What's new
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.

Further Proof Vegas Has Influence (1 Viewer)

iirc, Donaghy was making seemingly inconsequential calls during the course of a game that would go more or less un-noticed.

he wasn't making major, glaring, obvious biased calls that would be debated across sports media for days and probably weeks.

if there's point shaving, game fixing, whatever you want to believe.. it certainly isn't being done on plays like that one.

 
OK, I've watched the slo-mo replay about 10 times now on the Lt lateral/pass. I need the official rules quoted on this one because its tough. LT facing and running downfield, lateraled the ball with a backward motion behind his back. Despite the backward lateral, the ball actually moved forward a little and was caught slightly further downfield from the point of release from LT's hand. So it was a clear backward lateral that due to the laws of nature and physics had forward progress. I don't know the ruling on that one.

 
Earth to imbeciles, there is no issue of referee incompetence or potential corruption because...

real slowly now so all can grasp and comprehend...

here it comes...

THEY MADE THE RIGHT CALL.
They may or may have not made the right call, it probably was the right call but you're avoiding his NBA question.
Who the flip cares about the NBA question? This has nothing to do with corrupt officials, game fixing, incompetence, or the NBA. This has all to do with morons thinking that a call in opposition to what really happened was made in order to please a side in Vegas.
I care about the NBA question because I'm asking if you think NFL ref's are corruptible or not. They probably weren't in this case. But do you think game fixing is impossible in the NFL? In the NBA's case it wasn't really about pleasing a side in Vegas, rather Donaghy covering his own bets and those that he also chose with some mob members.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, let's clear this up for all the jump to conclusions folks in this thread.

The original poster NEVER said that they reviewed/changed the call to make SD cover the spread. Rather, I think he was implying that they reviewed it to make sure, to keep the result of the game legit compared to the spread. The play did not make a difference in who won the game, but it did matter for other things, like gambling, so they had to check it. They weren't intentionally trying to make either team cover. So quit asking stuff like "why would the NFL want SD to cover?". That's not what he was saying.

However, personally I think Vegas has little to do with it, and it's more for keeping their own stats and such legit. It's the same way that they go back every week and re-watch every play, and make little adjustments like changing a 2 yard screen pass to a 2 yard rush because they decided the throw was backwards, or changing a sack by one guy to a split sack between two guys, or any number of other things that have no effect on the winner/loser of the game.

This is the same, they're just keeping their books straight. The stats at the end of a game/season/decade/century are all independent of who won/lost the games that those stats were calculated in. Imagine if that were some record breaking play that happened illegitimately, but it happened at the end of a game and didn't effect the game so they didn't change it to the right call because they just said "eh, forget it, doesn't matter". But the record is independent of that.

This would be like teams not having to kneel the ball down at the end of the game, and just sayinig 'eh you're up by 20 wiith 2 minutes left, let's just go ahead and call it a game'.

Rules are rules, and are enforced regardless of their effect on the outcome of the game. They can't just ignore them when it doesn't matter, then they're not rules anymore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
iirc, Donaghy was making seemingly inconsequential calls during the course of a game that would go more or less un-noticed. he wasn't making major, glaring, obvious biased calls that would be debated across sports media for days and probably weeks. if there's point shaving, game fixing, whatever you want to believe.. it certainly isn't being done on plays like that one.
He did say that playoff games were fixed (Kings vs Lakers) and that at least two other refs were doing similar type of things. He also said the NBA told refs to extend a series to 7 games for example to get higher ratings or not to call certain type of fouls on star players.
 
I care about the NBA question because I'm asking if you think NFL ref's are corruptible or not. They probably weren't in this case. But do you think game fixing is impossible in the NFL?
I realy don't care. All I know is that the right call was made. Corruption shouldn't even be raised in this case. It's sad and pathetic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, I've watched the slo-mo replay about 10 times now on the Lt lateral/pass. I need the official rules quoted on this one because its tough. LT facing and running downfield, lateraled the ball with a backward motion behind his back. Despite the backward lateral, the ball actually moved forward a little and was caught slightly further downfield from the point of release from LT's hand. So it was a clear backward lateral that due to the laws of nature and physics had forward progress. I don't know the ruling on that one.
from a Jerry Markbreit Q&A printed in the Chicago Trib in 2006"Another question regarding the two-minute, fourth-down fumble rule, what about a dropped lateral? Is that considered a fumble and not advanceable or does the ball have to be fumbled forward for the rule to take effect? --Matt Cox, Bloomington, Ill.It is a forward pass if the ball initially moves forward to a point nearer the opponents' goal line after leaving the passer's hand or, the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponents' goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer's hand. A backward pass is any pass that is not a forward pass. The phrase, "lateral pass," does not exist in the NFL rule book. Lateral passes are backward passes.A fumble is any act other than a pass or legal kick which results in loss of player possession. The term "fumble" always implies possession. If an offensive player fumbles and then recovers his own fumble, he has regained possession.So to answer your question, any backward pass can be advanced and recovered by anyone, unlike a fumble occurring during the two-minute/fourth-down situation. A backward pass is not a fumble."
 
I care about the NBA question because I'm asking if you think NFL ref's are corruptible or not. They probably weren't in this case. But do you think game fixing is impossible in the NFL?
I realy don't care. All I know is that the right call was made. Corruption shouldn't even be raised in this case. It's sad and pathetic.
Fair enough, I don't think this particular game was fixed. However to think that it's impossible is another thing.
 
I care about the NBA question because I'm asking if you think NFL ref's are corruptible or not. They probably weren't in this case. But do you think game fixing is impossible in the NFL?
I realy don't care. All I know is that the right call was made. Corruption shouldn't even be raised in this case. It's sad and pathetic.
Fair enough, I don't think this particular game was fixed. However to think that it's impossible is another thing.
Whew. I was starting to think you were going to keep me here all night asking these questions over and over.
 
Yeah, they blew the call. It was a forward lateral that should have been flagged but it shouldn't have been a dead ball. The score will not be adjusted per NBC halftime show.

 
So what rule says they can't adjust the score when the call was wrong and there was no continuation of the game that could be affected?

 
Yeah, they blew the call. It was a forward lateral that should have been flagged but it shouldn't have been a dead ball. The score will not be adjusted per NBC halftime show.
Actually I think we now have a second network getting it wrong. Every interpretation of the rulebook I've read so far has it as a dead ball when an illegal forward pass is made. At best it sounds like Pittsburgh should have been given possession at the spot of the foul with whatever time was remianing on the clock at the occurence of the foul. Of course they would have taken a knee leaving the final score 11-10 as it happened to be at the ned of today's events.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Per ESPN, they made the WRONG call. Score won't be changed though. Should be

Regardless, they didn't review it because of Vegas and bets... they reviewed it and it was important because POINTS play a big TIE BREAKER for PLAYOFFS

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, they blew the call. It was a forward lateral that should have been flagged but it shouldn't have been a dead ball. The score will not be adjusted per NBC halftime show.
Actually I think we now have a second network getting it wrong. Every interpretation of the rulebook I've read so far has it as a dead ball when an illegal forward pass is made. At best it sounds like Pittsburgh should have been given possession at the spot of the foul with whatever time was remianing on the clock at the occurence of the foul. Of course they would have taken a knee leaving the final score 11-10 as it happened to be at the ned of today's events.
I don't know man. I've seen illegal forward passes on plays like this before and I can't ever remember the play just stopping. Even in instances where the refs on the field throw the flag they don't blow the play dead. Who knows though.
 
Per ESPN, they made the WRONG call. Score won't be changed though. Should beRegardless, they didn't review it because of Vegas and bets... they reviewed it and it was important because POINTS play a big TIE BREAKER for PLAYOFFS
I thought I heard Collinsworth say that "points" was like the 7th tie breaker.
 
Per ESPN, they made the WRONG call. Score won't be changed though. Should beRegardless, they didn't review it because of Vegas and bets... they reviewed it and it was important because POINTS play a big TIE BREAKER for PLAYOFFS
I thought I heard Collinsworth say that "points" was like the 7th tie breaker.
Thought it was the 3rd. Head to head, divisional record, points...??? Could be wrong, but regardless the way this season is shaping up (overall), I'd want every tie breaker in my favor
 
Yeah, they blew the call. It was a forward lateral that should have been flagged but it shouldn't have been a dead ball. The score will not be adjusted per NBC halftime show.
Actually I think we now have a second network getting it wrong. Every interpretation of the rulebook I've read so far has it as a dead ball when an illegal forward pass is made. At best it sounds like Pittsburgh should have been given possession at the spot of the foul with whatever time was remianing on the clock at the occurence of the foul. Of course they would have taken a knee leaving the final score 11-10 as it happened to be at the ned of today's events.
Maybe it's possible that the 4 people in the other thread were wrong.
 
REFEREE ADMITS ERROR AT END OF CHARGERS-STEELERS GAME

Posted by Mike Florio on November 16, 2008, 10:01 p.m. EST

We’re going to defer the full-blown explanation of the events of the final play of the Chargers-Steelers game and the provisions of the rule book that apply to the situation to the SportingNews.com Ten-Pack on which we’re currently laboring. (Writing words is hard work; please pity me.)

For now, though, the news is that referee Scott Green admitted after the game that the Steelers should have been given credit for the touchdown that safety Troy Polamalu scored as time expired.

Via a lengthy replay review and conference, Green givethed a touchdown to the Steelers, and then takethed it away, claiming that an illegal forward pass that happened during the play requiring the officials to kill the play then and there.

“The rule was misinterpreted,” Green said. “We should have let the play go through in the end, yes. It was misinterpreted that instead of killing the play we should have let the play go through.”

Bottom line? Anyone who took the Chargers and the points is very happy. And anyone who took the Steelers and gave the points is peee-issed.

 
Hopefully the candid admission of mistake by the man who actually made the call will prevent bettors from crying conspiracy.

 
Does the replay official and the referee consult on the correct ruling or is the rule interpretation left up to the officials on the field?

 
As well as stop people from yelling "THEY MADE THE RIGHT CALL" in 20 point font.
As far as what I was refering to, they did make the right call. There was an illegal forward pass. Many here were disputing that.Btw, it was 6 point font. Get it straight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So is it basically just a confusion by the officials because there was an illegal forward lateral followed by a fumbled lateral?

If the fumble occurs on an illegal forward pass (lateral), then the play should be blown dead.

Apparently, the officials confused the ruling because of the fact there was an illegal forward pass during the play (which preceded the fumble).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does the replay official and the referee consult on the correct ruling or is the rule interpretation left up to the officials on the field?
The replay official consults on whether or not an illegal forward pass occured. They got that part right. The ensuing interpretation of the result of the play is on the referee. Btw, from what I can gather this used to result in a dead ball. The change to this rule appears to have come this past offseason.
 
Sucks if you had Pittsburgh D. 8 points snatched away and then told after the fact by the ref that the call was missed.

 
So is it basically just a confusion by the officials because there was an illegal forward lateral followed by a fumbled lateral?If the fumble occurs on an illegal forward pass (lateral), then apparently the play should be blown dead.Apparently, the officials confused the ruling because of the fact there was an illegal forward pass during the play (which preceded the fumble).
You got it. They bastardized one rule and applied it to the other.
 
As well as stop people from yelling "THEY MADE THE RIGHT CALL" in 20 point font.
As far as what I was refering to, they did make the right call. There was an illegal forward pass. Many here were disputing that.Btw, it was 6 point font. Get it straight.
Whatever you were talking about, it's probably a good idea before you call people imbeciles and proclaim that the refs made the right call, to ensure that they did actually make the right call. The only question left to be answered here is what sound effect you heard in your head when you read the official admission of the mistake - the standard foghorn sound (waa-waaaaaaa) or the Fred Flintstone "uh oh" sour tuba riff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whatever you were talking about, it's probably a good idea before you call people imbeciles and proclaim that the refs made the right call, to ensure that they did actually make the right call. The only question left to be answered here is what sound effect you heard in your head when you read the official admission of the mistake - the standard foghorn sound (waa-waaaaaaa) or the Fred Flintstone "uh oh" sour tuba riff.
Bro, they called illegal forward pass and they got that right. That was what I was refering to. When the ref made his admission I felt nothing since I didn't have money on the game and it served as further clarification that Tomlinson did in fact "lateral" forward.And the people who think this had anything to do with serving any interests in Vegas are indeed imbeciles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whatever you were talking about, it's probably a good idea before you call people imbeciles and proclaim that the refs made the right call, to ensure that they did actually make the right call. The only question left to be answered here is what sound effect you heard in your head when you read the official admission of the mistake - the standard foghorn sound (waa-waaaaaaa) or the Fred Flintstone "uh oh" sour tuba riff.
Bro, they called illegal forward pass and they got that right. That was what I was refering to. When the ref made his admission I felt nothing since I didn't have money on the game and it served as further clarification that Tomlinson did in fact "lateral" forward.And the people who think this had anything to do with serving any interests in Vegas are indeed imbeciles.
I'm just busting your balls. They did really botch that and did seem to call things SD's way the whole game. Not so much the penalties called on Pitt, but the lack of reciprocity the other way. A few of the calls on Pitt were spotty, and if you're going to call a game that tight, it should go both ways. A 130 yard differential in penalties is quite a bit. Add to that an admittedly botched call that there's no excuse for and there's going to be a whiff of impropriety. No way I'm buying that the game was fixed per Vegas, though - I agree with you 100%.
 
I don't know what to make of this situation. I don't see conspiracies unfolding, but lets not deify these clowns as being guardians of the sanctimony of the game, when not ten years ago, the Rams had 4 seconds disappear off the clock at the end of the Super Bowl when Viniteri hit the game winner. You would think they'd get the play right at the end of the biggest game of the year, so why does this need the review, which to me seems to be an incorrect ruling anyway, with a meaningless ruling?. Curious to say the least.

 
the problem with this situation is not that judgement was wrong, angle was wrong, or play had been blown dead.

they goofed up a rule.

Going forward the NFL better have a policy in place where during reviews like this it is necessary to consult a rulebook.

 
the problem with this situation is not that judgement was wrong, angle was wrong, or play had been blown dead.they goofed up a rule. Going forward the NFL better have a policy in place where during reviews like this it is necessary to consult a rulebook.
This is one of the rare times where I can say this with a straight face: The NHL does it much better.They take replays to a central office in Toronto where assistance is given. The NFL could do the same thing; however, then the conspiracy theorists would argue that the NFL is favoring the large market teams or whatever.The NFL is partially constrained in terms of consulting rulebooks by the 90 second rule (which turns off the replay at that point; yet it still seems they can still debate the issue for longer). In addition, who is to say that rulebook consultation would be always done properly. Still, it would be a good step.And that's why I like a central replay office. Include a referee or panel of refs along with rulebook experts and they are all immediately involved with every decision. The only drawback I see is the need to handle multiple replays simultaneously (they occur with much greater frequency in the NFL than the NHL, I believe) and the dreaded technical difficulties.
 
Mr Anonymous said:
Shlon said:
I care about the NBA question because I'm asking if you think NFL ref's are corruptible or not. They probably weren't in this case. But do you think game fixing is impossible in the NFL?
I realy don't care. All I know is that the right call was made. Corruption shouldn't even be raised in this case. It's sad and pathetic.
You like play hit and run? That is a sh** way to post.I think corrupt officials exist in every sport that is gambled on. I have a hard time believing that Vegas is clean. There is so much money being bet on NFL games that there has to be at least one NFL official in some Mob Boss' hip pocket making calls for the bookies. There has been corruption in the past in other sports ( boxing, NBA, College ball) so why not pro-football? There is too much money at stake to not have it. If they can fix olympic ice skating( Salt Lake City 2002)... they can fix an NFL game.
 
The example of a fix is Pittsburgh not covering a spread? Pittsburgh?

If you think this is an example of a fix, you have no idea what you are talking about. That final play was a dream for almost all books.

 
I bet PITT - 3 for the second half.

I thought I had the push, then I saw the last play

of the game and I was stoked. When I noticed

the penalty was on SD, and Pitt declined it,

I shut the TV off thinking the TD would stand.

Instead I get the push instead of the win.

.

 
It seems like the officials made three mistakes at the end of the game:

1. They checked instant replay and decided there was a penalty. I've never heard of this being done before. Usually instant replay is only used to detemine the actual result. Using it to discover penalties could be problematic; for instance, let's say you're reviewing whether a running back got into the endzone, and while the play is under review, you discover that there was actually a blatant holding penalty which was not called. Aren't you supposed to ignore this? Not sure what the rule is, but I'm betting you are supposed to ignore it.

2. After the forward lateral,which was initially ignored, Troy picked up the ball from a backward lateral, which is basically a fumble. The refs admitted they got the two laterals confused.

3. Since the play continued after the forward lateral, the Steelers should have had the right to deny the penalty, which I believe they did initially- meaning the result of the play should have been the touchdown.

I'm certainly not arguing any conspiracy. It was just a series of blunders on one decision by guys who are usually outstanding at what they do, IMO.

 
It seems like the officials made three mistakes at the end of the game:1. They checked instant replay and decided there was a penalty. I've never heard of this being done before. Usually instant replay is only used to detemine the actual result. Using it to discover penalties could be problematic; for instance, let's say you're reviewing whether a running back got into the endzone, and while the play is under review, you discover that there was actually a blatant holding penalty which was not called. Aren't you supposed to ignore this? Not sure what the rule is, but I'm betting you are supposed to ignore it.2. After the forward lateral,which was initially ignored, Troy picked up the ball from a backward lateral, which is basically a fumble. The refs admitted they got the two laterals confused.3. Since the play continued after the forward lateral, the Steelers should have had the right to deny the penalty, which I believe they did initially- meaning the result of the play should have been the touchdown. I'm certainly not arguing any conspiracy. It was just a series of blunders on one decision by guys who are usually outstanding at what they do, IMO.
A flawed decision that took 5 minutes of reviews and consultation to make.That's what chaps my ###, it seems the NFL is perfectly content with a certain level of incompetence from it's officiating crews who clearly don't understand the rule book, or, the NFL is thrilled with the ambiguity of their abridged rulebook.This is what leads some to think in situations like this one, where the league initiates the replay, on a play that has absolutely no impact on the outcome of the game, that the league is not legit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shlon said:
warpedone said:
Shlon said:
Most of the money was on Pittsburgh so it was in Vegas best interest to take away the TD, but I don't think it was fixed.
??????????????????????The book will work as hard as possible to get the same amount of money on both sides. He pays the winners with the loser's money and drags the Juice (the vig, the rake).
Most of the money was on the Steelers to cover -3.5 (61% on PIT vs 39% on SD at one place for example). If the TD counted then they would've lost money.
:rolleyes:
 
1. They checked instant replay and decided there was a penalty. I've never heard of this being done before. Usually instant replay is only used to detemine the actual result. Using it to discover penalties could be problematic; for instance, let's say you're reviewing whether a running back got into the endzone, and while the play is under review, you discover that there was actually a blatant holding penalty which was not called. Aren't you supposed to ignore this? Not sure what the rule is, but I'm betting you are supposed to ignore it.
Only certain penalties are reviewable. Calls like holding, pass interference, etc are not.To use your example, if they were reviewing whether or not a RB got into the endzone, and noticed that one of the teams had 12 men on the field, they would call the penalty.
 
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...otes/?chargers

The Chargers were party to another bizarre finish involving a referee's mistake.

This one didn't affect the outcome, but it certainly affected how millions of dollars were distributed.

Pregame.com, a site that provides information to sports bettors, estimated $100 million was wagered worldwide on the game. Approximately 66 percent of that money was on the Steelers, according to the site.

“If the touchdown was properly upheld, Steelers bettors would have won about $32 million instead of losing big,” Pregame.com president R.J. Bell said. “This admittedly incorrect call resulted in a $64 million swing in favor of the bookies.”

A touchdown by Troy Polamalu that should have been awarded at the game's end was mistakenly taken away, meaning the Steelers won 11-10 and did not cover the point spread.

On the Chargers' final desperate play, Philip Rivers threw the ball to LaDainian Tomlinson at the 24-yard line. Tomlinson then backhanded the ball forward to the 26 to Chris Chambers, who then flipped it backward. That throw hit the ground and was picked up by Troy Polamalu at the 12. Polamalu ran the ball into the end zone, and the officials signaled touchdown.

Time had expired, and it appeared the Steelers were going to win 18-10 (assuming they converted the PAT). That would have meant the Steelers covered the spread, which was 4-½ or 5 points. (The heaviest betting action was on the Steelers to cover as the line went up all week.)

The replay assistant called for a review, however, and based on the fact Tomlinson had made a forward pass, the play was ruled dead at the point Tomlinson threw it.

But the only way the play should have been ruled dead at that point was if Tomlinson's pass had hit the ground. It did not.

“There was some confusion on which illegal forward pass we were discussing, and it was decided the illegal forward pass hit the ground and that would have killed the play,” Scott Green said. “... The first pass was the one that was illegal, but it only kills the play if it hits the ground. That was incorrect to have killed that at that point. The ruling should have let the play go on.”

The league called Green after the game and informed him he had made a mistake.

“The rule was misinterpreted,” Green said. “... We should have let the play go through in the end.”

It is unknown whether the many gamblers who went from winners to losers in that interpretation will receive the same conciliatory e-mails from Green that Chargers fans got from Ed Hochuli after his mistaken call in Denver in September.

More zebra issues

The Chargers have felt unduly penalized all season. It was as if Green's officiating crew was trying to make up for that all in one day.

The Steelers were flagged 13 times to the Chargers' two, a lopsided ratio that made the Chargers 14-6 deficit in flags against New Orleans last month look paltry.

“I have never seen a game with 13-1 in penalties,” Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said, apparently not counting Tomlinson's illegal pass. “I am not answering questions about the officiating.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, the NBA scandal aside, I've never bought into the 'game is fixed' cry.

BUT I have seen some ridiculous calls this year. The ones that get me are blown interpretations of basic calls.

This just happened at a Saints night game vs the Vikes, which you might remember, but how does an NFL ref of Hochuli's experience make this call: "After reviewing the play, Hochuli ruled that although the ball was starting to come loose when Peterson's knee hit the ground, he still had it in his hand." That makes absolutely no sense, the only logical conclusion is that Hochuli didn't like the outcome of what the replay showed to all. That was a pretty good summary of what he called too, that though the ball was coming loose while AD's knee was hitting the ground he still had it in his hand; meanwhile looking at the replay the ball was loose, period. - The Pats/Raiders tuck rule call might have been another example of that, and there are probably more. - there are also instances when some of these guys, a lot of whom are, er "older", seem to get a little confused with all the speed, action and commotion going on around them. I put the SD/Steelers call in that category, though I'm not saying the age of the refs had something to do with it in taht instance.

--- No, I'm not sure but I don't think the refs are fixing games. But I have seen enough NFL football over the years that I do think the refs try to keep games competitive and close; teams start getting ridiculously favorable and decisive calls when they're down, that kind of thing. Does that come down as an unspoken policy from the top? Maybe. Besides the Donaghy betting scandal, he also stated that the NBA had wanted the Kings to lose a playoff series for a more favorable matchup tv-wise in the playoffs, now that kind of thing might happen in the same way.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=119&sid=1492387

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. They checked instant replay and decided there was a penalty. I've never heard of this being done before. Usually instant replay is only used to detemine the actual result. Using it to discover penalties could be problematic; for instance, let's say you're reviewing whether a running back got into the endzone, and while the play is under review, you discover that there was actually a blatant holding penalty which was not called. Aren't you supposed to ignore this? Not sure what the rule is, but I'm betting you are supposed to ignore it.
Only certain penalties are reviewable. Calls like holding, pass interference, etc are not.To use your example, if they were reviewing whether or not a RB got into the endzone, and noticed that one of the teams had 12 men on the field, they would call the penalty.
From the 2006 rule book (I don't have a more recent reference):
Reviewable Plays. The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:

(a) Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line:

1. Scoring Plays, including a runner breaking the plane of the goal line.

2. Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone, and end

line.

3. Runner/receiver in or out of bounds.

4. Recovery of loose ball in or out of bounds.

(b) Passing Plays:

1. Pass ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted in the field of play.

2. Touching of a forward pass by an ineligible receiver.

3. Touching of a forward pass by a defensive player.

4. Quarterback (Passer) forward pass or fumble.

5. Illegal forward pass beyond line of scrimmage.

6. Illegal forward pass after change of possession.

7. Forward or backward pass thrown from behind line of scrimmage.

© Other Detectable Infractions:

1. Runner ruled not down by defensive contact.

2. Runner ruled down by defensive contact when the recovery of a fumble by

an opponent or a teammate occurs during the continuing action of the play.

Note 1: If the ruling of down by contact is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering

player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

Note 2: Continuing action is any action that occurs through the recovery of the fumble.

Note 3: If the Referee does not have indisputable visual evidence as to which player

recovered the fumble, the ruling of down by contact will stand.

Note 4: This does not apply to quarterback pass/fumbles, complete/incomplete

passes, or the ruling of forward progress.

3. Forward progress with respect to a first down.

4. Touching of a kick.

5. Number of players on the field.

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to:

1. Status of the clock

2. Proper down

3. Penalty administration

4. Runner ruled down by defensive contact (not involving fumbles)

5. Forward progress not relating to first down or goal line

6. Forceouts

7. Recovery of loose ball in the field of play

8. Field goals

9. Inadvertent Whistle
 
Pittsbugh: 13 penalties for 115-yards.

San Diego: 2 penalties for 5-yards (including the penalty which took points off the board)

Dan Rooney attempting to come up with $750 million to buy-out his brothers portion of the team. Why? Because gambling is one of their primary sources of income.

Referee Scott Green admits after the game he 'made a mistake' and the points should have counted.

I'm no conspiracy theorist either, but if you guys can't see the forest for the trees, you're fools.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Shlon said:
I care about the NBA question because I'm asking if you think NFL ref's are corruptible or not. They probably weren't in this case. But do you think game fixing is impossible in the NFL?
I realy don't care. All I know is that the right call was made. Corruption shouldn't even be raised in this case. It's sad and pathetic.
You like play hit and run? That is a sh** way to post.I think corrupt officials exist in every sport that is gambled on. I have a hard time believing that Vegas is clean. There is so much money being bet on NFL games that there has to be at least one NFL official in some Mob Boss' hip pocket making calls for the bookies. There has been corruption in the past in other sports ( boxing, NBA, College ball) so why not pro-football? There is too much money at stake to not have it. If they can fix olympic ice skating( Salt Lake City 2002)... they can fix an NFL game.
you are wasting your time here. he wont even admit he was wrong about the refs screwing it up.
 
1. They checked instant replay and decided there was a penalty. I've never heard of this being done before. Usually instant replay is only used to detemine the actual result. Using it to discover penalties could be problematic; for instance, let's say you're reviewing whether a running back got into the endzone, and while the play is under review, you discover that there was actually a blatant holding penalty which was not called. Aren't you supposed to ignore this? Not sure what the rule is, but I'm betting you are supposed to ignore it.
Only certain penalties are reviewable. Calls like holding, pass interference, etc are not.To use your example, if they were reviewing whether or not a RB got into the endzone, and noticed that one of the teams had 12 men on the field, they would call the penalty.
lets not forget just last week coughlin challenged that there was no penalty on mannings completion because he was not over the line. well at least not 100% over it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top