I dislike Joey Porter but I have to admit what he said ..though probably not true was running through the mind of most of America. Thats why these calls can not be left not scrutinized because it opens up the door wide for questioning the integrity of the officails and of the league.flintsilver7 said:
I have just witnessed the single worst piece of officiating I have ever seen!
- Thread starter NYPhinFan
- Start date
flintsilver7
Sack Monster
NYPhinFan said:
I said before, it bothers me because I don't want to think like this. I don't want to think that as I'm watching the game with six people and on the phone with six more that the game is out of the players' hands. I don't want to think that the NFL has turned into the WWF. A lot of older people think the NFL is fixed. I don't normally think that, but games like today make me really think that somebody - somebody with some sort of power - wants a certain team to win and that it's not entirely up to the players.
Its funny because I feel exactly the same way...hated having that feeling for the first time...and I had no interest at all in who won the game..I was so pissed at the blatant way things seem to be slanted in this game.
FINintheMOON
Practice Squad
NYPhinFan said:
I think that they should make the officiating crew a FULL TIME job... This stuff with seasonal help will NEVER solve the problem... IF they are FULL TIME and can have their salaries hit with fines, I bet you will see a much better game called!!!
Until they do that, we have to live with this type of crap every season...:mad:
maddendude
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 0
They nvr called hike so its not offsides or lining up in neutral zone...and the colts players nvr touched the steelers, so its not encroachment. They nvr saw the false start. They COULDNT call a penalty on nothing or something that they didnt see. THey made a mistake in stopping the game. Thus they continue playing with no penalty
I have watched the play a hundred times...I have TiVo....of course the players touched...the reason the ball was not snapped yet was that the officials blew the whistles...why again would you blow the whistle if there was no penalty?..why would you stop play for????...It was a TERRIBLE non call and one of the worst blatant incompetent calls EVER in a game!...maddendude said:
DPlus47
Out with LaMaga, in with Talita!
flintsilver7 said:
this is so true. if the colts had won, i was thinking WWF all the way. the league doesn't need that, but that's what they're going to get when they come out and defend that call with all guns blazing. that game shouldn't have been close.
Alex22 said:
Let me try to explain what you are saying in a way that makes you sound very very uninformed.
If the way you explain the rule is true, a player can catch the ball, roll over 10 times start to crawl around the field, always with atleast one knee in contact with the ground.
Over the course of 30 seconds he could technically do this with not one person touching him, but oh my god! he drops the ball!!! it is now an incomplete pass because he never got off the ground, and always had at least one knee on the ground nobody touching him, and he did not maintain possession of the football throughout his entire time on the ground.
If that is not good enough for you, then how about the player just rolling 20 yards with nobody touching him, but after rolling around the field like a crazy person in a straight jacket, kicks the ball out of his hand without ever getting up.
In your explination of the rule, both of these senarios would end in an incompletion
the thing I'm mad about is that the refs overruled the INT by Polamalu, that was an INT plain and simple. He had the bad and when he came up it came out but that doesn't matter. Tons of times it's a catch when the ball comes out right after the receiver is about to get up. Joey Porter tells it like it is, http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/news/story?id=2294214
PassRush
Drunken Sailor
In theory, couldnt a player intercept a pass and fall to the ground, make forward pass to another defender and take it to the house? Why not, since the pass is not incomplete until it hits the ground and it is not caught until a knee touches the ground, wouldnt it be ruled as if the ball bounced off a player into the hands of another?
The director of officiating is going to be sweating bullets on NFL Network this week...
The director of officiating is going to be sweating bullets on NFL Network this week...
As much as I would love to see him sweat...I truly doubt it. You will see a song and dance how they "got it right"..and what a great job they did. I will put up every dollar I have you will not hear one word about them making ANY mistakes this week.PassRush said:
DPlus47
Out with LaMaga, in with Talita!
PassRush said:
that's an interesting thought.
burger13
FinHeaven VIP
from the NFL rulebook on NFL.com:
23. Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.
I think that it was clearly an INT to anyone who just wants to use logic, or common sense, or whatever you want to call it. But what the ref is trying to do, and what it is his job to do, it make the call according to guidelines and rules that are set up for them……rules that just seem nonsensical at times. ( see “Tuck Ruleâ€Â).
By what the official said after the reversal, he interprets THROUGHOUT to mean the complete act of diving to the ground to catch the ball THROUGHT the act of trying to get up, which was all one maneuver by Polamalu…..and the ref didn’t not consider the act complete, until both knees were off the ground…..by which time he had knocked the ball loose.
These rules leave room for interpretation…….The one thing that no one has brought up is that these refs are almost certainly instructed on how they are expected to interpret the rules…..and judging by the confidence with which the ref gave his explanation, it leads me to believe that he had received some instructions pertaining to that rule.
IMO, the reason the rules are so vague, is to get the NFL out of jams just like this one. The NFL has a rule that makes no sense….but now has an out to simply say that one official used his judgement, and let all the fans in the world mad at the official for his poor judgement, and the NFL as a whole gets a pass…..just like the tuck rule.
As for the false start/encroachment non-call……..there is no good explanation for that.
23. Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.
I think that it was clearly an INT to anyone who just wants to use logic, or common sense, or whatever you want to call it. But what the ref is trying to do, and what it is his job to do, it make the call according to guidelines and rules that are set up for them……rules that just seem nonsensical at times. ( see “Tuck Ruleâ€Â).
By what the official said after the reversal, he interprets THROUGHOUT to mean the complete act of diving to the ground to catch the ball THROUGHT the act of trying to get up, which was all one maneuver by Polamalu…..and the ref didn’t not consider the act complete, until both knees were off the ground…..by which time he had knocked the ball loose.
These rules leave room for interpretation…….The one thing that no one has brought up is that these refs are almost certainly instructed on how they are expected to interpret the rules…..and judging by the confidence with which the ref gave his explanation, it leads me to believe that he had received some instructions pertaining to that rule.
IMO, the reason the rules are so vague, is to get the NFL out of jams just like this one. The NFL has a rule that makes no sense….but now has an out to simply say that one official used his judgement, and let all the fans in the world mad at the official for his poor judgement, and the NFL as a whole gets a pass…..just like the tuck rule.
As for the false start/encroachment non-call……..there is no good explanation for that.
