What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Question for BGP... (1 Viewer)

I blame Evilgrin for this thread. Misguided effort at best.
:bag: All I wondered was whether BGP was going to take the officials to task after the bad PI call, the bad PI non-call, the bad neutral zone infraction call, not to mention the extraordinarily ticky-tack roughing the passer call, all of which went against New England.

All I know is that if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be far more incensed by the calls that went against my team Sunday than I would have been if I were a Seahawks fan after Super Bowl XL. In both cases, I think the best team won, but I think the Pats got the short end of the officiating stick Sunday. Seeing as BGP has been crusading to make improvements to the officiating, I wondered if this added fuel to the fire, or whether his ref-directed vitriol for the last year was simply anti-Steeler sentiment. I think this thread has conclusively proven the latter, and as such, can be put to bed now.
EG,Do you agree with me that the Neutral Zone infraction against Seymour was a complete misaplication of the rule? Surprisingly, most people disagree with me. Most have said that it was an incredibly smart play by the Olineman. I disagree.
You didn't ask me, but given the way they consistently call this, it was a smart play by the o-lineman. It's also a poor application of the rule. The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
I blame Evilgrin for this thread. Misguided effort at best.
:shrug: All I wondered was whether BGP was going to take the officials to task after the bad PI call, the bad PI non-call, the bad neutral zone infraction call, not to mention the extraordinarily ticky-tack roughing the passer call, all of which went against New England.

All I know is that if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be far more incensed by the calls that went against my team Sunday than I would have been if I were a Seahawks fan after Super Bowl XL. In both cases, I think the best team won, but I think the Pats got the short end of the officiating stick Sunday. Seeing as BGP has been crusading to make improvements to the officiating, I wondered if this added fuel to the fire, or whether his ref-directed vitriol for the last year was simply anti-Steeler sentiment. I think this thread has conclusively proven the latter, and as such, can be put to bed now.
EG,Do you agree with me that the Neutral Zone infraction against Seymour was a complete misaplication of the rule? Surprisingly, most people disagree with me. Most have said that it was an incredibly smart play by the Olineman. I disagree.
You didn't ask me, but given the way they consistently call this, it was a smart play by the o-lineman. It's also a poor application of the rule. The two are not mutually exclusive.
very :lmao: It is like the PI call on Hobbs ... it is called that way, but it is not how the rule is written. If the O-Lineman across from Seymour had moved, then it would have been the correct call.

 
I blame Evilgrin for this thread. Misguided effort at best.
:shrug: All I wondered was whether BGP was going to take the officials to task after the bad PI call, the bad PI non-call, the bad neutral zone infraction call, not to mention the extraordinarily ticky-tack roughing the passer call, all of which went against New England.

All I know is that if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be far more incensed by the calls that went against my team Sunday than I would have been if I were a Seahawks fan after Super Bowl XL. In both cases, I think the best team won, but I think the Pats got the short end of the officiating stick Sunday. Seeing as BGP has been crusading to make improvements to the officiating, I wondered if this added fuel to the fire, or whether his ref-directed vitriol for the last year was simply anti-Steeler sentiment. I think this thread has conclusively proven the latter, and as such, can be put to bed now.
EG,Do you agree with me that the Neutral Zone infraction against Seymour was a complete misaplication of the rule? Surprisingly, most people disagree with me. Most have said that it was an incredibly smart play by the Olineman. I disagree.
You didn't ask me, but given the way they consistently call this, it was a smart play by the o-lineman. It's also a poor application of the rule. The two are not mutually exclusive.
very :lmao: It is like the PI call on Hobbs ... it is called that way, but it is not how the rule is written. If the O-Lineman across from Seymour had moved, then it would have been the correct call.
:shrug: I agree with everything you said including about how they call that PI if he doesnt turn his head. It is really stupid. It has gotten to the point (illustrated perfectly in this game) that even if the DB doesnt touch the receiver they call the penalty JUST because he was facing the other way. To Yudkins point I think this idiot official would have still called the penalty if Manning had hit Hobbs in the back of the head with the pass.
 
I blame Evilgrin for this thread. Misguided effort at best.
:lmao: All I wondered was whether BGP was going to take the officials to task after the bad PI call, the bad PI non-call, the bad neutral zone infraction call, not to mention the extraordinarily ticky-tack roughing the passer call, all of which went against New England.

All I know is that if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be far more incensed by the calls that went against my team Sunday than I would have been if I were a Seahawks fan after Super Bowl XL. In both cases, I think the best team won, but I think the Pats got the short end of the officiating stick Sunday. Seeing as BGP has been crusading to make improvements to the officiating, I wondered if this added fuel to the fire, or whether his ref-directed vitriol for the last year was simply anti-Steeler sentiment. I think this thread has conclusively proven the latter, and as such, can be put to bed now.
EG,Do you agree with me that the Neutral Zone infraction against Seymour was a complete misaplication of the rule? Surprisingly, most people disagree with me. Most have said that it was an incredibly smart play by the Olineman. I disagree.
I agree and I said so to my GF at the time. I thought both that and the call on Hobbs were a case of the refs blatantly either not knowing or misapplying the rules as written. The non-call on Caldwell and the roughing call late in the game were judgment calls, so those are more difficult to argue, but I didn't like either call. Refereeing seemed very one-sided in favor of the Colts, IMO.
 
See, part of my problem, I guess, is that I don't subscribe to the "this is the way it's usually called" train of thought. Basically, in instances like those being discussed, what that's saying is :

"I know the call is wrong, but that's the way it's always called, so you have to expect it."

No. An official who calls something correctly by the rule shouldn't be called out because it's "not usually called." In said instances, the ref making the call is correct and the ones "usually calling it" are wrong.

That's where I think the comparison to the Super Bowl last year is relevant. Particularly when reviewing the Hobbs call and the Darrell Jackson PI call.

Jackson was called for pass interference and if you read the rule on pass interference, it's clear that he was in violation. However, people complained because it was seen as "ticky-tack" and "isn't usually called." So the ref takes heat for making a good call.

In the Pats/Colts game, they call faceguarding on Hobbs, which doesn't exist. He made no contact with the receiver, it was a great (if slightly lucky) play by Hobbs, and shouldn't have been a penalty. Yet, there's no uproar because "refs always call that." They're wrong. There's no rule against faceguarding, and that should not have been pass interference. The ref gets a pass for making the incorrect call.

And Pat - I know you lend no credence to this argument, but I firmly believe that the fact that Madden disagreed with the Jackson call and Simms defended the Hobbs call had a LOT to do with the fact that people griped about the former and not the latter (in addition, the ensuing media scrutiny that stemmed from the announcer's comments added fuel to the fire.) Why were the Seahawks fans I watched the game with that couldn't hear Madden's comments mad at Jackson for that play until the next day, when their anger suddenly turned towards the officials after reading all the garbage on the internet? I think your theory that the game last week was an instant classic, whereas the Super Bowl was something of an ugly game does have something to do with it, but I also think the commentators were a primary reason.

 
Also, the offsides against Seymour was a terrible call. The new rule (about 5 years old I guess) is that if the defender enters the neutral zone so as to draw the offensive player across from him offsides, the penalty shall be against the defense. Seymour was in front of the left guard. He was attempting to get back onsides when the right guard stood up and pointed at him. Seymour did not draw the right guard offsides. The right guard came out of his stance of his own volition. That should have been a false start and was a big play in the game.
That's a great point. It game them a first down. If then had snapped while he's in the Neutral zone, so be it, or if the LG or LT moves, so be it. But, for the ORG to stand up and point, and get the call? Bad call. Ovarall though, I felt it was a pretty well officiated game. Couple of holds missed, and a blatant trip by Tarik Glenn on Colvn where he had gotten past that didn't get called, but that'll always happen. Did calls decide the game? I don't think so, but they sure did give the Colts a couple of big breaks that changed the complexion.
I disagree on the offsides call - right or wrong this play has come down to who moved first. It's pretty much been called this way since the new rule went into effect. IMO, the only obvious BS call was the non-PI call against Caldwell. The PI on Wayne, I'd agree comes down to whether there was contact before the ball got there and if Yudkin is having to rewind it 10 times in slow-mo just to make that determination, it isn't unreasonable for the ref to have made the call they did in real-time. The Pats fans who are complaining about the calls are only looking for the ones in their favor while there were other calls that went against the Colts they seem to forget about (no PI call on the Pats for grabbing Clark's arm just before the ball got to him on the play in the endzone).Its abosolutly hilarious listening to a Pats fan complain about officiating given the grief they give a Colts fan when they were complaing about the 03 game. The officials were 10x worse in that game.
 
See, part of my problem, I guess, is that I don't subscribe to the "this is the way it's usually called" train of thought. Basically, in instances like those being discussed, what that's saying is :

"I know the call is wrong, but that's the way it's always called, so you have to expect it."



No. An official who calls something correctly by the rule shouldn't be called out because it's "not usually called." In said instances, the ref making the call is correct and the ones "usually calling it" are wrong.

That's where I think the comparison to the Super Bowl last year is relevant. Particularly when reviewing the Hobbs call and the Darrell Jackson PI call.

Jackson was called for pass interference and if you read the rule on pass interference, it's clear that he was in violation. However, people complained because it was seen as "ticky-tack" and "isn't usually called." So the ref takes heat for making a good call.

In the Pats/Colts game, they call faceguarding on Hobbs, which doesn't exist. He made no contact with the receiver, it was a great (if slightly lucky) play by Hobbs, and shouldn't have been a penalty. Yet, there's no uproar because "refs always call that." They're wrong. There's no rule against faceguarding, and that should not have been pass interference. The ref gets a pass for making the incorrect call.

And Pat - I know you lend no credence to this argument, but I firmly believe that the fact that Madden disagreed with the Jackson call and Simms defended the Hobbs call had a LOT to do with the fact that people griped about the former and not the latter (in addition, the ensuing media scrutiny that stemmed from the announcer's comments added fuel to the fire.) Why were the Seahawks fans I watched the game with that couldn't hear Madden's comments mad at Jackson for that play until the next day, when their anger suddenly turned towards the officials after reading all the garbage on the internet? I think your theory that the game last week was an instant classic, whereas the Super Bowl was something of an ugly game does have something to do with it, but I also think the commentators were a primary reason.
Consider this hypothetical (and clearly exaggerated) example to make a point:Everyone knows that MLB umpires do not call the strike zone consistent with the rules as they are written. Even though there is some variation among umpires, NONE calls the top of the strike zone a strike. Anything roughly above the belt is consistently a ball.

If, in one game, an ump called those high strikes for one team and not the other, would you consider the game to be fairly officiated. The "wrong" calls were technically correct, but they are inconsistent with both the interpretation of the rules the players have become accustomed to, and it is inconsistent with the way similar plays were called for the other team. While I won't dispute the fact that those calls would be technically correct, are you willing to say that game, as a whole, was called fairly in that case?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
See, part of my problem, I guess, is that I don't subscribe to the "this is the way it's usually called" train of thought. Basically, in instances like those being discussed, what that's saying is :

"I know the call is wrong, but that's the way it's always called, so you have to expect it."



No. An official who calls something correctly by the rule shouldn't be called out because it's "not usually called." In said instances, the ref making the call is correct and the ones "usually calling it" are wrong.

That's where I think the comparison to the Super Bowl last year is relevant. Particularly when reviewing the Hobbs call and the Darrell Jackson PI call.

Jackson was called for pass interference and if you read the rule on pass interference, it's clear that he was in violation. However, people complained because it was seen as "ticky-tack" and "isn't usually called." So the ref takes heat for making a good call.

In the Pats/Colts game, they call faceguarding on Hobbs, which doesn't exist. He made no contact with the receiver, it was a great (if slightly lucky) play by Hobbs, and shouldn't have been a penalty. Yet, there's no uproar because "refs always call that." They're wrong. There's no rule against faceguarding, and that should not have been pass interference. The ref gets a pass for making the incorrect call.

And Pat - I know you lend no credence to this argument, but I firmly believe that the fact that Madden disagreed with the Jackson call and Simms defended the Hobbs call had a LOT to do with the fact that people griped about the former and not the latter (in addition, the ensuing media scrutiny that stemmed from the announcer's comments added fuel to the fire.) Why were the Seahawks fans I watched the game with that couldn't hear Madden's comments mad at Jackson for that play until the next day, when their anger suddenly turned towards the officials after reading all the garbage on the internet? I think your theory that the game last week was an instant classic, whereas the Super Bowl was something of an ugly game does have something to do with it, but I also think the commentators were a primary reason.
Consider this hypothetical (and clearly exaggerated) example to make a point:Everyone knows that MLB umpires do not call the strike zone consistent with the rules as they are written. Even though there is some variation among umpires, NONE calls the top of the strike zone a strike. Anything roughly above the belt is consistently a ball.

If, in one game, an ump called those high strikes for one team and not the other, would you consider the game to be fairly officiated. The "wrong" calls were technically correct, but they are inconsistent with both the interpretation of the rules the players have become accustomed to, and it is inconsistent with the way similar plays were called for the other team. While I won't dispute the fact that those calls would be technically correct, are you willing to say that game, as a whole, was called fairly in that case?
Not sure I understand the point of your argument. If a similar "Hobbs type" play had occurred where the IND defender had not looked back, had not contacted the WR, raised his arms up and the ball ended up hitting him in the arm or back, and the refs had no call on the play ... then this would be an interpretation that went one way for one team and another way for another team.

To use your example, if there were absolutely no pitches at the top of the strike zone (per the definition in the rules) during an entire game. Then in a crucial situation (let's say bases loaded, 2 out, count is full) and the pitch is right at the top of the defined zone and the pitcher calls it a strike. The batting team would be outraged saying that it is never called that way (i.e. is always called a ball) even though technically it is truly a strike. If this is the only time it happens in a game, then the call only "favored" one team and not the other and would be debated about whether it was the right call or not.

 
See, part of my problem, I guess, is that I don't subscribe to the "this is the way it's usually called" train of thought. Basically, in instances like those being discussed, what that's saying is :

"I know the call is wrong, but that's the way it's always called, so you have to expect it."



No. An official who calls something correctly by the rule shouldn't be called out because it's "not usually called." In said instances, the ref making the call is correct and the ones "usually calling it" are wrong.

That's where I think the comparison to the Super Bowl last year is relevant. Particularly when reviewing the Hobbs call and the Darrell Jackson PI call.

Jackson was called for pass interference and if you read the rule on pass interference, it's clear that he was in violation. However, people complained because it was seen as "ticky-tack" and "isn't usually called." So the ref takes heat for making a good call.

In the Pats/Colts game, they call faceguarding on Hobbs, which doesn't exist. He made no contact with the receiver, it was a great (if slightly lucky) play by Hobbs, and shouldn't have been a penalty. Yet, there's no uproar because "refs always call that." They're wrong. There's no rule against faceguarding, and that should not have been pass interference. The ref gets a pass for making the incorrect call.

And Pat - I know you lend no credence to this argument, but I firmly believe that the fact that Madden disagreed with the Jackson call and Simms defended the Hobbs call had a LOT to do with the fact that people griped about the former and not the latter (in addition, the ensuing media scrutiny that stemmed from the announcer's comments added fuel to the fire.) Why were the Seahawks fans I watched the game with that couldn't hear Madden's comments mad at Jackson for that play until the next day, when their anger suddenly turned towards the officials after reading all the garbage on the internet? I think your theory that the game last week was an instant classic, whereas the Super Bowl was something of an ugly game does have something to do with it, but I also think the commentators were a primary reason.
Consider this hypothetical (and clearly exaggerated) example to make a point:Everyone knows that MLB umpires do not call the strike zone consistent with the rules as they are written. Even though there is some variation among umpires, NONE calls the top of the strike zone a strike. Anything roughly above the belt is consistently a ball.

If, in one game, an ump called those high strikes for one team and not the other, would you consider the game to be fairly officiated. The "wrong" calls were technically correct, but they are inconsistent with both the interpretation of the rules the players have become accustomed to, and it is inconsistent with the way similar plays were called for the other team. While I won't dispute the fact that those calls would be technically correct, are you willing to say that game, as a whole, was called fairly in that case?
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's comparable. In the baseball hypothetical, you're talking about something (called strike zone) that is in effect on every single pitch, meaning that as long as it's consistent, it benefits neither team. In football, something like pass interference happens infrequently, so it's much more prone to benefit one team than the other if called incorrectly. A more apt baseball analogy would be a player ripping a ball deep in the alley to left, having it bounce off the turf and over the wall, and the ump calling it a home run. That would be clearly wrong by the rules, as the PI call was. Again, that's far more dramatic because such an error would be inconceivable, but that's how it should theoretically be in football as well.Besides, if you go back and watch the deciding game of the 1997 (IIRC) NLCS between Atlanta and Florida, you can see how a poorly called strike zone can affect a game negatively as well, so it wouldn't always be fair, even in your example. A giant strike zone would clearly benefit a pitcher who was wild rather than say, Greg Maddux, who doesn't need much leeway to get strikes.

In addition, the birth and implementation of Questec indicates that MLB wants to homogenize the strike zone anyway, so obviously they feel the need to rectify that.

 
Are Steeler fans still trying to legitamize last years Superbowl fiasco. The MVP's of that game were the officials.

Here's a hint. When the league has to come out a couple days later and say that every call was correct, you know the officiating had to be bad. You can bet that the league will not say anything about the officiating in this game.
Are bone-headed people still trying to blame the officials? The MVP's of that game were the Seahawks for their self-destructive tendencies.Here's a hint. First of all, they did not say every call was correct, they said the game was well-officiated, which is not synonomous for "everything was 100% correct." Pereirra, the head of officiating, said that the low block on Hasselbeck was a terrible call, actually. Also, you would have bashed the NFL no matter what because you had your mind set in stone about the game already. They came out and said the game was officiated properly, and you say "that means it was terrible!" I'll bet everyone that if the league never had any comment, you would have said "They're not defending the refs! That proves it was bad!" and if the NFL came out and said that the game was porrly officiated, you would have said "See! They admitted it! It WAS terrible!"

It's sad really that people still can't get over the Pittsburgh Steelers winning Super Bowl XL

:bowtie: :clap:
Can you tell me how many times the league has come out and made these comments after a fairly well officiated, non-descript game by the officials. NEVER.The league had to say something after the uproar that the officiating caused in this game. The league needs to legitimize the Superbowl champs as much as the fans of Pittsburgh do. If the league said the game was poorly officiated, Seattle got jobbed, and Pittsburgh got a gift, it would only be hurting its own image.

It's similar to their interpretation of the Tuck Rule. The league made this interpretation up to fit with the on-field ruling. Brady was actually pulling the ball in when he fumbled it. The league could not have illegitimate champs though. It hurts their image.

You can also bet that if the Steelers would have lost to Indy after that non-interception by Troy P, they would have found something in the writing of the rule to fit with the on-field call. The only reason they admitted to a mistake was because Pittsburgh won the game.
Aren't you a Raiders fan? Isn't there a bridge that you should be jumping off of? :loco:
No. What gives you that impression.
Sorry I must have gotten you confused for someone else. My apologies....
 
See, part of my problem, I guess, is that I don't subscribe to the "this is the way it's usually called" train of thought. Basically, in instances like those being discussed, what that's saying is :

"I know the call is wrong, but that's the way it's always called, so you have to expect it."



No. An official who calls something correctly by the rule shouldn't be called out because it's "not usually called." In said instances, the ref making the call is correct and the ones "usually calling it" are wrong.

That's where I think the comparison to the Super Bowl last year is relevant. Particularly when reviewing the Hobbs call and the Darrell Jackson PI call.

Jackson was called for pass interference and if you read the rule on pass interference, it's clear that he was in violation. However, people complained because it was seen as "ticky-tack" and "isn't usually called." So the ref takes heat for making a good call.

In the Pats/Colts game, they call faceguarding on Hobbs, which doesn't exist. He made no contact with the receiver, it was a great (if slightly lucky) play by Hobbs, and shouldn't have been a penalty. Yet, there's no uproar because "refs always call that." They're wrong. There's no rule against faceguarding, and that should not have been pass interference. The ref gets a pass for making the incorrect call.

And Pat - I know you lend no credence to this argument, but I firmly believe that the fact that Madden disagreed with the Jackson call and Simms defended the Hobbs call had a LOT to do with the fact that people griped about the former and not the latter (in addition, the ensuing media scrutiny that stemmed from the announcer's comments added fuel to the fire.) Why were the Seahawks fans I watched the game with that couldn't hear Madden's comments mad at Jackson for that play until the next day, when their anger suddenly turned towards the officials after reading all the garbage on the internet? I think your theory that the game last week was an instant classic, whereas the Super Bowl was something of an ugly game does have something to do with it, but I also think the commentators were a primary reason.
Consider this hypothetical (and clearly exaggerated) example to make a point:Everyone knows that MLB umpires do not call the strike zone consistent with the rules as they are written. Even though there is some variation among umpires, NONE calls the top of the strike zone a strike. Anything roughly above the belt is consistently a ball.

If, in one game, an ump called those high strikes for one team and not the other, would you consider the game to be fairly officiated. The "wrong" calls were technically correct, but they are inconsistent with both the interpretation of the rules the players have become accustomed to, and it is inconsistent with the way similar plays were called for the other team. While I won't dispute the fact that those calls would be technically correct, are you willing to say that game, as a whole, was called fairly in that case?
Not sure I understand the point of your argument. If a similar "Hobbs type" play had occurred where the IND defender had not looked back, had not contacted the WR, raised his arms up and the ball ended up hitting him in the arm or back, and the refs had no call on the play ... then this would be an interpretation that went one way for one team and another way for another team.To use your example, if there were absolutely no pitches at the top of the strike zone (per the definition in the rules) during an entire game. Then in a crucial situation (let's say bases loaded, 2 out, count is full) and the pitch is right at the top of the defined zone and the pitcher calls it a strike. The batting team would be outraged saying that it is never called that way (i.e. is always called a ball) even though technically it is truly a strike. If this is the only time it happens in a game, then the call only "favored" one team and not the other and would be debated about whether it was the right call or not.
Like I said, the example was clearly exaggerated for emphasis. Also, I wasn't talking so much about the Hobbs play, it was more about his comment on plays like the DJax OPI in SB XL (and probably the SEA holding call as well) where there were 'outlier' calls that were technically within the rules, but it was different from how the game is usually called.

I realize I can't cite examples of similar OPI or Holding that went uncalled in the game, as I don't have film (or that good of an eye/knowledge of the game if I did) so I can't say the situations are completely analagous, I was just trying to look at the idea of whether "that's not how it's usually called" should be a factor from a more generic, philosophical viewpoint :thumbup:

 
Also, the offsides against Seymour was a terrible call. The new rule (about 5 years old I guess) is that if the defender enters the neutral zone so as to draw the offensive player across from him offsides, the penalty shall be against the defense. Seymour was in front of the left guard. He was attempting to get back onsides when the right guard stood up and pointed at him. Seymour did not draw the right guard offsides. The right guard came out of his stance of his own volition. That should have been a false start and was a big play in the game.
That's a great point. It game them a first down. If then had snapped while he's in the Neutral zone, so be it, or if the LG or LT moves, so be it. But, for the ORG to stand up and point, and get the call? Bad call. Ovarall though, I felt it was a pretty well officiated game. Couple of holds missed, and a blatant trip by Tarik Glenn on Colvn where he had gotten past that didn't get called, but that'll always happen. Did calls decide the game? I don't think so, but they sure did give the Colts a couple of big breaks that changed the complexion.
I disagree on the offsides call - right or wrong this play has come down to who moved first. It's pretty much been called this way since the new rule went into effect. IMO, the only obvious BS call was the non-PI call against Caldwell. The PI on Wayne, I'd agree comes down to whether there was contact before the ball got there and if Yudkin is having to rewind it 10 times in slow-mo just to make that determination, it isn't unreasonable for the ref to have made the call they did in real-time. The Pats fans who are complaining about the calls are only looking for the ones in their favor while there were other calls that went against the Colts they seem to forget about (no PI call on the Pats for grabbing Clark's arm just before the ball got to him on the play in the endzone).Its abosolutly hilarious listening to a Pats fan complain about officiating given the grief they give a Colts fan when they were complaing about the 03 game. The officials were 10x worse in that game.
I have tried to be very consistent and clear about what I am saying. I will not argue the judgement calls (even the Caldwell non call) because they are judgement calls. You are right, upon replay review the Pat DB pulled down Clarks arm as the ball got there. I didnt think that was a penalty seeing it live and think if anything it was well hidden from the official.I have debated the blatent misinterpretation of the rules that occurred during the game and as some have mentioned, occur throughout the season. The fact that the NFL Supervisor of Officials has allowed the referees to establish their own rule (which doesnt exist in the rulebook), "that if the DB does not turn his head on a ball thrown in his area it is a penalty whether he touches anyone or not", I think is a problem.Also, if the Referees have turned the neutral zone infraction into simply whoever is the first to move, that is incorrect and they need to be talked to as well. The defense CAN move and has the right to get back onsides before the ball is snapped without an offensive player pulling out of his stance to point at him. The rule was put in place to protect the offensive player. The previous rule said that the offense couldnt move no matter what. So if the DLineman jumped offsides he would often CREAM the OLineman because he cant move. They basically said that if the DLineman in front of you moves, you can move to protect yourself without getting a penalty. If referees are calling that rule ANY other way, they are wrong.
 
See, part of my problem, I guess, is that I don't subscribe to the "this is the way it's usually called" train of thought. Basically, in instances like those being discussed, what that's saying is :

"I know the call is wrong, but that's the way it's always called, so you have to expect it."

No. An official who calls something correctly by the rule shouldn't be called out because it's "not usually called." In said instances, the ref making the call is correct and the ones "usually calling it" are wrong.

That's where I think the comparison to the Super Bowl last year is relevant. Particularly when reviewing the Hobbs call and the Darrell Jackson PI call.

Jackson was called for pass interference and if you read the rule on pass interference, it's clear that he was in violation. However, people complained because it was seen as "ticky-tack" and "isn't usually called." So the ref takes heat for making a good call.

In the Pats/Colts game, they call faceguarding on Hobbs, which doesn't exist. He made no contact with the receiver, it was a great (if slightly lucky) play by Hobbs, and shouldn't have been a penalty. Yet, there's no uproar because "refs always call that." They're wrong. There's no rule against faceguarding, and that should not have been pass interference. The ref gets a pass for making the incorrect call.

And Pat - I know you lend no credence to this argument, but I firmly believe that the fact that Madden disagreed with the Jackson call and Simms defended the Hobbs call had a LOT to do with the fact that people griped about the former and not the latter (in addition, the ensuing media scrutiny that stemmed from the announcer's comments added fuel to the fire.) Why were the Seahawks fans I watched the game with that couldn't hear Madden's comments mad at Jackson for that play until the next day, when their anger suddenly turned towards the officials after reading all the garbage on the internet? I think your theory that the game last week was an instant classic, whereas the Super Bowl was something of an ugly game does have something to do with it, but I also think the commentators were a primary reason.
Not really no credence but I find it hard to believe that there are really that many lemmings that still pay attention to anything John Madden says.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top