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

[DropKick]

Well, tell us about some of the ones you have seen that you would deem worse.

I would start with the worst calls in the games that mattered most... i.e. playoffs. 1) Tuck Rule - while technically correct, the rule is still speculative.2) Green Bay vs. San Francisco - Jerry Rice fumble that was not a fumble. 3) Not a playoff game I don't believe but Testaverde's phantom touchdown.

how about any controversial call in the seattle-pittsburgh championship game a few years back...lolducking all the steelers fans.

To this day, I still feel that the refs ruined that Super Bowl... and I didn't even have a dog in the fight.

same here!!!

Yeah Holmgren's crappy game mgmt and Steelers D had nothing to do with it right?

Why do people always feel compelled to make these straw-man arguments? He said he had no rooting preference. Sure, the Steelers D played well. What does that have to do with the lopsided officiating?

Oh I don't know maybe because the Steelers dominated that Super Bowl and the Seahawks could not move the ball or stop the Steelers. But in today's society it is always easier to blame someone else instead of dealing with the truth. Carry on in your fanstasy land.

Lol "In today's society" - as if it's analogous to blaming one's wife/boss/parents for their problems/shortcomings in life. As a football fan with no rooting interest, it was a downer that the big game that year contained much less drama than it would've had the officials done their job. That is all. Pretty easy concept for anyone not wearing defensive/insecure black&gold blinders.

LOL... This is why Ghost Rider (and I) tried to take the high road and not bring up another situation which was sure to induce the joyful banter above.

 

[SSOG]

Shanahan was kind enough to give San Diego a mulligan by going for the 2 point conversion. That was a bad call but bad calls happen. Despite the terrible call they still had a chance to win the game and couldn't get it done.

You know what, in my book they did get it done, they recovered a fumble that would have ended the game. All the proof I need will be tomorrow when the NFL issues a statement saying the ref's screwed up and SD should have won.

I'm not sure they will have too. Ed said it was a blown whistle.

Of course it was a blown whistle. That's the problem! (gotta love inadvertent puns)

Having lived in Denver during C.U.'s fifth down play I do not expect the locals to ever aknowledge nor admit to any unusual serendipity on this particular occassion. Twas God's will and devine justice they will conclude, even the atheists among them. Admission of serendipity seems, somehow, an impossibility for these fans, as if doing so will cast their souls into a lake of torment where Al Davis rules. Fortunately as a Packer fan I am above such myopia when it comes to my team

Have you not bothered to read this thread, where every Denver fan who has weighed in so far has acknowledged that Denver was incredibly blessed? I'll add my voice to the chorus. Great break for Denver. Should have been a loss.

I have no connection to either Den or SD, and as a Bills fan I honestly don't know who I was supposed to be rooting for in this game, but I am personally offended by how this played out. San Diego won this game, and the officials handed it right back to Denver. This is a disgrace for the NFL that people will remember for years.

Edit: I had Royal in my starting lineup, in case it matters. This is still disgraceful.

No one but Bronco's will remember this by next year.

No, this will live forever like the "tuck" call. Every time a thread mentions the Broncos, someone will bring up the "inadvertent whistle" that propelled Denver to great success. Others will nod their head in agreement. Without really understanding why, people will hate Cutler and even Eddie Royal who both benefited from this call.For the record, certainly a bad break for San Diego but not really different from how NFL games routinely play out.

First off, no way in hell does this go down in history with the Tuck call. Why? Because it's week 2, and the Tuck Rule was the AFC Championship (and, moreover, signaled the beginning of a dynasty). Maybe if Denver squeaks into the playoffs on a tiebreaker, wins the superbowl, and goes on to become a dynasty, then this game will be remembered. Otherwise, this will soon be forgotten. Even then, it'll probably be forgotten. Early on in the Patriots dynasty, when they were marching to their second SB and extending their NFL record win streak, they had a ton of lucky breaks and close calls. 31 fanbases said they were so incredibly lucky. Pats fans said that luck is a byproduct of preparation. Can anyone remember any of those "lucky breaks" now? Details fade far quicker than you can imagine.Hell, we're talking about egregious officiating errors, and nobody has yet remembered the insane SF comeback against the Giants that was assisted by the officials stripping the Giants of a down at the end of the game when down 2 and in field goal range. That was an actual playoff game. If that error isn't remembered, this one won't be either.

Also, I have only seen one game where I will say that the officials cost a team the game. Generally, I ascribe to the theory that if a team didn't want to lose, it should have done well enough elsewhere to not leave the game to chance. Chance is an everpresent factor. Sometimes it's on your side, sometimes it's not. Best to leave nothing to it. For the record, the one game I blame on refs is the UF/FSU game from a couple years back where the referees blew no fewer than FIVE fumble calls (in all five instances awarding the ball to FSU when it should have gone to UF). Costing a team +5 in the turnover margin is just to huge to say "shouldn't have left it to chance".

 

[rascal]

It wasn't a bad call, he applied the rules correctly, just made a mistake blowing the whistle to early.

And that is nothing compared to the Pats gift against the Raiders several years ago.

 

[jonessed]

It wasn't a bad call, he applied the rules correctly, just made a mistake blowing the whistle to early.

And that is nothing compared to the Pats gift against the Raiders several years ago.

 

[shredhead]

All right, beleive it or not, I just read every post in this thread. I have been a Broncos fan for nearly 40 years now, and, I'll man up. We caught a major break, and should not have won that game.

Dear NFL, Please take our win on Sept 14, 2008 away form us and give the win to the San Diego Chargers. They beat the Denver Broncos fair and square. Please reset both teams records to 1-1. signed, shredhead.

Hope that works.

This one is tough for me, because even though they are an AFC rival, I don't hate the Chargers. I'm not quite sure why. I absolutely despise the Oakland Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs, but for some unknown reason I find myself rooting for the Chargers whenever they are not playing the Broncos. With all that being said, Philip Rivers is working on changing all of that. I hate that guy for some reason, but I am in the closet for liking the rest of the Chargers team. Who can hate LT or Gates? Maybe it's because I had a best friend in Rochester NY when I was a kid. My family moved to Colorado, and his family moved to San Diego. I'm not sure if my friend Mark had anything to do with me not hating the Chargers as much as the other division teams or not, but it is the case.

Oh, I almost forgot:

Go Broncos!!

Edit to add: Since someone earlier mentioned it, I do remember the 5th down play for CU in their national championship season. Missouri got robbed. I don't know what is going to change on that front either. For you Colorado radio listeners, I heard Scott Hastings mention it to Alfred Williams of KFAN a couple of weeks ago when Alfred was talking about his national championship season. I was laughing pretty good at that one. Good one Scott.

 

[rascal]

It wasn't a bad call, he applied the rules correctly, just made a mistake blowing the whistle to early.

And that is nothing compared to the Pats gift against the Raiders several years ago.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

A bad call didn't make the defense give up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then give up the 2-point conversion.

Are you suggesting that the defense would have given up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then a 2-point conversion, even if the correct call had been made? If not, then the bad call did make that happen.That said, I'm not all that bitter about the end of the game. The Chargers got lucky that Cutler goofed, then unlucky that the refs goofed. There are still 14 more games left to play, so the Chargers can still control their own fate.

No, I'm saying that even with the bad call the Broncos were still losing, were abut 10 yards from the end zone and were at third down. It wasn't first and goal from the one or anything.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Ultimately, while unfortunate, this will all be forgotten sooner than later, by most. I mean, how often do people bring up the fact that a Jerry Rice fumble should have ended the playoff game vs. the Packers following the '98 season, a game that the 49ers eventually won by the Young to Owens play, a very famous throw and catch? The catch by Owens is what people remember. Likewise, Shanahan's decision to go for two in this game is what will be remembered by most about this game.

 

[onionsack]

What exactly happened during the play?

bump.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Ultimately, while unfortunate, this will all be forgotten sooner than later, by most. I mean, how often do people bring up the fact that a Jerry Rice fumble should have ended the playoff game vs. the Packers following the '98 season, a game that the 49ers eventually won by the Young to Owens play, a very famous throw and catch? The catch by Owens is what people remember. Likewise, Shanahan's decision to go for two in this game is what will be remembered by most about this game.

I remember that. People definitely remember playoff mistakes more than ones in week 2. A few years ago, I think the 49ers beat the Giants on a play where the refs later admitted PI should have been called (on a botched punt or FG attempt, I think) and the Giants should have gotten one more crack at a FG.

 

[BoltBacker]

I don't think any team loses because of a bad call.

If SD would have been the better team they would have made the plays to ensure the game wasn't "decided" by a bad call. Denver played better and was the better team. Congrats Bronco fans. You're in control of the division for the time being and deserve to be.

 

[Michael Brown]

A bad call didn't make the defense give up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then give up the 2-point conversion.

Are you suggesting that the defense would have given up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then a 2-point conversion, even if the correct call had been made? If not, then the bad call did make that happen.That said, I'm not all that bitter about the end of the game. The Chargers got lucky that Cutler goofed, then unlucky that the refs goofed. There are still 14 more games left to play, so the Chargers can still control their own fate.

No, I'm saying that even with the bad call the Broncos were still losing, were abut 10 yards from the end zone and were at third down. It wasn't first and goal from the one or anything.

Soooooooo, just because the Broncos were afforded two extra plays from inside the red zone in a game that they had already lost, the Chargers should be forced to stop them again?This is sound logic.

How about this...for the rest of the year, your favorite team gets four downs to get a first down, but the opposition gets five. After all, it's not like you're giving them first and goal from the one or anything. You still have every opportunity to stop them; they're just getting an extra chance.

 

[Kev4029]

I'm gonna throw this out there because I don't think anybody has mentioned it... There was 1:14 left in the game when this happened, SD would have had the ball around the 15, but the game wasn't completely over. Denver had 2 timeouts at the time, and would have had at least a chance to stop the chargers, and get the ball back with 15 seconds or so left if it was 3 quick unsuccessful runs.

 

[Tankslap]

All right, beleive it or not, I just read every post in this thread. I have been a Broncos fan for nearly 40 years now, and, I'll man up. We caught a major break, and should not have won that game.Dear NFL, Please take our win on Sept 14, 2008 away form us and give the win to the San Diego Chargers. They beat the Denver Broncos fair and square. Please reset both teams records to 1-1. signed, shredhead.Hope that works. This one is tough for me, because even though they are an AFC rival, I don't hate the Chargers. I'm not quite sure why. I absolutely despise the Oakland Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs, but for some unknown reason I find myself rooting for the Chargers whenever they are not playing the Broncos. With all that being said, Philip Rivers is working on changing all of that. I hate that guy for some reason, but I am in the closet for liking the rest of the Chargers team. Who can hate LT or Gates? Maybe it's because I had a best friend in Rochester NY when I was a kid. My family moved to Colorado, and his family moved to San Diego. I'm not sure if my friend Mark had anything to do with me not hating the Chargers as much as the other division teams or not, but it is the case.

Denver homer here. I relate to all of this entirely. I was at the game today and I bought the seat next to me for my Charger fan buddy. We're both passionate about our teams and talk smack all day long but if the Chargers were in the SB I would root for LT getting his due and Rivers getting his head taken off. Thanks for the post.And yes the Chargers got robbed. But they had two all-or-nothing chances to stop Denver and came up short. And they were dominated the entire first half. And even two games behind they are at least as likely, if not more, to win the division.

 

[Tankslap]

A bad call didn't make the defense give up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then give up the 2-point conversion.

Are you suggesting that the defense would have given up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then a 2-point conversion, even if the correct call had been made? If not, then the bad call did make that happen.That said, I'm not all that bitter about the end of the game. The Chargers got lucky that Cutler goofed, then unlucky that the refs goofed. There are still 14 more games left to play, so the Chargers can still control their own fate.

No, I'm saying that even with the bad call the Broncos were still losing, were abut 10 yards from the end zone and were at third down. It wasn't first and goal from the one or anything.

Soooooooo, just because the Broncos were afforded two extra plays from inside the red zone in a game that they had already lost, the Chargers should be forced to stop them again?This is sound logic.

How about this...for the rest of the year, your favorite team gets four downs to get a first down, but the opposition gets five. After all, it's not like you're giving them first and goal from the one or anything. You still have every opportunity to stop them; they're just getting an extra chance.

I think that's the crux of the argument; they weren't "stopped" to begin with. Cutler ####ed up on his own on an island, unforced. See this post within this thread.

 

[SSOG]

A bad call didn't make the defense give up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then give up the 2-point conversion.

Are you suggesting that the defense would have given up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then a 2-point conversion, even if the correct call had been made? If not, then the bad call did make that happen.That said, I'm not all that bitter about the end of the game. The Chargers got lucky that Cutler goofed, then unlucky that the refs goofed. There are still 14 more games left to play, so the Chargers can still control their own fate.

No, I'm saying that even with the bad call the Broncos were still losing, were abut 10 yards from the end zone and were at third down. It wasn't first and goal from the one or anything.

Soooooooo, just because the Broncos were afforded two extra plays from inside the red zone in a game that they had already lost, the Chargers should be forced to stop them again?This is sound logic.

How about this...for the rest of the year, your favorite team gets four downs to get a first down, but the opposition gets five. After all, it's not like you're giving them first and goal from the one or anything. You still have every opportunity to stop them; they're just getting an extra chance.

I think that's the crux of the argument; they weren't "stopped" to begin with. Cutler ####ed up on his own on an island, unforced. See this post within this thread.

I don't buy this argument. Mistakes are part of the game, as is capitalizing on them. San Diego should have been rewarded for not making unforced errors on an island and for being in a position to capitalize on Denver's mistakes. Saying that San Diego didn't deserve to have a stop there is sort of like suggesting that, instead of having a kicker trot off and attempt a field goal, the league should just award a set number of points equal to three times the kicker's percentage from that distance (so if a kicker hits 70% of 40 yarders, instead of kicking a 40-yarder the team would just get 2.1 points). After all, it's not fair for the other team to benefit from the kicker making an unforced error on an island and missing the attempt, right?Denver was stopped. San Diego should have walked out with a win. That's pretty much the end of the discussion right there. Well, outside of one thing that I haven't said yet- despite the fact that SD should have walked out with the victory, Denver looked like the better team on the field to me. San Diego's scoring came largely on plays that I consider to be fluky and unrepeatable (the two Sproles TDs in particular- I think Sproles could play Denver 10 times and only come up with one score each like those), whereas Denver's scoring came more from the slow, methodical, implacable offensive domination of SD's defense. Denver posted 34 first downs to SD's 19. Denver was 5-of-6 in the RZ (SD was 1-of-4, which means they might have won a sudden death overtime, but I would have liked Denver's chances in a first-to-six format). Denver was 4-of-4 with goal to go (or 3-of-4, if you prefer), compared to 0-of-1 for SD. Obviously having LT not at 100% was a big deal for San Diego, but if you asked me which of the two teams on the field I think would win if they kept playing for 240 minutes instead of 60 (and fatigue wasn't a factor), I'd take the Broncos. Eventually, the well would have run dry on big plays for the Chargers, while the Broncos would still be marching up and down the field at will. JMO.

 

[Michael Brown]

A bad call didn't make the defense give up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then give up the 2-point conversion.

Are you suggesting that the defense would have given up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then a 2-point conversion, even if the correct call had been made? If not, then the bad call did make that happen.That said, I'm not all that bitter about the end of the game. The Chargers got lucky that Cutler goofed, then unlucky that the refs goofed. There are still 14 more games left to play, so the Chargers can still control their own fate.

No, I'm saying that even with the bad call the Broncos were still losing, were abut 10 yards from the end zone and were at third down. It wasn't first and goal from the one or anything.

Soooooooo, just because the Broncos were afforded two extra plays from inside the red zone in a game that they had already lost, the Chargers should be forced to stop them again?This is sound logic.

How about this...for the rest of the year, your favorite team gets four downs to get a first down, but the opposition gets five. After all, it's not like you're giving them first and goal from the one or anything. You still have every opportunity to stop them; they're just getting an extra chance.

I think that's the crux of the argument; they weren't "stopped" to begin with. Cutler ####ed up on his own on an island, unforced. See this post within this thread.

I don't buy this argument. Mistakes are part of the game, as is capitalizing on them. San Diego should have been rewarded for not making unforced errors on an island and for being in a position to capitalize on Denver's mistakes. Saying that San Diego didn't deserve to have a stop there is sort of like suggesting that, instead of having a kicker trot off and attempt a field goal, the league should just award a set number of points equal to three times the kicker's percentage from that distance (so if a kicker hits 70% of 40 yarders, instead of kicking a 40-yarder the team would just get 2.1 points). After all, it's not fair for the other team to benefit from the kicker making an unforced error on an island and missing the attempt, right?Denver was stopped. San Diego should have walked out with a win. That's pretty much the end of the discussion right there. Well, outside of one thing that I haven't said yet- despite the fact that SD should have walked out with the victory, Denver looked like the better team on the field to me. San Diego's scoring came largely on plays that I consider to be fluky and unrepeatable (the two Sproles TDs in particular- I think Sproles could play Denver 10 times and only come up with one score each like those), whereas Denver's scoring came more from the slow, methodical, implacable offensive domination of SD's defense. Denver posted 34 first downs to SD's 19. Denver was 5-of-6 in the RZ (SD was 1-of-4, which means they might have won a sudden death overtime, but I would have liked Denver's chances in a first-to-six format). Denver was 4-of-4 with goal to go (or 3-of-4, if you prefer), compared to 0-of-1 for SD. Obviously having LT not at 100% was a big deal for San Diego, but if you asked me which of the two teams on the field I think would win if they kept playing for 240 minutes instead of 60 (and fatigue wasn't a factor), I'd take the Broncos. Eventually, the well would have run dry on big plays for the Chargers, while the Broncos would still be marching up and down the field at will. JMO.

Under the previous argument, it could be extended so far that you could conceivably argue that nobody stops anybody. That all teams simply stop themselves. Even if your defense gets a sack, it's not because they did anything right, but rather, because the other team allowed you to tackle the QB. If the opposition throws an incomplete pass, it's not because your defense *stopped* them but simply because they didn't throw it properly and/or run a better route. Not saying the previous poster suggested that, just that there's no point to draw the line on what separates "stopping" a team versus them "stopping" themselves. In this instance, San Diego did enough to prevent Denver from scoring a touchdown. Whether it's in part due to stopping Pittman on first down and setting up the Cutler pass, being in the right position on second down to recover the fumble, whatever. They did enough, yet somehow it wasn't enough. And that just isn't right, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Tau837]

despite the fact that SD should have walked out with the victory, Denver looked like the better team on the field to me. San Diego's scoring came largely on plays that I consider to be fluky and unrepeatable (the two Sproles TDs in particular- I think Sproles could play Denver 10 times and only come up with one score each like those), whereas Denver's scoring came more from the slow, methodical, implacable offensive domination of SD's defense. Denver posted 34 first downs to SD's 19. Denver was 5-of-6 in the RZ (SD was 1-of-4, which means they might have won a sudden death overtime, but I would have liked Denver's chances in a first-to-six format). Denver was 4-of-4 with goal to go (or 3-of-4, if you prefer), compared to 0-of-1 for SD. Obviously having LT not at 100% was a big deal for San Diego, but if you asked me which of the two teams on the field I think would win if they kept playing for 240 minutes instead of 60 (and fatigue wasn't a factor), I'd take the Broncos. Eventually, the well would have run dry on big plays for the Chargers, while the Broncos would still be marching up and down the field at will. JMO.

Just want to point out that using some of the numbers, like first downs, is flawed. One reason SD does not have more first downs is exactly because they hit on two long plays from scrimmage and had a kickoff return TD... all of which denied them the opportunities for more first downs.There are several things in San Diego's favor that counter your arguments that Denver was the better team. San Diego was 6/10 on third down conversions, compared to Denver's 4/10. San Diego only punted once; Denver punted 3 times. San Diego did not actually turn the ball over, since we know the interception really wasn't an interception. Denver turned the ball over twice, even though we know the box score only says once. San Diego averaged 8.8 yards per offensive play, compared to Denver's 6.5. Denver got (arguably) 15 points off referee/system errors; San Diego got 0.

 

[Bankerguy]

My condolences SD fans....I would be pissed this morning if it happened to my team. Eddie really blew that one.

 

[Steeler]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

If that call wasn't blown, SD would have won the game. This really isn't up for debate. It's hard to win an NFL game. Teams shouldn't be expect to have to win each game twice.

 

[Steeler]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

If that call wasn't blown, SD would have won the game. This really isn't up for debate. It's hard to win an NFL game. Teams shouldn't be expect to have to win each game twice.

Blaming the refs is for losers. That really isn't up for debate either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

If that call wasn't blown, SD would have won the game. This really isn't up for debate. It's hard to win an NFL game. Teams shouldn't be expect to have to win each game twice.

Blaming the refs is for losers. That really isn't up for debate either.

I'm not a fan of either team, and as a fantasy owner it was to my benefit to have Denver add 8 more points to Eddie Royal's stat line. I'm just observing the fact that San Diego won the game, but the officials gave Denver a second chance.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

 

[Steeler]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

 

[Steeler]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

I don't think it's illogical. SD could have played better before that point. But more directly, they could have stopped the TD or 2 pt conversion... and they still would have won.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

I don't think it's illogical. SD could have played better before that point. But more directly, they could have stopped the TD or 2 pt conversion... and they still would have won.

Another illogical statement. You're saying the blown call isn't the reason the Chargers lost and then using events that wouldn't have happened (TD and 2pt conversion) if the correct call was made to justify why the blown call wasn't the reason they lost.

 

[Steeler]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

I don't think it's illogical. SD could have played better before that point. But more directly, they could have stopped the TD or 2 pt conversion... and they still would have won.

Another illogical statement. You're saying the blown call isn't the reason the Chargers lost and then using events that wouldn't have happened (TD and 2pt conversion) if the correct call was made to justify why the blown call wasn't the reason they lost.

The score was 38-31 after the blown call. Therefore, logically, the call could not have made SD lose because they still had more points that DEN Perhaps, the call prevented them from winning the game... but THEY also prevented themselves from winning the game by not stopping the TD or 2 pt conversion. As I said, I know my stance isn't popular.

 

[Manster]

so let me get this straight. it was ruled a fumble, but since the whistle was blown, the play was dead before SD recovered, right? and so Denver retains possession at the spot of the fumble, correct? if this is the case, bad call, but nothing else they could do. whistle=play done. if they give the ball to SD, the Broncos could argue they stopped when they heard the whistle.

 

[FantasyTrader]

so let me get this straight. it was ruled a fumble, but since the whistle was blown, the play was dead before SD recovered, right? and so Denver retains possession at the spot of the fumble, correct? if this is the case, bad call, but nothing else they could do. whistle=play done. if they give the ball to SD, the Broncos could argue they stopped when they heard the whistle.

Correct. That point isn't being debated at all. Everyone agrees it was the incorrect call.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

I don't think it's illogical. SD could have played better before that point. But more directly, they could have stopped the TD or 2 pt conversion... and they still would have won.

Another illogical statement. You're saying the blown call isn't the reason the Chargers lost and then using events that wouldn't have happened (TD and 2pt conversion) if the correct call was made to justify why the blown call wasn't the reason they lost.

The score was 38-31 after the blown call. Therefore, logically, the call could not have made SD lose because they still had more points that DEN Perhaps, the call prevented them from winning the game... but THEY also prevented themselves from winning the game by not stopping the TD or 2 pt conversion. As I said, I know my stance isn't popular.

It's more than unpopular, it's wrong. If you can't see how the TD and 2 pt. conversion CAN'T happen if the correct call was made, then we're at a standstill.

 

[jonessed]

A bad call didn't make the defense give up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then give up the 2-point conversion.

Are you suggesting that the defense would have given up 10 yards in two plays for the TD, and then a 2-point conversion, even if the correct call had been made? If not, then the bad call did make that happen.That said, I'm not all that bitter about the end of the game. The Chargers got lucky that Cutler goofed, then unlucky that the refs goofed. There are still 14 more games left to play, so the Chargers can still control their own fate.

No, I'm saying that even with the bad call the Broncos were still losing, were abut 10 yards from the end zone and were at third down. It wasn't first and goal from the one or anything.

Soooooooo, just because the Broncos were afforded two extra plays from inside the red zone in a game that they had already lost, the Chargers should be forced to stop them again?This is sound logic.

How about this...for the rest of the year, your favorite team gets four downs to get a first down, but the opposition gets five. After all, it's not like you're giving them first and goal from the one or anything. You still have every opportunity to stop them; they're just getting an extra chance.

I think that's the crux of the argument; they weren't "stopped" to begin with. Cutler ####ed up on his own on an island, unforced. See this post within this thread.

I don't buy this argument. Mistakes are part of the game, as is capitalizing on them. San Diego should have been rewarded for not making unforced errors on an island and for being in a position to capitalize on Denver's mistakes. Saying that San Diego didn't deserve to have a stop there is sort of like suggesting that, instead of having a kicker trot off and attempt a field goal, the league should just award a set number of points equal to three times the kicker's percentage from that distance (so if a kicker hits 70% of 40 yarders, instead of kicking a 40-yarder the team would just get 2.1 points). After all, it's not fair for the other team to benefit from the kicker making an unforced error on an island and missing the attempt, right?Denver was stopped. San Diego should have walked out with a win. That's pretty much the end of the discussion right there. Well, outside of one thing that I haven't said yet- despite the fact that SD should have walked out with the victory, Denver looked like the better team on the field to me. San Diego's scoring came largely on plays that I consider to be fluky and unrepeatable (the two Sproles TDs in particular- I think Sproles could play Denver 10 times and only come up with one score each like those), whereas Denver's scoring came more from the slow, methodical, implacable offensive domination of SD's defense. Denver posted 34 first downs to SD's 19. Denver was 5-of-6 in the RZ (SD was 1-of-4, which means they might have won a sudden death overtime, but I would have liked Denver's chances in a first-to-six format). Denver was 4-of-4 with goal to go (or 3-of-4, if you prefer), compared to 0-of-1 for SD. Obviously having LT not at 100% was a big deal for San Diego, but if you asked me which of the two teams on the field I think would win if they kept playing for 240 minutes instead of 60 (and fatigue wasn't a factor), I'd take the Broncos. Eventually, the well would have run dry on big plays for the Chargers, while the Broncos would still be marching up and down the field at will. JMO.

You forgot to mention two turnovers to none. Unless of course you consider turnovers "fluky" as well.

 

[Steeler]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

I don't think it's illogical. SD could have played better before that point. But more directly, they could have stopped the TD or 2 pt conversion... and they still would have won.

Another illogical statement. You're saying the blown call isn't the reason the Chargers lost and then using events that wouldn't have happened (TD and 2pt conversion) if the correct call was made to justify why the blown call wasn't the reason they lost.

The score was 38-31 after the blown call. Therefore, logically, the call could not have made SD lose because they still had more points that DEN Perhaps, the call prevented them from winning the game... but THEY also prevented themselves from winning the game by not stopping the TD or 2 pt conversion. As I said, I know my stance isn't popular.

It's more than unpopular, it's wrong. If you can't see how the TD and 2 pt. conversion CAN'T happen if the correct call was made, then we're at a standstill.

I totally understand why those plays happened; the blown call. But, guess what? Those playes did happen. And what was the score when that call was missed? If you can't see how SD still could have won the game even after the blown call, then we are at a standsill.

 

[Manster]

so let me get this straight. it was ruled a fumble, but since the whistle was blown, the play was dead before SD recovered, right? and so Denver retains possession at the spot of the fumble, correct? if this is the case, bad call, but nothing else they could do. whistle=play done. if they give the ball to SD, the Broncos could argue they stopped when they heard the whistle.

Correct. That point isn't being debated at all. Everyone agrees it was the incorrect call.

thanks, i was just making sure i had the logistics of the play/call right. havent looked at anything pertaining to that call till this morning.

 

[Irish]

so let me get this straight. it was ruled a fumble, but since the whistle was blown, the play was dead before SD recovered, right? and so Denver retains possession at the spot of the fumble, correct? if this is the case, bad call, but nothing else they could do. whistle=play done. if they give the ball to SD, the Broncos could argue they stopped when they heard the whistle.

Also why didn't Hochuli rule it a fumble from the beginning because it was not a forward pass? I can understand if he missed the call thinking it was a pass and not a fumble, but he also blew the call from the very beginning in not ruling it a lateral.

 

[Skino]

so let me get this straight. it was ruled a fumble, but since the whistle was blown, the play was dead before SD recovered, right? and so Denver retains possession at the spot of the fumble, correct? if this is the case, bad call, but nothing else they could do. whistle=play done. if they give the ball to SD, the Broncos could argue they stopped when they heard the whistle.

Also why didn't Hochuli rule it a fumble from the beginning because it was not a forward pass? I can understand if he missed the call thinking it was a pass and not a fumble, but he also blew the call from the very beginning in not ruling it a lateral.

Couple points on this one. First, I'm not sure Hochuli was the only one to blow the whistle. An article on the Denver Post says the call came from a side judge. I know that's not proof of anything, but brings into account that their may have been more than one ref who saw it that way. Second, he was behind the quarter back and the ball went backwards by what looked like less than a yard. that's a tough call when you're right behind the quarterback, watching more than just the quarterback, and the ball goes 5-6 yards off to the right. The ball popping out of Cutler's hand would have been the most easily identified from his angle but he missed. Maybe he was looking at something else at that moment, I don't know.

 

[bro1ncos]

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.

 

[thatguy]

Was at the game and I agree the call was bad... we had no idea what the hell was going on, no idea how the ball was still Denver's after that play. Of course we accepted it as fans and the rest is history.

Probably the most exciting game I've ever been to. The energy in the stadium at the end was amazing. To go from so high in the first half, to so low in the second, and then the roller coaster ride of the last three drives... well let me just say that Denver fans really needed this. A lot of us I'm sure are still high on adrenaline even now.

It's unfortunate for San Diego but obviously I'm glad it happened. People will undoubtedly consider this a cheap win, and I suppose in a lot of ways it was, but.... You can't blame Denver as a team for this, it's not fair. They got the calls in their favor, yes, but they still had to line up and make plays, and they did, and that shouldn't be taken away from them just because of the circumstances that led to the opportunity. They are every bit at the mercy of the officials as the Chargers. As other posters have said, SD still had every opportunity to keep Denver out of the end zone - twice - and were unable to do so.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I didn't read very much of this thread... the call was wrong for sure, but SD gave up 31 points up to that point in the game... and then gave up the TD and the 2 pt conversion... so that missed call didn't cost SD the game IMO.

Also, it's not like someone on SD made a great play that wasn't rewarded... Cutler just dropped the ball.

So you're suggesting Denver wins that game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game?

No. But there were what, 150 plays in that game? I realize this point isn't shared by most; but one play isn't the reason they lost.

So you agree Denver ends up losing the game if the Chargers recover a fumble at their 10 with less than 2 minutes in the game? And you also agree it was a fumble. But you DON'T believe that incorrect call is the reason the Chargers lost? That's illogical.

I don't think it's illogical. SD could have played better before that point. But more directly, they could have stopped the TD or 2 pt conversion... and they still would have won.

Another illogical statement. You're saying the blown call isn't the reason the Chargers lost and then using events that wouldn't have happened (TD and 2pt conversion) if the correct call was made to justify why the blown call wasn't the reason they lost.

He's absolutely right. Let me explain.The blown call isn't the reason the Chargers lost. Suppose Cutler misses Royal on fourth down and the Bolts win. Would you say the blown call is the reason they won? Of course not. Events after the call dictated the win. In the same manner, events after the call (TD pass, 2 point conversion) dictated the loss.

It is accurate to say that but for the call, the Chargers would have won. But it is not accurate to say that the call is the reason they lost. The call opened the door to a potential loss, but put no points on the board and still made the Broncos cross the end zone twice. The reason they lost is failing to cover the same basic play two times in a row.

Now, if the play resulted in 1st and goal from the one, I'd concede the point. It's unrealistic to think a defense is going to stop an offense four times from the one. But from the 10? And then the two? The defense has to bear some responsibility for that.

 

[The Ref]

As bad as the Tuck Rule.I feel even more hatred for the Donkeys than I did before (if that's possible).

Of course there is the problem that this was the right call, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument.

 

[The Ref]

First of all, yes it was a bad call. Probably as about a bad a call as you can make in that situation.

With that said, the Chargers aren't 0-2 because of a bad call. The Chargers are 0-2 because their defense isn't capable of stopping a decent high school offense in the last minute of the game. They have had the lead with less than a minute to play in both games this year, and they lost both of them. If they can't get that fixed, this one bad call won't really mean anything.

Actually, that's a stupid post. I wasn't going to say anything till I saw you say it was a good one. The Chargers are 0 - 2 because of the bad call rather than being 1 - 1. In close games Refs are supposed to make the right calls. On a play like that there was no excuse to blow the whistle. No excuse whatsoever. It's a long season, but every game counts. No matter how their defense played, they would have won the game despite playing poorly.

In case you didn't realize, Denver did some things poorly as well.

In all games good or bad refs are supposed to make the right calls. The same way that Qb's are supposed to protect the ball and RB's are not supposed to fumble. Unfortunately all of the above have humanity in common so mistakes will happen.

 

[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?

 

[Irish]

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.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

That'd be a shame.But last night, the whistle didn't blow until the Charger was scooping the ball up all by his lonesome, so the whistle had no chance of saving Cutler's ACL anyway (since it wasn't in jeopardy).

 

[Kit Fisto]

I don't think any team loses because of a bad call.

If SD would have been the better team they would have made the plays to ensure the game wasn't "decided" by a bad call. Denver played better and was the better team. Congrats Bronco fans. You're in control of the division for the time being and deserve to be.

Exactly. You can't give up 39 points on defense and blame the loss on the ref.And for the record, it was a bad call. But all the Chargers had to do was stop them. And they got two chances to do so.

That's one of the biggest sticking points for me when people want to bring up the Tuck Rule game. I won't disagree, that was a bizarre call. But that call did not give the Pats the win. All it gave them was another down. Which they converted. And then another. And then another. And then a huge kick in the snow and wind. Then the Pats kicked off to Oakland. Who went 3 and out. Raiders get the ball in overtime. Go three and out again. Pats get the ball back and string together first down after first down. And kick another miracle field goal.

But it wasn't the fact Oakland couldn't convert a first down, or stop the Pats from doing so themselves. It was the ref!!!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And for the record, it was a bad call. But all the Chargers had to do was stop them.

The Chargers did stop them. But the officials gave Denver a second chance. I think the Chargers have a legitimate complaint if you're telling them that they should have to win the game twice before it counts.

 

[Tau837]

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...

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

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.