it was conclusive that the GB player caught the ball (I know that the people who say this wasn't a blown call argue this point and says that the replay was inconclusive. I think that any non-blind, objective observe would disagree. Not going to have this debate again though)
4. Game was unequivocally decided by that call.
Probs with DET/HOU call
1. Missed that Forsett was down
That's pretty much it. The fact that it became non-reviewable was not a problem with the call, but a problem with the rule.
However, I suppose that some will interpret the question to include the unfairness of both the call and the rule. I guess that's a valid interpretation. But even if you think that is the case, the call did not definitively decide the game. Houston could have still scored on the possession. I'm sure someone can look up the probability of a team scoring a TD on a drive from wherever Forsett was down. If that is X%, then there is at least an X% chance that the game would have turned out about the same (of course there would be a some time used up, more plays run, and it would have been psychologically different, so we can't say it would have been exactly the same). For the GB game, the chance that the game would have turned out about the same is exactly 0%. And since X% is greater than 0%, I would say that SEA/GB call was worse.
FWIW, I'm from Seattle.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is everyone looking so much at that final play? (packers/hawks) I watch that game and their was a horrible pass interference call on browner that resulted in green bay scoring a TD. If that was called right who knows how the game flow would go. Also like everyone saying the lions had plenty of time and chances to put away texans... Green bay couldn't do crap against the Seahawks who r apparently a way worse team. The all mighty packers team had 4 quarters to put away the weaksauce Seahawks and could not. Their fault for keeping it close. By the way the lions blown call was 100x worse. At least it was obvious he had a elbow and a knee down. The packers misfortune could have went either way.
Badgers Fan
Footballguy
I picked seattle/green bay since that officially decided who won the game (since it was the last play). However, when Forsett's play happen I immediately said to my brother "the replacement refs would've gotten DESTROYED for making a call like that."
Hooper31
Footballguy
Is this a declaration that you are a Seattle fan?
Underachievers
Footballguy
SSOG
Moderator
What special teams player on the planet would be trying so desperately to down the ball at the 45 yard line? That's hardly common sense at all.
Mea culpa on that. Guess my memory inaccurately recorded events in order to better fit my preconceived narrative.
chad in Indy
Footballguy
The punt looks like it hits his leg, but i don't think there is indisputable evidence. Not sure why people are blaming the refs for the Forsett run. Even Schwartz knew he screwed up. They kept showing him on camera pointing at himself saying "that one's on me". It's his fault for not knowing the rules. Yes it is a rule that needs adjusted but c'mon. How does a head coach not know every scoring play is automatically reviewed? once again Schwartz let his emotions get the best of him and reacted before he thought about what he was doing. He admitted to it in his post game interview.
What's worse about the GB game is 2 refs calling different outcomes. One signals TD and the other calls interception. Then they compound the error by screwing up the review. I agree with earlier post. This was the one that broke the camel's back in ending the lockout. Can't you just picture Hochili watching the end of that game and grinning ear to ear. Lol
What's worse about the GB game is 2 refs calling different outcomes. One signals TD and the other calls interception. Then they compound the error by screwing up the review. I agree with earlier post. This was the one that broke the camel's back in ending the lockout. Can't you just picture Hochili watching the end of that game and grinning ear to ear. Lol
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Lions - worse call
Packers - bigger impact, both as to the game and possibly the playoffs
Voted Packers.
Packers - bigger impact, both as to the game and possibly the playoffs
Voted Packers.
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
Packers without question. It directly decide the game's outcome. The Lions had several opportunities to win the game after the Forsett touchdown. The Packers did not.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Yet more people are voting Lions. Evidence #534 that people are too stupid to deserve the right to vote.
Underachievers
Footballguy
Some people read the question. Some (like you) did not.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
I read the question. Congrats on being part of the unwashed masses.
I think this poll is a joke! The refs make mistakes all the time and they should have been able to review this play. That rule is stupid! Schwartz should have gotten a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and they should have reviewed the play. Unfortunately the anger in this poll is misguided towards the refs instead of the rule. Houston still would have had the ball and could have easily drove down the field and scored a TD anyway so we will never know how this call affected the game. Yes it sucks and if I were a Lions fan I would be upset for a long time. I am sure they will amend this rule because everybody that watched that game knows they got robbed. I don't think this call was as bad as the Calvin Johnson TD against the Bears a few years ago because that was at the end of the game and most likely would have been the decisive score since there was very little time left in the game.
trader jake
Footballguy
How much can we bash the refs when a good number of people here think the GB/SEA TD was called correct, the punt didn't hit Quin, and that getting the final call of a game incorrect is somehow not as big of a deal as a an automatically reviewable play that the head coach botched himself.
People look at questions differently. There is no excuse for refs to miss the fact that a running backs knee and elbow were down. So it that way it was a worse call. But a call which decides the game has a bigger impact, so you can call that worse in that regard. One viewpoint is not stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
For people making this argument, can you tell me how you would rate the following in relative obviousness (in real time):1. That Forsett was down
2. That the GB defensive back caught the ball (and that Tate had an obvious OPI).
If you think there is a *significant* difference between the two, please explain why.
I think that when I was watching both plays in real time there was absolutely no question what the correct call was (Forsett down, GB Back caught the ball, can't remember if I noticed the pass interference or not). So, I think the bolded argument applies to both plays almost equally.
In fact, one could argue that the the GB play was worse because two obvious calls were missed (instead of just one). However, my position is that they were both obvious blown calls.
Last edited by a moderator:
packseasontix
Footballguy
So I think its GB mainly because it determined the game and while it is a dumb rule Schwartz made it so it couldn't be over-turned.
Also for the GB game it was pass interference (which Tate didnt do if you listen to him
) followed by the interception that was called a TD
For the punt in the first half I just re-watched the play a few times on NFL Game Rewind and I have come to the following conclusion (It does look like it hit the Texans knee on the way down, but at the same time it looks like the Detroit player may have hit the ball first. If the Lion would have not stuck his hand out I think the play may have been overturned but once that was brought in to the play as well the official both had to rule out the touch of the Detroit player as well as the Texan player for sure touching it. He probably wasn't able to in his mind have 100% evidence that this was the case so needed to keep the play as is.
Also the GB play has bigger issues with the Playoffs more than likely than this game.
Seattle is right now in the playoff hunt at 6-4 instead of 5-5 and a game out of Tampa and tight with all the 5-5/5-6 teams)
Packers are tied with instead of a game up in the NFC North and a very outside shot at the #1 seed instead of 1 game out
Texans are 2 games instead of 1 up on the Ravens for the #1 AFC seed
Lions have just another loss to their season which actually HELPS them as they will get a better draft position (face it @GB, CHI, ATL they are loosing 2-3 more games this season)
Also for the GB game it was pass interference (which Tate didnt do if you listen to him
) followed by the interception that was called a TDFor the punt in the first half I just re-watched the play a few times on NFL Game Rewind and I have come to the following conclusion (It does look like it hit the Texans knee on the way down, but at the same time it looks like the Detroit player may have hit the ball first. If the Lion would have not stuck his hand out I think the play may have been overturned but once that was brought in to the play as well the official both had to rule out the touch of the Detroit player as well as the Texan player for sure touching it. He probably wasn't able to in his mind have 100% evidence that this was the case so needed to keep the play as is.
Also the GB play has bigger issues with the Playoffs more than likely than this game.
Seattle is right now in the playoff hunt at 6-4 instead of 5-5 and a game out of Tampa and tight with all the 5-5/5-6 teams)
Packers are tied with instead of a game up in the NFC North and a very outside shot at the #1 seed instead of 1 game out
Texans are 2 games instead of 1 up on the Ravens for the #1 AFC seed
Lions have just another loss to their season which actually HELPS them as they will get a better draft position (face it @GB, CHI, ATL they are loosing 2-3 more games this season)
Last edited by a moderator:
Hooper31
Footballguy
I see you posted in this thread again, but ignored my question. How about now? You a Seahawks fan?
Ahmad Rashad
Footballguy
There were a number of bad calls in that game, both ways. To say that GB should have been awarded that game just because the final play was arguably a bad call ignores the effects of all those previous bad calls. If there were no bad calls that game, who knows who would have won?Detroit still may have lost even if that bad call was overturned, but the fact remains that it was more clearly a bad call than the GB/SEA one (though it's more the rule not allowing the review that's bad). Does anyone dispute that Forsett was down? Many still dispute the GB/SEA call.
Last edited by a moderator:
