This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
yeah I posted that in that thread, he picked the ball up and moved the ball back.
Same thing in DET NO game. A terrible 3rd down spot gave Saints a first. Later on the same drive, Brees stretched the ball out for a first on a sneak and then pulled the ball back before being tackled. Every game has 3 or 4 awful calls. I watched all the BCS games and can only think of 1 or 2 questionable calls, none as clear or grievous as NFL.
That was the 92 yard drive - that was the backbreaker, put them up by two scores. If they get the first spot correct - AND THE WR never got within 2 feet of the marker - Stafford gets the ball at midfield down by 3. On the 2nd, we were all jumping up and down - this isn't ####### break the plane of the end zone!!! It's no GD different than a WR voluntarily giving up yards. You don't get "best forward progress achieved". JFCThat said, you can challenge spot of the ball. That has to be on Coach Schwartz and his staff.
The same thing happened on the very first Lions drive... the ref marked his spot short of the first then when he ran up to put the ball down he ran sideways a half yard giving the Lions a 1st down. Also when Brees held the ball out and pulled it back it certainly looked like he fell forward enough past the marker. Watch it again without the silver glasses. The Lions had a terrific season, don't ruin it by blaming the refs. You guys will be back next year.
It isn't about 1 team getting screwed, it is about the uneven and ineffective officiating across the league.
The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
I'm not sure which calls were "horrific"? The bad spot was a bad spot but could have easily been challenged. Brees on the QB sneak got the first down.The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
Do you the NFL and the refs do a good job?I'm not sure which calls were "horrific"? The bad spot was a bad spot but could have easily been challenged. Brees on the QB sneak got the first down.The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
Yes I think I do a good job. Yes I think the NFL does a good job. I think for the most part these refs do a great job. They have to watch over world class athelets with a microscope on them. I get amazed at the job most of these guys do spotting the ball just right and such. I do agree that there are screw ups but I have never done their job so I wouldn't know how hard or easy it is. Not sure this was a three part question but I answered all three just in caseDo you the NFL and the refs do a good job?I'm not sure which calls were "horrific"? The bad spot was a bad spot but could have easily been challenged. Brees on the QB sneak got the first down.The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
I have never done it either, but I can compare it to NCAA football. How do you think the 2 compare?Yes I think I do a good job. Yes I think the NFL does a good job. I think for the most part these refs do a great job. They have to watch over world class athelets with a microscope on them. I get amazed at the job most of these guys do spotting the ball just right and such. I do agree that there are screw ups but I have never done their job so I wouldn't know how hard or easy it is. Not sure this was a three part question but I answered all three just in caseDo you the NFL and the refs do a good job?I'm not sure which calls were "horrific"? The bad spot was a bad spot but could have easily been challenged. Brees on the QB sneak got the first down.The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
I think the NFL does a much better job and they are officiating bigger, faster athelets where the play is MUCH faster. I've seen plays in college where the call was blown and the replay ref never even stopped play to review it.I have never done it either, but I can compare it to NCAA football. How do you think the 2 compare?Yes I think I do a good job. Yes I think the NFL does a good job. I think for the most part these refs do a great job. They have to watch over world class athelets with a microscope on them. I get amazed at the job most of these guys do spotting the ball just right and such. I do agree that there are screw ups but I have never done their job so I wouldn't know how hard or easy it is. Not sure this was a three part question but I answered all three just in caseDo you the NFL and the refs do a good job?I'm not sure which calls were "horrific"? The bad spot was a bad spot but could have easily been challenged. Brees on the QB sneak got the first down.The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
ANYBODY that watched the games this weekend and thought the officials did a good job is either biased (as a fan of a winning team that benefited from several of those blown calls) or has way too low of standards for officiating in the playoffs of a professional sport. that should have been the best of the best out there -- they only needed 4 officiating crews -- and that's the kind of performance given? terrible imoI think the NFL does a much better job and they are officiating bigger, faster athelets where the play is MUCH faster. I've seen plays in college where the call was blown and the replay ref never even stopped play to review it.I have never done it either, but I can compare it to NCAA football. How do you think the 2 compare?Yes I think I do a good job. Yes I think the NFL does a good job. I think for the most part these refs do a great job. They have to watch over world class athelets with a microscope on them. I get amazed at the job most of these guys do spotting the ball just right and such. I do agree that there are screw ups but I have never done their job so I wouldn't know how hard or easy it is. Not sure this was a three part question but I answered all three just in caseDo you the NFL and the refs do a good job?I'm not sure which calls were "horrific"? The bad spot was a bad spot but could have easily been challenged. Brees on the QB sneak got the first down.The Lions lost to a better team. When you cannot force one punt or stop a team on 4th and short, you get what you deserve. I'm not saying those were game changers, because you can't what if outside the context of game flow (e.g., what happens next is a response to what happened prior).They were still horrific calls, which is the theme of this thread (NOT whining about bad calls versus your favorite team).
This is the one I didn't get. I'm not a fan of either team, but that one seemed like it could be fixed pretty easily, and they even talked about it and got it wrong.
I'd like to hear an explanation on this as well. I wonder if the two plays (Saints/Lions and Broncs/Steelers) were ruled differently because the two calls on the field were different? One was ruled incomplete on the field and the other was ruled a fumble. Not sure why it would matter but it's the only thing that I think of that might seperate the two calls.Blown call, plain and simple.
I saw the official explanation. Possession can't be changed after whistle on lateral play, just on a fumble. Appearently the reasoning is that the ball will be on the ground longer after a lateral play and they don't want players playing long after the whistle, although the rule might be revisited now. Bottom line is the official who blew the whistle made a horrible judgement. If there is any doubt the officials should let it play out as they can always rule it an incomplete pass later.John Fox screwed up though in not challenging because even if there was no change of possession it would have been 2nd and 15 instead of 2nd and 10. The steelers scored on that drive but might not have it was 2nd and 15.'Pnishthm said:I'd like to hear an explanation on this as well. I wonder if the two plays (Saints/Lions and Broncs/Steelers) were ruled differently because the two calls on the field were different? One was ruled incomplete on the field and the other was ruled a fumble. Not sure why it would matter but it's the only thing that I think of that might seperate the two calls.'Sea Duck said:'FreeBaGeL said:
Now the league is saying that the refs got it wrong in the Saints game.'FreeBaGeL said:
http://profootballta...-saints-fumble/
I'm not sure I get this one.A backward lateral is a run, a dropped ball is a fumble.I saw the official explanation. Possession can't be changed after whistle on lateral play, just on a fumble. Appearently the reasoning is that the ball will be on the ground longer after a lateral play and they don't want players playing long after the whistle, although the rule might be revisited now.Bottom line is the official who blew the whistle made a horrible judgement. If there is any doubt the officials should let it play out as they can always rule it an incomplete pass later.'Pnishthm said:I'd like to hear an explanation on this as well. I wonder if the two plays (Saints/Lions and Broncs/Steelers) were ruled differently because the two calls on the field were different? One was ruled incomplete on the field and the other was ruled a fumble. Not sure why it would matter but it's the only thing that I think of that might seperate the two calls.'Sea Duck said:'FreeBaGeL said:
John Fox screwed up though in not challenging because even if there was no change of possession it would have been 2nd and 15 instead of 2nd and 10. The steelers scored on that drive but might not have it was 2nd and 15.
Half your username is correct.
The only thing I can think of is that scoring plays are automatically reviewed, so if the ref was "unsure" he is "erring" on the side of caution by calling it a TD, knowing they'll take a 2nd look at it, rather than forcing a coach to make a decision about using his challenges. Of course, this may be giving the ref entirely too much credit.'Prince Myshkin said:
I think he's somewhat onto something though. Look at all the older officials that are running around out there now. Can these guys that are probably 50+ really keep up with world class athletes and the action that develops? I think the players have gotten to good and fast, that there really should be an age limit on the officials. I'd go with < 40, then you need to hang it up or find a different role.
Couldn't disagree more...that's a horrible idea. What's the definition of 'in or around the end zone'? If you don't have a clear line, it will vary even MORE from game to game. If you do have a clear line (5 yard line etc.) then nothing changes. Then we'd have posters saying "In a normal world, ANY close play in or around the 5 yard line or end zone..."Seriously, I think some of us need to step back and use a little common sense.
This system encourages refs to call a TD which means irreversible evidence is needed to overturn it which gives the offense an unfair advantage. This is the same flaw with the current fumble system.
Everyone wants to let the refs swallow their whistles and let it play out so replay can get it right in the end. The problem with this is that teams have limited challenges and players will be exposed to injuries. Todays officials have become indecisive and using replay as a crutch instead of just calling what they see.That's a great start and that would get us headed in the right direction while we wait for someone to develop the technology (or refine the technology used in other sports that are actively seeking perfect officiating like tennis) so that we could have flawless officiating in professional sports. Honestly though it doesn't seem like the NFL is interested in perfect officiating. As we saw in the Denver game the awful calls kept the game close and in the end probably made more for the NFL than a correct call would have, so maybe that's part of why the NFL keeps things how they are. The Giants shouldn't even be playing right now if it weren't for the blown call against the Cardinals they wouldn't have made the playoffs, that would be a huge market to be missing out on, luckily for them the call was blown I guess.
I'm not saying that at all (I know it's probably not directed specifically at me though). I think refs should referee a game almost as if there were no replay at all. The one exception for that is scoring plays in which I think if the referee's didn't get a good look or it was too close for them to really tell, is to err on the side of a score, because it's automatically reviewed and no team needs to make a decision on using it's challenge. That said, if the ref thinks a player was down at the 1 inch line, he should call it as such.
Play 'til you hear the whistle. That's one of the first things you're taught as a kid. It keeps players from thinking and allows them to just react. It also is in the best interests of safety, since everyone should be alert through the end of the play, which is denoted by the whistle. Why would blowing the whistle later cause anyone to let up earlier and risk injury?'David Yudkin said:
If you are the WR or a RB on a screen pass and you know for a fact that the ball was thrown in front of you, you would not be bound to jump on an incomplete pass (whistle or no whistle). A defender who has not heard a whistle will keep playing. You as the receiver KNOW it is an incomplete forward pass. I really doubt you will go after the ball knowing the play is dead, while the defense will still play like it will be a live ball. Similarly, if your blockers know you didn't catch the ball and it was a pass, they won't be looking to block anyone or recover a fumble. So when a 310 pound DE comes and cleans their clock, they won't be expecting it even if there is no whistle.I have seen plays like this at local high school and college games, and even without a whistle being blown defenders have earned 15 yard personal foul penalties for hitting guys that were not expecting to get hit when the play after the fact was ruled incomplete.I suspect that if Tom Brady throws what he truly believes is an incomplete pass and not a fumble yet the defense plays it as a fumble and Brady gets crushed and injured the league would go nuts over that.
You make a convincing argument. I can see where that might not be instinctual. I guess you'd have to find a line where instinct and risk of injury start to diverge. Either way, replay needs to be able to fix something glaringly wrong, like the fumble/backwards pass in the Steelers/Broncos game.
The irony is that the NFL has told teams this year, "play through the ball, not the whistle", so hearing a whistle is actually no guarantee that the play is over.
Impossible in contact sports because a computer can't call pass interference, determine block vs charge, etc.
Why can't a ref just be man enough to say, "I'm not sure, lets check the replay." That way the defense gets a fair shake in the replay.I'm not saying that at all (I know it's probably not directed specifically at me though). I think refs should referee a game almost as if there were no replay at all. The one exception for that is scoring plays in which I think if the referee's didn't get a good look or it was too close for them to really tell, is to err on the side of a score, because it's automatically reviewed and no team needs to make a decision on using it's challenge. That said, if the ref thinks a player was down at the 1 inch line, he should call it as such.
What is this NFI you are referring to? This is an NFL website.How does the NFl allow this game in and game out. There is a different call in every game. The Saints Lions game its a fumble, Steelers Denver game a whistle blew. Some hits are legal, some are not. I'm really getting disgusted with this crap.
