SD goes 0-2 because of one of the worst calls I've ever seen! (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

I would suggest suspending big Ed for a couple weeks.

Do you think this should apply to all refs who blow a call?If so, they will have to cancel all of the games next week.

 

[Broadway Joe]

Admittedly I am a Bronco homer and they caught a huge break on that call and probably wouldn't have won the game without the inadvertant whistle. To say that that one play cost the Chargers the game is wrong IMO.I remember earlier in the game Antonio Cromartie dropped what should have been a sure INT and 2 plays later the Broncos score a TD. Based on the logic in this thread shouldn't Cromartie be on the hook for losing the game? If he makes that INT then Broncos have 1 less TD and wouldn't have been in position for the inadvertant whistle to make a difference. I just have always been a person that believes that no one singular play makes a team win or lose. There are hundreds of other plays that if someone does something a little different then it can affect the outcome of the game. Just because this inadvertant whistle was in the final 2 minutes just adds emphasis to the importance of the play.

The difference between the blown fumble call and the dropped interception is timing. If the call wasn't missed, the Chargers would have almost certainly won the game.(The Chargers would have had the ball with 1:17 remaining. Assuming a standard dive play would take 5 seconds, and Denver used its 2 remaining timeouts after first and second down and held the Chargers without a first down, best case for Denver is they get the ball with about 10 seconds remaining and no timeouts left, probably on their own side of midfield. Barring a great punt return or an unlikely San Diego turnover, they would have had very little chance to win the game. And, obviously, if San Diego got a first down, the game would have been over.)The Cromartie play is different because had he intercepted it, the rest of the game would have occurred differently. It wasn't close enough to the end to know with reasonable certainty that it would have made the difference in the game. The blown fumble call was close enough to know that.And, as I mentioned before, I think something that makes it even worse for Chargers fans is the fact that they suffered the blown interception call and replay system malfunction preventing an overturn earlier in the game, giving Denver the ball inside San Diego's 30 and thus giving them a short field for their first TD. Both of those happening in one game is hard to take...

Also toss in the phantom hold on Chambers when Sproles ran to the 1 yard line and the refs scored a trifecta. Bottom line, the whistle dosent blow the Chargers win. The End. Refs gave game away.

LMAO Homerism abounds. Lets tar and feather big Ed in a pay-per-view event.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Everyone who's emailed Hochuli at his office (I wasn't one of them) is getting this response:

You can rest assured that nothing you say can make me feel worse than I already feel about my mistake on the fumble play. You have no idea....Affecting the outcome of a game is a devastating feeling. Officials strive for perfection - I failed miserably. Although it does no good to say it, I am very, very sorry.Ed Hochuli

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

at least they are looking to change the whistle rule

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-n...p&type=lgns

 

[Tau837]

I'm aware it's a stretch but you a ref can't blow the whistle to end a play and then go back and say, "This is what would have happened if I didn't blow the whistle."

There just isn't any gray area there.

It used to be that whenever the whistle blew, nothing that happened after that would count -- period.But I thought I remembered reading somewhere that that rule would be changed in either 2007 or 2008. (I think it was last year, but I'm not sure.) I forget the exact language. I may check the rules later. But I thought that action immediately following the whistle that was in the natural flow of the action (or something like that -- basically, all players just following through without having a chance to react to the whistle) would count if the replay showed that the whistle shouldn't have been blown. Today's situation would have fit in that category since the Charger LB picked up the ball immediately after the whistle was blown and nobody else had a shot at it.

It's possible that I'm remembering a proposed rule (that didn't pass) rather than an actual rule change.

Here's a blurb about this from January 2006. It says that the proposal was narrowly defeated in 2004 and 2005, but had a good chance of passing in 2006.
Hold those whistles!

Nothing drives a fan (not to mention a coach) crazier than for a play to be blown dead or a runner to be ruled "down by contact" and replays show that there clearly was a fumble. We saw three such plays during the wild-card weekend, and the officials blew it every time.

LaVar Arrington fumbled and Tampa Bay recovered on the interception return that set up Washington's first touchdown in a seven-point win over the Bucs. The officials even admitted to Jon Gruden on Monday that they messed up ruling Arrington down, thereby eliminating the opportunity for the Bucs to challenge the call ("down by contact" is not reviewable under instant replay rules). In the Giants-Panthers game, New York's Jeremy Shockey and Carolina's Nick Goings both lost fumbles but their teams retained possession because the whistle had been blown and the defense, by rule, couldn't challenge the call. Stuff like that happens all of the time.

Thankfully, the league agrees that this is a major problem and plans to fix it in the offseason. A league official told me that in the competition committee is going to push for a change to replay rules that would allow teams to challenge down by contact and award possession to the defense, so long as there is an immediate recovery and not a scramble. The defense would get the ball at the spot of the recovery, so it loses out on advancing the fumble, but at least it has possession.

The committee has looked at this issue for the past two years and for the first time brought it before the owners, who (by a slim margin) voted it down for fear that action continuing beyond the whistle would endanger players. I'm told it has a good shot of getting approved this time, though. That way, next year, we won't have to wonder "what if."

I have a copy of the 2007 rules, however, and don't see anything in them about making any post-whistle action reviewable. So evidently it was defeated again in 2006 and 2007, and presumably 2008. Maybe it'll pass in 2009.I did, however, come across a passage showing that the refs last night screwed up on this play even after the replay, at least according to the 2007 rules.

They gave Denver the ball back at the ten yard line with a loss of down, but should have given it back on the two yard line without a loss of down. So the Broncos got royally screwed.

Rule 7, Section 4, Article 3. If an official inadvertently sounds his whistle during a play, the ball becomes dead immediately: ... If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal pass, the team last in possession may elect to put the ball in play at the spot possession was lost or to replay the down.

I think the NFL owes the Broncos an official apology.

MT, they did change the down by contact plays so they are now reviewable. See the link bss just posted. Unfortunately, that change was limited to down by contact, not all action following an early whistle.

 

[The Ref]

Have not had a chance to read this while thread but let me proposed a hypothetical. What if instead it was in fact and incomplete pass and Ed didn't blow the whistle and Cutler tore an ACL while trying to recover what was "clearly" an incomplete pass?

What does that and the price of tea in China have to do with the ref totally blowing this call? Hochuli thought it was an incomplete pass.....he was wrong. Hochuli thought it was a forward pass.....he was wrong. He just totally blew this play every which way.

The answer is absolutely everything. Think about the implications of making the event of an official whistling a play dead a suggestion and not a definitive action. In the sport of football the whistle is the law. If not for the respect of the whistle signifying the end of the play players would continue to play though them regularly. This would result in many injuries, fights amongst players, and hinder the ability of the officials to keep control of a game that is inherently difficult to control to begin with. Nobody, including the ref who blew the call, is debating that it was not an incomplete pass. But what most are failing to recognize is that once the ref makes the judgment that the play is dead for any reason he MUST blow the whistle.The funny thing about the whole "the ref sucks" crowd is 90% would be chewed up and spit out after 1 game at the varsity high school level. You have no idea how good these guys really are and it's not by coincidence that these guys are hired as administrators to the highest level of football.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The funny thing about the whole "the ref sucks" crowd is 90% would be chewed up and spit out after 1 game at the varsity high school level. You have no idea how good these guys really are and it's not by coincidence that these guys are hired as administrators to the highest level of football.

Players make mistakes. Coaches make mistakes. Refs make mistakes. It happens. No one is perfect.

 

[moleculo]

Replay wouldn't have helped in first quarter

By Kevin Acee

Posted: September 15, 2008

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said that even if the replay system had been working during the first quarter yesterday, the interception by Denver's Champ Bailey would not have been reversed.

"The ruling on the field would not have changed," Aiello wrote in an e-mail repsonse to several queries. "Replay could have determined only whether or not the pass was complete (but not who possessed it) ... Replay cannot be used in this case to determine who had possession of the ball so the ruling on the field would have stood."

The play in question was a pass from Philip Rivers to Chris Chambers that both Chambers and Bailey appeared to have their hands on. But replays appeared to show that Chambers, by rule, had the ball in his right arm when his left elbow hit the ground. Bailey arose with the ball afterward, though, and ran to the end zone.

After some consultation, the officials ruled that Bailey had intercepted the ball but was down by contact at the 29-yard line.

Chargers coach Norv Turner challenged the call, but it was never reviewed. The replay was available in the booth upstairs but not on the field monitor. After waiting the required two minutes for the feed to be repaired, referee Ed Hochuli explained at the time that the play would stand.

Aiello explained that there was an "issue" with the server (and backup server) that supplies the feed to the field monitor. The issue was fixed with about three minutes to play in the first half. Aiello said a technician from the company that makes the servers will go to Denver this week and that all replay technicians will receive a memo with guidelines for troubleshooting the particular problem should it arise again.

Two local replay technicians are hired by the NFL to work each game.