Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
They gotta do something about the reffing ?! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Show
- Start date
TampaMike19
Footballguy
These are the best refs that they awarded playoff games to?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Sad, isn't it? The crew in yesterday's Vegas/Cincy game stunk, and this one in the early game stinks as well. The NFL obviously doesn't give a crap about having competent officials anymore. That couldn't be more obvious.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Damn they’re bad
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
I would eliminate holding penalties on runs. This would bring back the run as an important part of the game. Refs are wrong on holding penalties on the edge a lot.
I would make Pass interference a 10 yard penalty
I would stop the clock on first downs under 2 mins like they do in college.
I would cut it to 3 timeouts per GAME. The clock strategy at the end of the first half is zzzz.
I would make Pass interference a 10 yard penalty
I would stop the clock on first downs under 2 mins like they do in college.
I would cut it to 3 timeouts per GAME. The clock strategy at the end of the first half is zzzz.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
The question mark in the thread title hurts my soul.
brettdj
Footballguy
I think some of the "officiating" problems are from the hiring process. They hear the media and fans complaining about the officials age/looks. The NFL and NCAA has put more emphasis on having the officials look younger and more athletic. This has reduced the experience level.
I have seen more deep officials this year out of position (getting beat deep) than I remember from earlier years. I am not sure if it is a the mechanics or an experience. Too many deep passes where the official has lost his 10-15 yard cushion, not letting his vision have a wider view.
I have seen more deep officials this year out of position (getting beat deep) than I remember from earlier years. I am not sure if it is a the mechanics or an experience. Too many deep passes where the official has lost his 10-15 yard cushion, not letting his vision have a wider view.
Much of the complaints on calls is the consistency with which they are called. One thing is a penalty this play but not on the next play kind of thing.
Rather than restricting "holding" (which happens every play) just let them hold. Have it be legal then you don't have to watch for it and the defense will adjust accordingly. In fact, many times there is a minor "hold" and the defender flops and throws their hands up trying to bring attention to a hold rather than trying to fight through it to make a play. If holding was legal then the defender wouldn't try and draw attention and could probably make some of those plays anyway.
Simplify rather than over-regulate and many of these bad calls go away.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
allowing holding on runs may be one of the craziest things I have heard....you can hold on run plays, but not pass plays...?....so what if a pass play turns into a run play.....what about play action....after a pass is complete like say a flare dump off to a RB, does it become a running play....if its behind the line of scrimmage....or does a pass have to be downfield...if you pitch it backward to a RB who has the option to run or pass what happens....at what exact point is a ref supposed to know for sure if its a run or pass play.....if a QB bootlegs is that a run or pass....can he not throw it if he bootlegs...?...what about a flea flicker.....does a hook and lateral go from being a pass play to a running play after the lateral....if I fake a punt or a kick, what happens....if the punter bobbles the snap and takes off "running" can he still throw it...if you were holding while he was "running" and then he passes, what happens...lol....good stuff....would definitely be fun to watch that circus....think refs have a hard time calling stuff now...lol
apalmer
Footballguy
Uh, no. Sound broadcast over tv travels at the same speed as the video because both have been converted to travel at the speed of radio waves. When you watch a live interview, does the sound synch with the lip movement or is the audio 1 to 2 seconds behind the video?
If anything, a player who is a distance from the whistle hears it AFTER someone watching on tv, not before, because the player is experiencing the effect of the difference in speed between light and sound, while both are broadcast at the speed of light to the tv viewer. Back in the days when everyone got their tv OTA (i.e., before transmissions were bounced off satellites), it was possible for someone watching a baseball game on tv to hear the "crack of the bat" before someone sitting in the upper deck outfield seats, because the sound traveled to the tv viewer at the speed of light, while the guy in the bleachers had to wait for the speed of sound.
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone knows the refs make a lot of mistakes. I get it. But there is one thing worse than the bad calls and that is the incessant whining about the refs. Every game thread. The whining seems much worse and much more frequent than in previous years. It's ridiculous.
Rant over.
Rant over.
No whining in the first game thread. In fact refs were complimented for calling a good game.Everyone knows the refs make a lot of mistakes. I get it. But there is one thing worse than the bad calls and that is the incessant whining about the refs. Every game thread. The whining seems much worse and much more frequent than in previous years. It's ridiculous.
Rant over.
NajehHejan
Footballguy
I thought the refs did a great job in both games today.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
You do realize that trapped ball they called an INT in the Tenn / Cincy game was probably one of the most blatant bad calls in NFL history? They scored on the next play I believe. It obviously hit the ground, yet the refs chose to ignore that fact. Everyone in the broadcast, including their official analyst, said it would be overturned. Strange thing is you have replay that showed the trap clearly.....hmmm.
Last edited by a moderator:
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
I agreed with the call they made on that play. I could be in the minority on that, but definitely not the worst call in NFL history.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
how could you agree? Are you denying the ball hit the ground? The ball was clearly trapped against the ground on the catch of the int. Unless there is something I'm missing, can you have an INT while catching the ball that hits ground at the same time as the catch?
Last edited by a moderator:
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Not denying the ball hit the ground. I didn't see the ball move while in the hands of the defender and since it was called an interception initially I agreed it shouldn't be overturned.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
It is my understanding of the rule that you can't trap the ball against the ground to make the interception, so how could it not be overturned? Unless my understanding of the rule is inaccurate, that was a bad call to not overturn it.
candian fantasy guy
Footballguy
Just not enough to overturn the call on the field. I was also a little surprised considering the call made by the on-air official.
I second this
As for the interception in the Ten/Cin game I think it was close but it appeared to me he would’ve made the interception without having the ground to assist on the play.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
How was it not enough? The ball CLEARLY hit the ground. Millions witnessed it on the replay. You could even see the blades of turf moving as the ball scraped the ground.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? The ball either hit the ground or it didn't and it clearly did. You can't make a call based on what you think would have happened, but what did happen. The rule either allows hitting the ground or it doesn't.I second this
As for the interception in the Ten/Cin game I think it was close but it appeared to me he would’ve made the interception without having the ground to assist on the play.
candian fantasy guy
Footballguy
I am not arguing either way, it sure did scrap the ground. But it also seems like he possibly has control a split second before. Tough call in real time.
belljr
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
As I remember it, there was no replay angle that clearly showed whether or not he had the ball in his hands just before it touched the ground, which would be the determining factor there. Without a conclusive view, they let the call on the field stand. Seemed perfectly officiated to me.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Not if catching it simultaneously hitting the ground. No way could anyone argue he caught the ball prior to it hitting the ground. It was a bad call.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I thought the angle they had was clear. It was also clear to the on-air official, who said it should be overturned.As I remember it, there was no replay angle that clearly showed whether or not he had the ball in his hands just before it touched the ground, which would be the determining factor there. Without a conclusive view, they let the call on the field stand. Seemed perfectly officiated to me.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
With many seeming to have the same position as me I think we can put to rest that it was the most blatant bad call in NFL history.
If they would have called incomplete on the field they would have kept it that way and I would have agreed with that call. I saw the defender have the ball in his hands and I couldn't tell if he had control or not so I am fine with them keeping the call on the field.
If they would have called incomplete on the field they would have kept it that way and I would have agreed with that call. I saw the defender have the ball in his hands and I couldn't tell if he had control or not so I am fine with them keeping the call on the field.
belljr
Footballguy
Lol. . Blandino has been wrong tons of times.
It's basically do you think he had possession before it hit the ground.... I don't think it was that egregious of a call
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
No one knows whether or not it did, because no replay angle showed it. Call on the field stands.
This, exactly. No one's saying it was definitely an interception. Just that you can't see enough on replay to overturn it.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Eh, that INT looked like one of those "I am glad I don't have to make that decision" plays. It could have gone either way. The officials botch a lot of calls these days, but I won't get on them for that one.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Surely if it was so conclusive you could just provide a clip where it's clear the call should've been overturned.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I'm not going to go look up clips when I saw the replay and the everyone in the booth, including the official thought it should have been overturned. We can play ping pong on this all day if you're up for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
You seem to need the last word, so go ahead and respond to this post and I won't reply.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the ball didn’t hit the ground. It’s pretty clear that it did on the instant replay. The issue is that the ground did not help him secure and make the catch, which also seemed pretty clear to me. I think they got it right.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Seems like you need the last word, to be honest. His earlier "cool" response came off to me as a "agree to disagree" post, yet you still had to go at him and keep the disagreement going.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
I thought the refs got that interception call correct. It didn't appear to me that he trapped it against the ground. I thought the ball came extremely close to the ground, brushing through the grass, in motion as the defender secured it with his hands then drawing it back up.
This is how I saw it as well. It appears many people assume, including some of my friends I found out last night, that if the ball merely touches the ground at all that it’s incomplete.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I think they determined that he gained possession an instant before the ball hit the ground....and in todays NFL....they are allowing the ball to touch/hit the ground sometimes if you have control/possession first....that wasn't necessarily the case even just a couple years ago....so they went with the ruling on the field as it was really close.....the guys in New York have some influence here, its not just the refs on the field....they all agreed apparently.....we could sit here all day and debate "did he have control/possession" an instant before the ball touched the ground....and we all might be right as it was that close....
DropKick
Footballguy
Sorry, but I think they got it wrong.
The guys in the booth were a microcosm of the call. One was fixated on one aspect, that the defender cleanly grabbed and never bobbled the ball. Steratore called it correctly, acknowledging that it was handled cleanly - but grabbed at the instant the nose of the ball makes solid contact with the ground. By any historical measure, that ball is incomplete.
I recognize that "historical measures" has little significance when they change the rules more often than I change my sox.
ETA: I also realize the ball can touch the ground as long as you have full control. However, in the circumstances of that play, he puts his hands on the ball just before or when it hits the ground. And, even if it is "just before", and the nose of the ball hits as it did, I don't think you can say the ground didn't assist in making the catch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
