Football Mafia - OVER

[quercitron]

Betting it's "I got my eye on you."

Vote: RoadBird

[referee]

**pays off the bet to quercitron**

That's exactly what IGMEOY means.

[Courk]

Roadbird is sacked int the town square. S/he was Doug Flutie - Chargers - Townie


SEND CHOICES

[Ghost Post]

*Laughs from beyond the grave.*

[Suspence]

Just wanted to point out that the NFL referee's penchant for trying to help the Patriot's win was foiled by the Jets. That pass interference call against Miami was utter and complete feces, it was actually offensive pass interference. Of course, Miami tried to hand the game to the Patriot's anyway with horrendous play-calling, but ultimately the referee's decided that game.

Also, for you college football fans, last night's game was a joke. If you didn't see it, Ohio State had 4th and goal on the 4 in overtime and needed a touchdown stay alive. Krenzel threw a pass that Gamble couldn't handle. Miami celebrated the national championship, throwing helmets and whatnot. About 5 seconds after the play a referee throws a flag for pass interference. The instant replay clearly showed that the Miami defender did not make contact with the receiver until after he got his hands on the ball. Imagine the emotional hit you take when you are running around hugging your teammates thinking you won, and some buffoon throws the absolute latest flag in the history of football, and tells you haven't won the game. Amazing.

I would say it's time for instant replay in college football, but pass interference isn't reviewable anyway. I think pass interference should be reviewable. Instant replay helps determine what arrived first the defender or the ball, just as it helps determine what happened first on a fumble, the knee touching down or the ball coming loose. Referee, you have to have a talk with your name sakes and tell them to do a better job. If I screwed up that bad at my job, I'd be fired.

------------------
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature

[referee]

This season there had been some big mistakes, granted. Like that snap like two seconds after the play clock ran out (touchdown) or the 10 yards calling for some 5-yards fault (first down, which wouldn't be with 5 yards), and later corrected one full play afterwards.

Well, My opinions are the following.

ONE: Officials are human. And as such, they're bound to make some mistakes. Still, the NFL should try to take measures so those *big* mistakes don't happen.

TWO: Cameras are NOT human. Instant review is a good thing, but sort of a mixed blessing when you make a big mistake. Though, I can't understand why some things are reviewable and some other things aren't. I agree all plays should be reviewable.

THREE: The ref didn't make the rules. Some of the bad calls you can see are due to ambiguous rules. The rules are missing some points and that makes people think the refs are bad, when the problem is in the rules. I'm not giving the rules 100% of guilt, but look at the following example where the same thing happens on each side, and the ruling is different.

Case A. The QB throws a pass and a CB intercepts it on the 3-yard line. His momentum brings him into the endzone, where he is tackled. RULING: Ball intercepted. 1st down and 10 on the 3 yards line.

Case B. The QB throws a pass and a CB intercepts it. The CB begins to runback the ball and is hit on the 3 yards line (this is the original offense's 3, unlike case A) and fumbles the ball. A player of the original offense catches it and his momentum brings him into the endzone, where he is tackled. RULING: Safety. 2 points awarded to original defense.

See? Sometimes the rules are weird, or plainly unfair.

FOUR. The officials aren't watching the game on TV. They must make the decisions live. Officials in different positions will have a different sight of a given play. It's not uncommon to see them make some sort of huddle. They are discussing the play there, and they have to decide then. No replay, no slow motion, no eyevision. Just what you saw. Blink and you're out of the play. Watching the games, officiating may look an easy job, but it isn't.

FIVE. We are bound to remember bad things more clearly. So Raider fans will remember that (in)famous incomplete call, since that hurt the Raiders. People will never remember when a "bad call" helped their team, only when hurted them. This is a general thruth about human nature. Things that hurt are remembered easierly. If one went to analyze all the games in the season, noting who got benefitted of a bad call, and who got the bad part, final results should gravitate towards neutrality.

[This message has been edited by referee (edited 01-04-2003 11:40 AM).]

[Fezzik]

There are bad calls on both sides. Stuff happens. Ohio State is the national champion. Oh, and... w00t!(I do feel bad for McGahee though. that shot to the knee made me wince.)

[ChienFou]

Some of you will know I'm a nationally rated Bridge referee (actually called Tournament Director, shortened to TD). We have just the same problems in our game too. Despite extensive and competent training we still make mistakes, and that even after we've consulted with the other TD's. I think no game has well wrtten and unambiguous Laws, except possibly snap.

[jeep]

[Courk]

Ref, can you define "easierly?"

[Chuck]

If the ball carrier trips without being hit and the ref thinks he was knocked down and blows the whistle, and then the player gets up and keep running, then obviously the play can't be reviewed. Once the whistle is blown the defenders can't tackle any more. It would be an automatic touchdown.

Some plays just can't be reviewed.

[Neo]

[Internet Stranger]

1999.

Bucs vs Rams.

Bert Emmanuel.

Explain that one then.

(Still bitter over that)

------------------
----------------------------------------------

"I didn't know she was your sister I swear!"

www.InternetStranger.com

[referee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuck, in reply 450.
If the ball carrier trips without being hit and the ref thinks he was knocked down and blows the whistle, and then the player gets up and keep running, then obviously the play can't be reviewed. Once the whistle is blown the defenders can't tackle any more. It would be an automatic touchdown.
Some plays just can't be reviewed.

---

Well, but the refs can see, by review, that it was an inadvertent whistle, and the team that had possession would have the option to repeat the down if they think they should, or accept the whistle.
See? this can be reviewed.

oh, and with 2 challenges per half, at the risk of one timeout, it's not like the games are going to last forever, even if all plays are reviewable, that doesn't mean that there can be an unlimited number of reviews.

[This message has been edited by referee (edited 01-05-2003 03:08 PM).]

[Chuck]

That would still be unfair to the defense. If they read the play perfectly and had the ball carrier trapped in his own backfield when the he tripped then he'd have probably been tackled for a loss anyway. It would be a huge advantage to the offense to get to do the play over.

[referee]

Yes, when you have an inadvertent whistle, some team is going to get an unfair advantage. We work to keep inadvertent whistles to a minimum (ideally zero), but they sometimes happen.

say it was 4th and 5. The team goes for it (maybe they're trailing by a few points and the game is getting close to conclusion. The player trips after gaining four yards and it's ruled a turnover on downs. This is unfair for the offense, isn't it? Offensive coach should have the option to review the play, then ruled an inadvertent whistle and repeat 4th down. Win some, lose some.

[Chuck]

Some errors are more costly than others. Giving the offense a replay of the down on any inadvertent whistle they feel like challenging seems too hard on the defense. It would make an unfortunate situation even worse.

[referee]

I insist, they have only 2 challenges per half. Furthermore, it's not like all challenges will end in an inadvertent whistle.

Examples:

The WR catches a pass very close to the sideline. The refs call it as an incomplete pass as he steps out of bounds. The play is challenged. Replay shows that the WR planted both feet in bounds before stepping over the sideline. The ruling is reversed to a complete pass. Since the WR stepped out of bounds after that, the play was over anyway, so no inadvertent whistle here.

The RB is carrying the ball and is tackled. The ball goes loose and defense recovers it. The play is challenged. Replay shows that the RB's knee hit the ground while the ball wasn't loose yet. The RB is ruled down by contact and the offense keeps the ball. Again, no inadvertent whistle here. There's no such thing as "inadvertent lack of a whistle"

Re: Can you define easierly? What I mean is that hurting things stick in memory more than nice things, sadly.

Re: Bucs-Rams'99. Sorry IS, You got me offsides here (5 yards penalty against me). Can you elaborate on what happened on that game?

[Courk]

I really just wanted to know if "easierly" was a word.

And now...

'Twas a sad, gloomy, depressing morning for the town as they discovered that one of their own, Jeep, had been violently stabbed, shot, strangled, and drowned the previous night.

He was Trent Green - Chiefs - Townie.

[Insert sunrise HERE]

[Chuck]

If the offense can challenge an inadvertent whistle it seems only fair that the defense be allowed to do so as well. Like if a wide receiver catches a sixty yard pass and then trips and an official blows his whistle. If he had been allowed to get up he might have been tackled and fumbled the ball away. Since there was an inadvertent whistle, the defense should be allowed to challenge and have the down replayed.

[Internet Stranger]

Vote: Plexer


Ref: Here is something I found online.

[ChienFou]

Happy to join a mason lead band wagon Vote Plexer

[jeep]

BAH! Hmm... I guess: Go all teams who play against the Steelers!

-JEEP

[Qball]

Vote: Plexer

Although he wasn't my first choice.

[referee]

No, chuck, it doesn't work that way. Only the team who was in possession of the ball last can ask for a replay on an inadvertent whistle. Note this has nothing to do with who challenged the play or whether a challenge happened at all; it's just part of the inadvertent whistle ruling. In the case you present, even if defense challenges the play and an inadvertent whistle is called, the offense (who was in possession last) can simply accept the play so far (60 yards pass complete), even if an eventual touchdown was denied by the whistle, the play so far is good enough for the offense to accept it.

And why are we voting Plexer?

[Internet Stranger]

We need a reason?

[referee]

Touchdown, IS! What an elegant answer, so for the extra point...

Vote: Plexer

[Chuck]

It hardly seems fair that only the offense can choose to have a down replayed due to an inadvertant whistle. Both teams are affected by the error so either should be allowed to have it corrected. If the play was bad for the offense they get another chance. If the play was bad for the defense they should get another chance.

[mikegoo]

Vote: plexer baaaaa.

[referee]

Chuck, see point THREE in reply 446...

I see your point, but the ruling is as I said. If the defense forces a turnover before the whistle, then they would have the choice (and I'm sure as hell they would choose the turnover over a replay). Again, I didn't make the rules.

[Green Crayons]

Vote: Plexer

[quercitron]

Vote: Plexer

[Fezzik]

vote:Plexer

[Polotet]

Vote: Plexar Follow the herd.

[Suspence]

I can't believe noone has mentioned the huge refereeing mistake made in last weeks Giants-49ers game. Even the NFL has admitted the mistake.

On the final play of the game the Giants were attempting a field goal. One of their offensive lineman, who is not normally eligible to catch a forward pass or progress downfield before the ball is released by the quarterback, reported in to the referee as an eligble player for that down, as he would be covering the end of the offensive line, making him, in effect, a tight end for that play.

The snap for the field goal was wobbly and bad, so the holder had no choice but to scramble right and attempt to pass. He saw the offensive lineman who had reported eligible making his way downfield and heaved it in his direction. Before the ball got near the receiver, a 49ers linebacker tackled him, clearly pass interference. A flag was thrown, which immediately was assumed to be for pass interference. Instead, the referee ruled "ineligble man downfield" and thus the game was over. There were ineligible Giants downfield and the call was correct, however the referees did not realize that the intended receiver was in fact eligible and therefore did not call pass interference. In this case, the ineligble man downfield and pass interference penalties would have offset. Even though there was no time left on the clock, the game cannot end on offsetting or defensive penalties. The Giants should have been awarded 1 more down, meaning another attempt at a field goal from the original line of scrimmage.

The NFL has admitted the error and has even taken steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. But that doesn't help the fact that the Giants will be watching the Niners this weekend. The commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, called it the worst officiating error in his 13 years with the NFL.

For the record, I am a Miami Dolphins fan, who also got shafted this year, but that's a different post. The Giants got hosed. I am also not a Miami Hurricane fan, but that flag was literally 4 seconds late. Rick Reilly wrote an article in SI about it in this weeks issue. He called it the latest flag in history. The ref, when asked, did not say that he struggled to get the flag out of his pocket, but said it was late because he was "reviewing the play in his mind." Amazing!!!

And to Chuck's point about some plays not being reviewable because it would be unfair, that doesn't make much sense. All penalties are inherently unfair to the end result of the play. In pass interference, the ball is brought to the spot of the foul. The receiver was not going to get any yards after the catch? OR maybe he would've just dropped it anyway. Maybe he would have caught it and the fumbled it. Who knows?

Inadvertent whistles hurt the offense not the defense and should be reviewable under the kind of stipulations that referee has already mentioned.

------------------
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature

[This message has been edited by Suspence13 (edited 01-09-2003 09:41 PM).]

[Courk]

I count 9 plexer.

He was Warren Sapp - Buccaneers - Townie

NIGHT

Send choices until Tuesday at 9 PM.

[referee]

Suspence13, that pass (in the Giants-Niners game) was ruled an uncatchable pass, so no pass interference was called, since it's a requisite that the pass is catchable to call pass interference.
So, the only fault on the play was Inelegible Downfield. San Francisco declined the penalty accepting the result of the play (incomplete pass), and the game was over.

Now, a different topic to debate would be whether the pass was, indeed, uncatchable.

[Chuck]

Maybe there should be some compenstation for an inadvertent whistle but a free down should be awarded only if it's automatic for all inadventent whistles. The offense should not get its choice of accepting the play or getting to replay the down. That seems excessive.

The announcers also pointed out that the Fortyniners/Giants final play was a third down field goal attempt. The holder could have spiked the ball instead of running with it. It would have counted as an incomplete forward pass and they could have tried again on fourth down. But the holder ran all the time off the clock by running with the ball.

I don't know of the ball would have been catchable, but it looked like the receiver was tackled well before it arrived. I don't see how anyone could say for sure that it was uncatchable. Of course, it's hard to judge distances on the TV screen. The camera view was from behind the passer.

[Suspence]

Referee, you are wrong on this one. This is a report from ESPN on that call:

NFL: Niners should have been flagged for interference
ESPN.com news services

NEW YORK -- This should make dejected New York Giants fans feel even worse: The NFL said the refs botched the call on the final play, an unusual admission about an unusual game.

New York's Rich Seubert, an eligible receiver on the play, gets dragged down by San Francisco's Chike Okeafor before the pass gets to him. A pass-interference penalty should have been called against the San Francisco 49ers at the end of their wild 39-38 playoff victory, giving New York another chance to kick a game-winning field goal, said Mike Pereira, NFL director of officiating.

The refs ruled correctly that New York had an ineligible receiver downfield. But they did not throw a flag when Rich Seubert was yanked to the ground as he tried to catch a pass near the end zone after the Giants bungled the field-goal attempt.

"How they missed that, I do not know,'' Giants coach Jim Fassel said. "That is very disappointing.''

The teams would have had to replay the down with an offsetting pass-interference penalty, said Pereira, who reviewed videotape of the play. Seubert was an eligible receiver even though he is usually a guard.

"Although time had expired, a game cannot end with offsetting penalties. Thus, the game would have been extended by one untimed down,'' the league said.

NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue commented on the play Tuesday. "What happened at the end in terms of the breakdown of officiating was totally unacceptable to us and it shouldn't have happened with the mechanics already in place," Tagliabue told Sporting News Radio. "We are going to be thoroughly reviewing how the breakdown occurred and make certain that it doesn't happen again."



------------------
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature

[Suspence]

As you can see from that report, the issue was not the catchability of the ball.

ESPN today reported that the referee who was supposed to make that call may face disciplinary actions.

It seems that that official thought Seubert was ineligible, which is why he did not throw the flag. Eligibility/Ineligibility is not his assigned job, though.

The NFL stated that that official should have thrown the flag regardless if the receiver was ineligible or not, as that is his assinged job on the play, and then he should have conferred with the other officials to determine if the receiver was ineligible.

------------------
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature

[This message has been edited by Suspence13 (edited 01-11-2003 02:36 PM).]