Officiating in Chargers/Colts game

[Patsguy05]

I kept thinking during the game last night that the refs were going to hand it to the Colts again! What a crock! When are people going to wake up and see the biased, pro Colts officiating!?

 

[skri65]

Although there is plenty of "evidence" that shows otherwise, I refuse to believe that officiating crews are actually biased against certain teams. This would ruin the entire integrity of the sport, which due to my love of football, I can't concede to.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

I kept thinking during the game last night that the refs were going to hand it to the Colts again! What a crock! When are people going to wake up and see the biased, pro Colts officiating!?

They did miss a PI call on that Chargers' DB near the goal line.

IMHO-the officiating has gotten very bad in recent years.

 

[PatsWin]

The officials last night are pretty biased, but not on the colts side, hooray, first time ever.

 

[Metaphors]

The part that gets me is the false start penalty just before the missed FG. Seems pretty clear in the rulebook:

"No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started."

That call may not be made in the 3rd quarter on 2nd and 9...but in a situation where the ENTIRE WORLD knows you are trying to draw an offside penalty, that was amazingly stupid and borderline arrogant ("hey everyone, look at the cool play I made up all by myself").

You know why the Colts are the only team inventive enough to run this play? Because it is against the rules.

 

[everlong]

The no call on Marlin Jackson in light of the Hobbs call was awful. I would love to hear Pereira justify the no call there vs the call on Hobbs. I cannot see how he could justify it but I'm sure he will. Jackson clearly made contact before the ball arrived and before turning his head.

The Colts got screwed on the interception in the end zone. If the whistle doesn't blow they have first and goal in place of first and ten from the 20, and they win the game.

I'm sure uncle Bill in Don Shula fashion will consult the competition committee on that one.

 

[SoCalPatsfan90]

The no call on Marlin Jackson in light of the Hobbs call was awful. I would love to hear Pereira justify the no call there vs the call on Hobbs. I cannot see how he could justify it but I'm sure he will. Jackson clearly made contact before the ball arrived and before turning his head.

The Colts got screwed on the interception in the end zone. If the whistle doesn't blow they have first and goal in place of first and ten from the 20, and they win the game.

I'm sure uncle Bill in Don Shula fashion will consult the competition committee on that one.

Thats not 100% true. I mean, if the whistle doesn't blow.. they get past the 20 yardline for sure, but all the way down to the 6? Not so sure...9/11 players on the colts D stopped and 10/11 players on the Chargers O stopped because of the whistle... So to think that if there was no whistle the play would have happened the same way is not really true. The colts would have gotten farther then the 20 I'm sure, but not down to the 6.

 

[spacecrime]

The Colts got screwed on the interception in the end zone. If the whistle doesn't blow they have first and goal in place of first and ten from the 20, and they win the game.

No. When the whistle blew and the refs signaled no catch, most players stopped. Had there not been a whistle, the guy never would have made it to the twenty. He's about as fast as I am.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The part that gets me is the false start penalty just before the missed FG. Seems pretty clear in the rulebook:

"No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started."

That call may not be made in the 3rd quarter on 2nd and 9...but in a situation where the ENTIRE WORLD knows you are trying to draw an offside penalty, that was amazingly stupid and borderline arrogant ("hey everyone, look at the cool play I made up all by myself").

You know why the Colts are the only team inventive enough to run this play? Because it is against the rules.

I'm glad someone finally posted this rule, because I've been wonder what it was.

It's totally appropriate for the officiating crew to take the situation into account. For all the colts' whining last night about "we've run that same play a dozen times," the ridiculous part is that the WHOLE PLAY was designed to try to draw a penalty. Even if they get it away with it in noncritical situations, they have nobody to blame but themselves here. They tried to draw a penalty by simulating the start of the play, and they got nailed for it.

Contrary to the idiocy that Madden was spewing, they were NEVER going to run a play there on 4th down. They were in there solely to try to draw an off sides. They would have run the clock to nothing and either called time out or taken a delay penalty. I have no problem with the officials understanding that when they decide to throw the flag late in the 4th quarter, but letting it go other times if it doesn't draw a defender across to make contact.

I saw a replay on the inadvertent whistle, and it now looks clear what happened. The back judge threw the beanbag to indicate change of possession but as he did it he was jumping backwards to avoid getting hit and his other arm (not the one with the beanbag) went out to the side. It looked a bit like he was signaling incomplete rather than throwing the bag, which led one of the other officials to blow the whistle. Kind of funny the way it played out -- surprised stuff like that doesn't happen more often.

 

[everlong]

No. When the whistle blew and the refs signaled no catch, most players stopped. Had there not been a whistle, the guy never would have made it to the twenty. He's about as fast as I am.

I didn't mean the refs did the wrong thing after the whistle blew, the whistle shouldn't have blown.

 

[everlong]

Thats not 100% true. I mean, if the whistle doesn't blow.. they get past the 20 yardline for sure, but all the way down to the 6? Not so sure...9/11 players on the colts D stopped and 10/11 players on the Chargers O stopped because of the whistle... So to think that if there was no whistle the play would have happened the same way is not really true. The colts would have gotten farther then the 20 I'm sure, but not down to the 6.

Yes after the whistle it was correct. The whistle was the porking.

 

[LoveDemPats]

The part that gets me is the false start penalty just before the missed FG. Seems pretty clear in the rulebook:

"No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started."

That call may not be made in the 3rd quarter on 2nd and 9...but in a situation where the ENTIRE WORLD knows you are trying to draw an offside penalty, that was amazingly stupid and borderline arrogant ("hey everyone, look at the cool play I made up all by myself").

You know why the Colts are the only team inventive enough to run this play? Because it is against the rules.

Nice man! Thanks. I kinda didn't know what was wrong with the play. :rocker:

 

[SoCalPatsfan90]

Yes after the whistle it was correct. The whistle was the porking.

The whistle blowing stopped people playing is my point. I doubt that he would have made it all the way to the SD 6 if they were allowed to play that out. Of the two, the colts were the ones that lost more on that play, but not as much as I think people are giving them.

 

[psychoPat]

Strategy to Draw Penalties

The part that gets me is the false start penalty just before the missed FG. Seems pretty clear in the rulebook:

"No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started."

That call may not be made in the 3rd quarter on 2nd and 9...but in a situation where the ENTIRE WORLD knows you are trying to draw an offside penalty, that was amazingly stupid and borderline arrogant ("hey everyone, look at the cool play I made up all by myself").

You know why the Colts are the only team inventive enough to run this play? Because it is against the rules.

Isn't one of the major sources of the Colts' greatness
their strategy to draw penalties?
... and insist on a Point Of Emphasis
when the refs aren't flagging what they feel entitled to?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm glad someone finally posted this rule, because I've been wonder what it was.

It's totally appropriate for the officiating crew to take the situation into account. For all the colts' whining last night about "we've run that same play a dozen times," the ridiculous part is that the WHOLE PLAY was designed to try to draw a penalty. Even if they get it away with it in noncritical situations, they have nobody to blame but themselves here. They tried to draw a penalty by simulating the start of the play, and they got nailed for it.

A rule change that we'll never see, but that would solve #%@# like this--once the quarterback goes under center for fourth down, a team is committed to trying to convert rather than punt/kick--even if the play results in a penalty, or that team uses a timeout. [I would allow the offense to change its mind, so to speak, if the D calls a timeout.]

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

After the game Dungy was saying that they've run that "play" where the TE jumps up faking the snap before and it has never been called. Is this true? I've never seen the Colts do that before, but I'm not a Colt fan and only see so many games.

I ask because I hate random enforcement of rules. Either call the penalty all of the time or don't call it.

It's like the Colts defenders yelling "hike" or whatever the hell they do. Even though it is against the rules the league is currently allowing this, and they shouldn't be randomly called for it at a critical point in a game.

So basically, while I don't condone breaking the rules I think that the expectation of consistency is important. I also believe that how the rules are commonly enforced is more important than how the rulebook is written.

What's funny is that this same thinking defends the 2003 Patriots, who manhandled Colts WRs because defensive holding penalties were consistently not being called across the NFL. Of course I don't expect any Colts fan to appreciate that.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I ask because I hate random enforcement of rules. Either call the penalty all of the time or don't call it.

It's not really as simple as this. Basically a rule about "simulating the start of a play" is one about intent. An official can never really be sure what the team's intent was.

So, if a man on the line who is permitted to move before a play does so, and the official is forced to decide whether it was a legitimate movement or a deliberate attempt to simulate the start of the play, I can understand if the typical approach of the official is to let it go because he can't be certain and the man can legally move.

Now, if the defender is actually tricked and comes across the line and makes contact, then the official has a decision to make. And, in fact, pretty much every time I've seen the "simulating" penalty called on the offense that's been the exact scenario. Once the defender comes across the line and touches the offensive player, or is unabated to the QB, the official has to stop the game and make the tough call. Otherwise, though, it's largely no-harm-no-foul.

Last night, there was no contact or unabated to the QB. There was, however, considerable evidence that the play was deliberate given the situation. The ref understands football. The colts were down by 2 with under 2 minutes left on the road, looking at a chip shot field goal. There is no way they were actually going to run a play, and everyone knows it. (Everyone except Al Michaels for some reason.) The ENTIRE REASON the colts were at the line there was to try to draw a penalty, and the ref knows it.

So, I don't think it's a case of "situational" officiating, as you suggest. I think it's just a case of a ref using the situation as evidence on a call that turns on intent.

There are a few of these calls in sports where officials must decide intent. By and large, most sports have eliminated them with good success. A good example is "intentional" grounding, which no longer actually requires the official to figure out intent but now has been reduced to some more black and white rules. Another good example comes from hockey -- the delay of game penalty where a defender flicks the puck out of play to avoid trouble. It used to be that refs would have to figure out intent by the game situation. Now, if the puck goes out of play from the defensive end and doesn't touch glass, it's a penalty.

There are a few intent-based rules left in football, and this is one of them. I have no problem with the refs assuming that an otherwise legal play is legal unless the situation or other evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

what i don't understand is everytime the refs call a penalty on either team they have to confer with dungy. i also thought if a coach goes on the field, it's a penalty, yet i always see dungy in the middle of the field and no penalty.

 

[alamo]

You know why the Colts are the only team inventive enough to run this play? Because it is against the rules.

It's hypocritical of us as Patriots fans to scorn another team for pushing what they do to the edge of the rulebook, Belichick does it more (and better) than anyone.

"Abruptly" is a complete judgement call, and the Colts last night just executed it poorly, leading to a penalty. I think the WR going into motion at the same time was what tipped the play into a penalty in the official's mind, if the motion was earlier then the guys on the line could have gotten away with it and possibly drawn the penalty they wanted. If I recall, the flag was thrown by the official on the other side, it must have looked to him like half the line jumped.

 

[Metaphors]

It's hypocritical of us as Patriots fans to scorn another team for pushing what they do to the edge of the rulebook, Belichick does it more (and better) than anyone.

I'm not saying they are "evil" for trying it...I'm saying they are stupid.

"Abruptly" is a complete judgement call, and the Colts last night just executed it poorly, leading to a penalty. I think the WR going into motion at the same time was what tipped the play into a penalty in the official's mind, if the motion was earlier then the guys on the line could have gotten away with it and possibly drawn the penalty they wanted. If I recall, the flag was thrown by the official on the other side, it must have looked to him like half the line jumped.

They executed it to look like the TE was coming out of his stance to pass protect. Shifts generally involve multiple players moving (one steps back off the line, another replaces him to avoid an illegal procedure).

"Abrupt", "unneccessary", etc. are all judgement calls. In this case, the judgement wasn't all that hard. You don't attempt that play unless you are willing to live with the penalty that could result. Doesn't sound like Dungy was willing (and shouldn't have been willing given the field conditions) given that he called a timeout to argue.

"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

Idiot.