Refs favouring one team over another (1 Viewer)

[mad sweeney]

Not to beat a dead horse... but I have to say that there is something about this forum when it comes to SuperBowl XL... I visit a lot of NFL discussion boards, and this one in particular just hasn't been able to move past the whole "refs won the game" thing. Most people have come down from it and thought about it more, listened to the explanations and realized that it really wasn't that bad at all.

thats because FBG forum is smarter than your average "NFL discussion board." After thinking about it more, and listening to the explanations, it only furthers the truth that the Hawks were cheated. And im an Eagle fan and i have no feelings toward either the Seahawks or the Steelers.

While this is a good NFL discussion board, I wouldn't be so arrogant to assume it's smarter than others, considering the only ones I go to are high quality. To be honest, I can't help but think that people who still think Seattle was cheated even after repeated viewing of the calls are the less intelligent ones. For example, I have absolutely no idea how anyone could think the OPI was not as good call. The WR extended his arm and pushed the defender backwards by about a foot. The defender was touching the WR but not impeding any of his movement (he wasn't moving) and Hasselbeck was outside the pocket, which allows a little more leniency on defenders when it comes to touching WR's. It was a textbook call, and I truly have to question the football IQ of anyone who disagrees. The only really bad call in SBXL was the Hasselbeck low block.

I was unable to replay the call you were talking about, so i went to youtube and found it.

That was one of at least three uncalled push offs in the face that Ward had in the game. In addition, the RT had Bryce Fisher in a headlock on almost every play and I don't think the Steelers had as ingle holding call against them despite their defense of the bad calls that "there's holding on every play". Even if you want to accept the "good reasons" for the calls except for the Hass tackle, you still can't accept the fact that the game was called consistently on both sides.

 

[Godsbrother]

Not to beat a dead horse... but I have to say that there is something about this forum when it comes to SuperBowl XL... I visit a lot of NFL discussion boards, and this one in particular just hasn't been able to move past the whole "refs won the game" thing. Most people have come down from it and thought about it more, listened to the explanations and realized that it really wasn't that bad at all.

thats because FBG forum is smarter than your average "NFL discussion board." After thinking about it more, and listening to the explanations, it only furthers the truth that the Hawks were cheated. And im an Eagle fan and i have no feelings toward either the Seahawks or the Steelers.

While this is a good NFL discussion board, I wouldn't be so arrogant to assume it's smarter than others, considering the only ones I go to are high quality. To be honest, I can't help but think that people who still think Seattle was cheated even after repeated viewing of the calls are the less intelligent ones. For example, I have absolutely no idea how anyone could think the OPI was not as good call. The WR extended his arm and pushed the defender backwards by about a foot. The defender was touching the WR but not impeding any of his movement (he wasn't moving) and Hasselbeck was outside the pocket, which allows a little more leniency on defenders when it comes to touching WR's. It was a textbook call, and I truly have to question the football IQ of anyone who disagrees. The only really bad call in SBXL was the Hasselbeck low block.

I was unable to replay the call you were talking about, so i went to youtube and found it.

They were both OPI. One was called and one wasn't -- it happens all the time in the NFL. It doesn't mean the refs wanted either team to win.People that whine about refs calls are crybabies.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I always felt accusations like this were pretty baseless - it seems hard to believe the NFL would sacrifice the integrity of the game strictly to create revenue-favourable matchups (like Colts vs. Pats) in the playoffs.That being said, I'm currently watching the NFL network in which Mike Perreira is giving the most horse's-### explanation possible of that phantom holding call against the Chargers that took away that INT return for a TD at the end of the first half (he didn't even defend the call because it was so ridiculous, he just pointed to an earlier supposed "hold" on Gonzalez that he "thought" should have been called instead.) For some reason, the fact that the NFL Network went out of its way to defend this highly BS call that could've had huge ramifications on the outcome of the game (if SD didn't whup the Colts anyway), makes me wonder if the refs do in fact makes some calls that are influenced by things other than what happened on the field vs. the NFL rulebook.Not to beat up on the Colts, but they also had another BS PI call in that game that seems to be commonplace in Indy playoff games ever since Bill Polian complained about PI to the competition committee a couple years ago. I feel the need to state this, for the record; I'm not, in any way, a Chargers fan.Just wondering if the common opinion out there is that the NFL does go so far as to try and sway the outcomes of certain games via the officiating, or whether those accusations are generally just sour grapes from fans of losing teams.

I think you present this well as it is a good time to look at this game because the team that was getting hammered on calls actually won. The PI call was horrible. I don't think Perreira is fair when he defends his guys. He doesn't present like a neutral observer (and he isn't).I have a hard time thinking the refs would intentionally screw things up because they were told to, but they are humans and emotions can take you down a slippery slope.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Here is an interesting link.

http://refchat.blogspot.com/

I might have missed it but a review of the game after their prediction would be interesting

 

[Liquid Tension]

I just watched that replay too the holding call was weak but that PI call was absolutely ridiculous. If not biased, whoever threw that flag is horribly incompetent and should be fired.

And your qualified to make this judgement why?

Because I haven't met one person who didn't agree that it was a horrible call...and I was rooting for Indy.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The Patriots can never be stopped on 4th down when they choose to go for it, the refs will make sure of it.

Oh good - everyone hang on and take your seats...this thread is about to be hijacked.

lol

 

[Liquid Tension]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

 

[redman]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

 

[brettdj]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

 

[mad sweeney]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

He wasn't under pressure of being sacked. Intentional grounding includes the phrase "to avoid a sack".

 

[brettdj]

I just watched that replay too the holding call was weak but that PI call was absolutely ridiculous. If not biased, whoever threw that flag is horribly incompetent and should be fired.

And your qualified to make this judgement why?

Because I haven't met one person who didn't agree that it was a horrible call...and I was rooting for Indy.

How much training have any of them had?

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

I just watched that replay too the holding call was weak but that PI call was absolutely ridiculous. If not biased, whoever threw that flag is horribly incompetent and should be fired.

And your qualified to make this judgement why?

Because I haven't met one person who didn't agree that it was a horrible call...and I was rooting for Indy.

How much training have any of them had?

It doesn't take formal training to recognize that a player that has made no physical contact with the opposing wide receiver did not commit pass interference.

 

[gianmarco]

I wonder if refs have to disclose who their favorite team is when getting the job. It would seem that it would have to be done and every effort to minimize that refs involvement in games played by that team (and potentially their division).

 

[Liquid Tension]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

He wasn't under pressure of being sacked. Intentional grounding includes the phrase "to avoid a sack".

No it doesn't. But it does state to avoid a loss. the issue is that every QB knows he needs to leave the pocket to toss it away like Romo did. One could argue that he wouldn't have thrown it away if he didn't think he was going to take a loss, otherwise why would he throw it away like that? The bottom line is QB's know that you just can't throw the ball away (especially the way he did it) from the pocket. I still think that grounding and PI are calls that are just called so inconsistently that it drives me crazy. I hate rewarding bad offense with a 35 yard PI play when a pass is short.

 

[brettdj]

I wonder if refs have to disclose who their favorite team is when getting the job. It would seem that it would have to be done and every effort to minimize that refs involvement in games played by that team (and potentially their division).

I don't believe so. Until about 3 years ago, officials were not allowed to officiate games with their local team involved. The NFL removed that recently because of the scrutiny they evaluate the officials on every play. They felt there should not be a concern for that. Along those lines, the NFL does background checks on each official that is usually more involved than security clearances for government work.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Not to beat a dead horse... but I have to say that there is something about this forum when it comes to SuperBowl XL... I visit a lot of NFL discussion boards, and this one in particular just hasn't been able to move past the whole "refs won the game" thing. Most people have come down from it and thought about it more, listened to the explanations and realized that it really wasn't that bad at all.

Here's what I don't understand. If you have Internet access on your stranded island, why not e-mail somebody for help?

 

[mad sweeney]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

He wasn't under pressure of being sacked. Intentional grounding includes the phrase "to avoid a sack".

No it doesn't. But it does state to avoid a loss. the issue is that every QB knows he needs to leave the pocket to toss it away like Romo did. One could argue that he wouldn't have thrown it away if he didn't think he was going to take a loss, otherwise why would he throw it away like that? The bottom line is QB's know that you just can't throw the ball away (especially the way he did it) from the pocket. I still think that grounding and PI are calls that are just called so inconsistently that it drives me crazy. I hate rewarding bad offense with a 35 yard PI play when a pass is short.

A QB taking a loss on a pass IS a sack. I think that there is an "imminent" issue involved. He was still under good protection and wasn't about to be sacked when he threw it away. I've seen many times a flag picked up or not thrown because there was no imminent sack involved. I think that was bad judgment on the refs on that one.

 

[redman]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

He wasn't under pressure of being sacked. Intentional grounding includes the phrase "to avoid a sack".

 

[brettdj]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

He wasn't under pressure of being sacked. Intentional grounding includes the phrase "to avoid a sack".

It does not state sack. Sack is only in the rulebook once, in reference to sack dance.Rule 8Section 3 Fouls on Passes and EnforcementArticle 1 Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss ofyardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without arealistic chance of completion.

 

[Slinger]

Super Bowl XL

Tom Brady and his non-fumble versus the Raiders

Overall the refs do a great job, but these two examples leads me to believe that it's plausible for refs to favor a team.

 

[brettdj]

Super Bowl XLTom Brady and his non-fumble versus the RaidersOverall the refs do a great job, but these two examples leads me to believe that it's plausible for refs to favor a team.

Do you need to see the "tuck rule"? They called it exactly like it is written in the rulebook.

 

[redman]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

What was wrong with it? He threw it from the pocket, intentionally to where no receiver was.

He wasn't under pressure of being sacked. Intentional grounding includes the phrase "to avoid a sack".

It does not state sack. Sack is only in the rulebook once, in reference to sack dance.Rule 8Section 3 Fouls on Passes and EnforcementArticle 1 Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss ofyardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without arealistic chance of completion.

"imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense"Yeah, that's real ambiguous there. I mean, in addition to a sack it could also mean . . . I got nothin'. Ideas?

 

[Slinger]

Do you need to see the "tuck rule"? They called it exactly like it is written in the rulebook.

So says the unbiased Patriots fan. If the tables were turned you would be singing a different song.

 

[bonesman]

How about Super Bowl XXXVI?

anyone ever see this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...h&plindex=0

 

[TxBuckeye]

Cowboy/Giants game was no crown jewel either for the Refs.

Really, the refs almost gave the game to the Cowboys by missing 3 false starts, the non hold call on Strahan, 2 illegal hands to the face and the call on Webster that kept the drive alive

And on the other hand the critical intentional grounding call on Romo was ridiculous - among the worst I've ever seen of that call, and they even took the time to talk about it first.

 

[phthalatemagic]

How about Super Bowl XXXVI?

anyone ever see this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...h&plindex=0

Why did they use a speak n spell for narration?

 

[mad sweeney]

How about Super Bowl XXXVI?

anyone ever see this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...h&plindex=0

Should've spent more time showing the disputed plays and what was wrong about them than having the WOPR talking while we read along. Worst fan video ever.

 

[sad pandas]

Even if you watched KC vs the Jets in Week 17 or some other horrible, meaningless game you could probably make the arguement that it was fixed one way or the other. Every game has mistakes by the zebras, its part of what makes football great. I don't think for one second the NFL would jeopardize their credibility by fixing games.

You forget that sometimes when watching replays you still can't tell if a catch was made, holding occured, PI, etc...so how are these guys supposed to get everything right when they get one shot to call it at full speed.

 

[nashua55]

All I can say, is I would hate to be a Giants or Charger fan this week. I believe if for some reason the games are close, those teams will get shaft by the refs. I believe the NFL wants a Favre vs the undefeated Patriots matchup and any thing questionable by the Giants or Chargers will be called a penatly by the refs. I cant say I believe this is 100 percent the case but I have my doubts. Plus, all year long the NFL has had this everlasting love fest for Favre. If the Packers do play the Patriots in the superbowl and the game is officiated along the lines of the Steelers/Seahawks Superbowl with the Packers getting all the calls in there favor the way the Steelers did, I would then 100 percent believe that the league is shady. I hope that is not the case, but after watching the colts/chargers game, I am starting to doubt the integrity of the league more and more.

 

[mad sweeney]

Even if you watched KC vs the Jets in Week 17 or some other horrible, meaningless game you could probably make the arguement that it was fixed one way or the other. Every game has mistakes by the zebras, its part of what makes football great. I don't think for one second the NFL would jeopardize their credibility by fixing games.You forget that sometimes when watching replays you still can't tell if a catch was made, holding occured, PI, etc...so how are these guys supposed to get everything right when they get one shot to call it at full speed.

That's what makes the really bad ones stick out. Especially if there are several that go in one team's direction. The idea of a league wide consipiracy is ridiculous. But individual refs or their crews could have conscious or unconscious biases within a game.Or they could just have a bad game or be bad refs (Luckett).I'll tell you what, when there's a very very dubious holding call calling back a TD at the end of the half and then later on a ref with a clear view throws a flag when the defender doesn't event touch the WR makes it look very fishy.

 

[Jous]

That SB36 one actually did have an entire website showing all the bad calls they claim, but it was taken down for NFL copyright violations I believe.

Oh and with that SBXL video clip, yes, they were both OPI, one was called and the other wasn't, which happens in every game so it's silly to say that the Seahawks were screwed. The difference was probably that for the one called against Seattle, the official was standing literally 3 feet away, and in the other example an official might not have seen it as it happened downfield.

I'm not going to go ahead ans say SBXL was a greatly officiated game, but it wasn't done worse than the average one. Seattle had AMPLE oppurtunities to win despite, and didn't capitalize. If they would've played properly even WITH the calls against them, they should have gotten at least 19 more points and easily won (at least 10 at the end of both halfs, at least 3 after the Locklear holding, 3 from other missed FG, at least 3 after Stevens dropped a pass that would've put them in FG range).

The game was there for Seattle's taking but they failed. The Seahawks were responsible for a lot more missed points than the referees. THAT's why it's silly to say the officials changed the outcome.

 

[Road Warriors]

Even if you watched KC vs the Jets in Week 17 or some other horrible, meaningless game you could probably make the arguement that it was fixed one way or the other. Every game has mistakes by the zebras, its part of what makes football great. I don't think for one second the NFL would jeopardize their credibility by fixing games.You forget that sometimes when watching replays you still can't tell if a catch was made, holding occured, PI, etc...so how are these guys supposed to get everything right when they get one shot to call it at full speed.

Not many here complaining about bang-bang calls that you can't really tell even in slo-mo. I had no dog in the IND-SD game, but...Phantom holding on Cromartie's runback? At the start of the 2nd half, Dierdorf runs a replay in slow mo, explains why they called a hold, but somehow the picture on the screen didn't match the description of the foul Dierdorf was describing. And in the same game, the PI call that even the announcers couldn't come up with any explanation, where the DB doesn't contact the receiver. The refs get an amazing number of calls right, even the close ones. But sometimes, the miss is just so bad, so blatant, it makes you wonder.

 

[Jous]

Oh and also, onto the Giants/Cowboys game I thought the Cowboys surprisingly got the worse end of a few bad calls. I say surprisingly because the Cowboys at home should instantly make you assume they get the benefit of doubt on some questionable calls. Again, nothing happened late enough to change the outcome though... so I don't blame anyone but Dallas. How does Crayton feel though? That one pass he dropped when they were up 17-14 was HUGE, that may have been a TD, icing the game.

 

[mad sweeney]

That SB36 one actually did have an entire website showing all the bad calls they claim, but it was taken down for NFL copyright violations I believe. Oh and with that SBXL video clip, yes, they were both OPI, one was called and the other wasn't, which happens in every game so it's silly to say that the Seahawks were screwed. The difference was probably that for the one called against Seattle, the official was standing literally 3 feet away, and in the other example an official might not have seen it as it happened downfield.I'm not going to go ahead ans say SBXL was a greatly officiated game, but it wasn't done worse than the average one. Seattle had AMPLE oppurtunities to win despite, and didn't capitalize. If they would've played properly even WITH the calls against them, they should have gotten at least 19 more points and easily won (at least 10 at the end of both halfs, at least 3 after the Locklear holding, 3 from other missed FG, at least 3 after Stevens dropped a pass that would've put them in FG range). The game was there for Seattle's taking but they failed. The Seahawks were responsible for a lot more missed points than the referees. THAT's why it's silly to say the officials changed the outcome.

How can you say the officials were responsible for missed points and then say their impact on the outcome is silly. If they cost points, they affected the outcome.But I agree that Seattle could've and should've overcome the bad officiating, especially in the persons of Jackson and Stevens. But they wouldn't have had to overcome some questionable reffing if it wasn't there or if it were called the same way for both sides. Ward had a lot of pushoffs, several in the facemask of the DB that weren't called. Can't expect them to get everything, but when something happens all game it should be seen at some point. Same with the holding calls. One very blatant one on a Roth scramble for a first down that was as obvious as the hold tha Steeler fans are mad about on the Grrard scramble. If you're going to call very ticky tack calls on one side, call them on the other, or at least call the blatant ones.

 

[Jous]

That SB36 one actually did have an entire website showing all the bad calls they claim, but it was taken down for NFL copyright violations I believe. Oh and with that SBXL video clip, yes, they were both OPI, one was called and the other wasn't, which happens in every game so it's silly to say that the Seahawks were screwed. The difference was probably that for the one called against Seattle, the official was standing literally 3 feet away, and in the other example an official might not have seen it as it happened downfield.I'm not going to go ahead ans say SBXL was a greatly officiated game, but it wasn't done worse than the average one. Seattle had AMPLE oppurtunities to win despite, and didn't capitalize. If they would've played properly even WITH the calls against them, they should have gotten at least 19 more points and easily won (at least 10 at the end of both halfs, at least 3 after the Locklear holding, 3 from other missed FG, at least 3 after Stevens dropped a pass that would've put them in FG range). The game was there for Seattle's taking but they failed. The Seahawks were responsible for a lot more missed points than the referees. THAT's why it's silly to say the officials changed the outcome.

How can you say the officials were responsible for missed points and then say their impact on the outcome is silly. If they cost points, they affected the outcome.But I agree that Seattle could've and should've overcome the bad officiating, especially in the persons of Jackson and Stevens. But they wouldn't have had to overcome some questionable reffing if it wasn't there or if it were called the same way for both sides. Ward had a lot of pushoffs, several in the facemask of the DB that weren't called. Can't expect them to get everything, but when something happens all game it should be seen at some point. Same with the holding calls. One very blatant one on a Roth scramble for a first down that was as obvious as the hold tha Steeler fans are mad about on the Grrard scramble. If you're going to call very ticky tack calls on one side, call them on the other, or at least call the blatant ones.

The officials were responsible for missed points, although I think you misunderstood me, I meant they were responsible for the missed points on the Jackson OPI for calling it, but they were correct in taking those points away. The only 2 calls I found questionable against Seattle were the Hasselbeck low block and possibly the Locklear holding. The low block was bad, but I can't comment on the holding because I really have very little idea to this day if it was a hold, considering I've seen holding called/not called on so many different plays that it's hard to recognize it clearly anymore unless it's blatant.On the subject of ticky tacky calls in the game though, there was definetly one against Pittsburgh that not many remember for whatever reason. On Pittsburgh's first scoring drive, Heath Miller was hit with a very "ticky tacky" OPI that made it 2nd and very long instead of 3rd and short. I remember watching it and being very confused as to why it was called, as Miller touched the defender less than Jackson did and was on the opposite side of the field from where the pass went. I guess it's not remembered because the Steelers converted the 3rd and 28 two plays later, making it irrelevant. So I count 2 "ticky tacky" calls against Seattle and 1 against Pittsburgh. That's why I don't see the whole refs changed the outcome thing. As far as non-calls go, citing Ward's facemask grabbing etc, it's worthless to even discuss non-calls. If we wanted, I bet you could go and find 10 examples of fouls against the Steelers that weren't called, and I could go and find 10 against Seattle that weren't called, so why bother? The only things worth discussing are the calls that were made.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Let me ask you this:

Did you think the non-interception call on Polamalu against the Colts two years ago was a terrible call? One that stunk of a Colts / ref bias in the playoffs?

Alot of people did.

The Pittsburgh Steelers that year was the most lucrative SB in history for the NFL.

It wasn't half as bad as the calls the Stellers received in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks.And no, I'm not a Seattle fan.

The Polamalu call was one of the worst calls I've ever seen. If you think any of the calls in the superbowl even remotely compared to that call, you're just.......

The Polamalu call was BAD. But so were the calls in the Super Bowl. Maybe not as bad as that one, but what is worse - one terrible call or a number of bad calls all against the same team? I think it's easier to work around one terrible call than several bad ones. If you don't think so, then you're the one.

 

[TxBuckeye]

All I can say, is I would hate to be a Giants or Charger fan this week. I believe if for some reason the games are close, those teams will get shaft by the refs.

This pre-whining schtick has got to stop...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sure they favor one team sometimes. The Seahawks got rolled by the refs vs the Steelers in the Super Bowl for example.

Was it intentional? No. Is it ever intentional? Probably not.

 

[NEUPJ]

I think whoever made the cop analogy is right on about this one. I don't think anyone favors the Colts, Patriots, Steelers whoever, ref's aren't perfect and are often awful. However, you could watch any football, baseball or basketball game in slow-motion and find 1,000 things that were not called. Sitting at home with a 50" Plasma, slow motion replays and DVR makes officiating from the couch pretty easy.

Good teams will overcome bad calls against them. If a team loses the game due to one bad call, they really didn't deserve to win the game in the first place.

This thread reminded me of probably the worst call I've seen in any sport, from the 1999 ALCS when Offerman was "tagged out" http://espn.go.com/media/mlb/1999/1017/photo/a_stretch.jpg

 

[fred_1_15301]

Let me ask you this:

Did you think the non-interception call on Polamalu against the Colts two years ago was a terrible call? One that stunk of a Colts / ref bias in the playoffs?

Alot of people did.

The Pittsburgh Steelers that year was the most lucrative SB in history for the NFL.

It wasn't half as bad as the calls the Stellers received in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks.And no, I'm not a Seattle fan.

The Polamalu call was one of the worst calls I've ever seen. If you think any of the calls in the superbowl even remotely compared to that call, you're just.......

The Polamalu call was BAD. But so were the calls in the Super Bowl. Maybe not as bad as that one, but what is worse - one terrible call or a number of bad calls all against the same team? I think it's easier to work around one terrible call than several bad ones. If you don't think so, then you're the one.

Your quote was that "it wasn't half as bas as the calls the Stellers received in the Super Bowl" which indicates that you believe that every call favoring the Steelers in the Super Bowl was worse than that Polamalu call. I'm simply quoting what you posted....... .

 

[redman]

The only thing more amazing to me this postseason than how bad the officiating has been is the fact that, IMHO, none of it has affected the outcome of games. In other words, the calls have been bad both ways and have more or less cancelled each other out.

 

[The Ref]

100's and 100's of K out there to be made. You can be on the same field as your favorite NFL players. Go down to your local High school Ref chapter and sign up for the 2008 season. I'm sure you will all do a great job and will be in the NFL ranks in a year or two.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Super Bowl XLTom Brady and his non-fumble versus the RaidersOverall the refs do a great job, but these two examples leads me to believe that it's plausible for refs to favor a team.

You're absolutely right. When Brady "fumbled" that ball due to an illegal forearm to the head by Woodson, the ref's should have called a 15 yard penalty, automatic first down, but they blew it. But I'm not bitter about it, and if Pats fans aren't bitter, then maybe it's time for non-Pats fans to let it go.

 

[brettdj]

100's and 100's of K out there to be made. You can be on the same field as your favorite NFL players. Go down to your local High school Ref chapter and sign up for the 2008 season. I'm sure you will all do a great job and will be in the NFL ranks in a year or two.