As expected, Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

mayoclinic said:

I agree that the play was close, and I think that we have no one to blame but ourselves for letting the game get close in the first place. But, with that said, I think that Pereira is pathetic, and that it was clearly a first down. He should at least have admitted that the line judge who was screened from the play should not have overruled the line judge who had a view of the play.

Click to expand...

Trouble is the closest albeit screened guy was the head linesman and the side judge ran in the length of the 31 but made no signal whatsoever. I believe I read there were two other officials closer with a direct view, you can see one on the replay, but they were reportedly conveniently not looking at the catch as apparently there job was to focus on locating any other potential infraction in case the pass was completed for a conversion... And of course one of them was the back judge who called the phantom PI so...

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

Spiral said:

After looking at the play dozens of times, the spot was strictly a guess. The official could not tell when Faulk gained possession of the ball, and he got no help at all from any of the other officials. Unless the replay officials had access to differeent perspectives from those shown on TV, there wasn't sufficient evidence to overturn the call even if it had been challenged, IMO.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the NBC replays or the ones shown on ESPN and youtube after the game?

Because during the game they showed a lot better angles than the talking heads were looking at afterward.

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

I used to own horses. They are all dead now, but none of them are as dead as this horse that we (and I definitely included myself) and sports talk radio keep beating.

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

From my watching of the replays it was the guy on the side, not the one behind the ball, who blew it. The official on the side was directly lined up with the play and it should have been clear to him that Faulk wasn't bobbling the ball all the way down but batted the ball to himself, caught it and then was pushed back. This is the official who spotted the ball and the one who should be fired on the spot (pun not intended).

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

I can accept the facts that the referee made a guess on the spot. What bothers me is that there were 2 other officials who had to have had a better viewpoint of the non-bobble to the ground and they never conferenced on the spot. I think if an official, like the one on the sideline, knows he did not have the best view on a play so crucial, he should tlak it over with the other refs.

The more and more we talk about this game, the more and more upset I am getting about the PI call on Butler. That play changed everything about the last 3 minutes of the game. If that is called correctly, then the Cotls do not by the 2 minute warning to bring the lead to 6. Then the Pats play the final two minutes completely different. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the BB 4th and 2 call is getting all the coverage while the bad call is not. We all know the Pats are classy, but somethimes I wish they would act more like Ray Lewis and the Ravens when they feel the refs made a bad call. Because it never seems to be brought up. I mean just look at the last few games between the Colts and Pats.

2006 AFCC - Bogus facegaurding against Hobbs. Non PI call on Hayden against Caldwell in the endzone. Those bad calls more then likely resulted in a 8 poitn difference for the Colts. The Pats lost by 4.

2007 Week 9. The Pats were penalized 10 time for over 150 yards. The Colts were penalized 4 times for 25 yards. The Pats had two PI calls against them for 77 yards including one were Hobbs was tackled by Wayne in the endzone while having position on Wayne for the int. After almost being forced to review the call, Pereira claimed the Hobbs interfered with Wayne while playing the ball. So he was doing what he is allowed to do, but interefered with Wayne while doing it. How is that possible? You cant make the play correctly, but be penalized for it.

I am starting to wonder how much all of the bickering by Polian may have stuck in the refs heads over the past few games.

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

IcyPatriot said:

This should be called a sore loser thread ... what spot is ever perfect when the player is shielding the ball from the official? I sure wish the spot was better but It's ajudgement call without the benefit of a replay. I moved on Monday morning --- more fans need to move on. Even a victory did not guarantee anything in terms of playoff position.

Click to expand...

Bingo. This whole thing is a moot point if you run a play to get three yards on 4th and 2 instead of 2 yards. Not always easy, but when you execute that precisely, you leave yourself open to these kinds of calls. Better to take it out of the refs hands by making it obvious you got the 1st.

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

letekro said:

They make bad calls all the time, but the ref planted his foot right on the 30 when faulk made the catch, then when he processed the bobble, he took a step to the left where faulk landed. He was ready to give them the first, but Faulk gave him a reason not to.

Click to expand...

I noticed he gave him the first initially, but my reasoning on why he moved is more cynical. There were a couple of Patriots pointing "first down", but a whole gaggle of Colts yelling and screaming the other way. I'll never be able to prove it, but I am convinced that is what caused him to shift back the other way. The "bobble" was an excuse after the fact.

Even the phantom pass interference call that lead to the Colts TD before had a late flag. Bet ya a dollar the Colts WR flop and cry, drew that flag.

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

IcyPatriot said:

This should be called a sore loser thread ... what spot is ever perfect when the player is shielding the ball from the official? I sure wish the spot was better but It's ajudgement call without the benefit of a replay. I moved on Monday morning --- more fans need to move on. Even a victory did not guarantee anything in terms of playoff position.

Click to expand...

Firstly..I guess you do not understand football too much...Is there ONLY one official in the game?? "
"what spot is ever perfect when the player is shielding the ball from the official? " Umm that is why there are SEVEN officials so that if one is being shielded..the others can help out..GUESS you did not know that. You tell me why they did not confer and why the official that was shielded, did NOT know when Faulk had control of the ball (unless he has X ray eyes) and was allowed to make the spot?? Hmmmm...Also, if one cared to notice it Brock was lined up in the neutral zone.. as long as people keep making excuses for poor officiating again and again..IT will never change..and it is PUTRID!! And what makes it worse is Goodell and company do NOT care at all. It's NOT just about this game..but there are blown calls that make a difference IN ALMOST EVERY game!

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

letekro said:

They make bad calls all the time, but the ref planted his foot right on the 30 when faulk made the catch, then when he processed the bobble, he took a step to the left where faulk landed. He was ready to give them the first, but Faulk gave him a reason not to.

Click to expand...

There is no way, absolutely no way the lineman could have seen Faulk bobble the ball as you say. His back was facing toward the lineman. The lineman made an assumption.. which was incorrect.

It's a worldwide trait. Umpires assume, blow calls and the administrations put their heads in the sand and stand behind the officials.

Honestly people, you dont get half of it, anybody just watch the Republic of Ireland V France Soccer game? Thats what you call bad officiating

Re: As expected Mike Pereira happy with ball spot

ausbacker said:

There is no way, absolutely no way the lineman could have seen Faulk bobble the ball as you say. His back was facing toward the lineman. The lineman made an assumption.. which was incorrect.

It's a worldwide trait. Umpires assume, blow calls and the administrations put their heads in the sand and stand behind the officials.

Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting he spotted the ball just short of the 30 and not just barely touching the 30 (which would have been a first down)? Faulk caught the ball to the right of the spot and landed on the left of the spot. What criteria did he use to pick that exact spot? At that point, he let the situation overwhelm him.

One of two things happened:
1) He was totally unprepared for a close spot and panicked
2) He was fully prepared to mark any close play short of the 30

Anyone who disputes this should ask themselves these questions:

- How could the official rule that Faulk was bobbling the ball without seeing the bobble? I know he didn't see the bobble since Faulk secured the ball before contact and contact happened across the 30 yard line.

- Have you ever seen a situation where a receiver lost forward progress without an obvious bobble (meaning losing contact with the ball)?

- Is there even a 0.0000000001% chance of this call happening in Foxboro?

This reminds me of the spot after the Watson fumble play in the playoffs vs. Denver. No official were in position to see where the ball went out of bounds. How could they possibly spot the ball with the precision of the half-yard line? Spot it at the 2 at the point of contact (essentially just admitting nobody saw it). Call it a touchback (based on limited visual evidence). Anything else is just made up.

Which is what the side judge did in Indy. He made it up. It just happened to be the call that would give him the least amount of grief and not have him appearing on TV every 10 minutes with the crawl "Side Judge Gives Patriots Win, Ends Colts Win Streak. Competition Committee Investigating".

HAHAH

who watched the video on nfl.com?

the guy is a joke...whoever watched the fins/bucs game, remembers a questionable play (Jason Taylor int/td)

the reason pereira used that it was a catch WAS ATROCIOUS, the ballcarryer is kneeling on the ground, AFTER having been tackled, THEN he throws the ball away....and its an INT?

so a runningback can run, be tackled, kneel, and THEN lose the ball?

what bs

And the earth shook...
Mike Polion...errrr Pereira is happy with his refs.
Why does Mikey even bother to comment? We know how "his game" is played.

Mike is retiring after this year......


Thnx alot A-Hole.... Youshould have left after last year.




LINK- NFL Officiating Czar Pereira to Retire -- NFL FanHouse

ALP said:

HAHAH

who watched the video on nfl.com?

the guy is a joke...whoever watched the fins/bucs game, remembers a questionable play (Jason Taylor int/td)

the reason pereira used that it was a catch WAS ATROCIOUS, the ballcarryer is kneeling on the ground, AFTER having been tackled, THEN he throws the ball away....and its an INT?

so a runningback can run, be tackled, kneel, and THEN lose the ball?

what bs

Click to expand...

It's funny. No one here mentions that Brock lined up offside. The catch should have been a moot point.

As I have stated in a previous post, llet him explain how the official with X-Ray vision who could see through Faulk, missed the simple call of #79 Brock lining up off-sides and no call. Koppen tilted the ball back to snap. Brock...Offside. Neutral Zone infraction! Look at the tape. Ball=28.5 yard line. Brock's down hand=28.5 yard line (maybe on the ball even more)

NFL Rule Book: Neutral Zone: The space the length of a ball between the two scrimmage lines. The offensive team and defensive team must remain behind their end of the ball.
Exception: The offensive player who snaps the ball.

Mike should read his rule book. No question Pats first down. This was not subject to the Refs discretion.#79 is off-sides.

Please take a look at the tape and tell me what you see? It is very obvious.
DW Toys

You can't dispute a non call.

That said on a week when the zebras had some horrendous gaffe's including two by Jeff Tripplett's crew (stopping play to review an unreviewable play and then not penalizing a team for throwing a challenge flag when out of TO's) and a 4th TO granted to Cleveland that led to a play on which Eric got his underpaid lone star concussed for no good reason...

This is a pathetic rationalization of the 4th down call in Indy because whenever he reviews any of these whether challenged or not he utilizes the available views and slow motion. Here he seems intent on commenting only on real time review...

NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira said during his "Official Review" segment on NFLN's Total Access that it was "almost near impossible to tell" whether the spot was incorrect.

This means, of course, that the visual evidence of an error was not indisputable.

"Once [the catch] occurs, he'll give you forward progress," Pereira said, via Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald. "Where is that exactly? Hard to tell where he gets it. . . . It's a tough play when I look at it in real time, almost impossible to tell . . . but [in the end] really hard to dispute."

Click to expand...

I guess he opted not to look at it in other than real time or with all available angles because in the end we didn't have the capacity to challenge and it was a game and possibly season changer... Had we, all those options and views would have been available to the referee.

That said, it also doesn't sound like the bobble would have effected the spot in that instance because he didn't have to go to the ground once he touched both feet down as some critics have insisted. Per Pereira forward progress is measured from where he controled the ball with two feet down. Replay indicates he clearly had control at the point his feet came down left toe on the yard line and right toe well beyond it. Thereafter he was pushed back and tackled downed on his shoulder halfway between the 29 and 30.

Not cryin' over spilt milk. Just sayin... Ref's are screw ups and while it's no excuse for losing it is a reality fans deserve to be incensed over in this technological age that clearly underscores it.

Why even post what this clown says? Has he EVER disagreed or admitted that a ref made a mistake?

LeonPowe said:

Why even post what this clown says? Has he EVER disagreed or admitted that a ref made a mistake?

Click to expand...

He does when he has to as he already had to on three calls this week. Other than that he straddles the fence on game changing calls and throws us a bone on the ones that teams overcome...

But here it was informative to hear him say that the bobble does not negate forward progression all the way to the ground, which seems to be the call the linesman made on the field. If slow motion multiple angle replay showed possession and two feet down any time thereafter before hitting the ground, that is where the ball should be marked. Clearly in this case there was possession when he straddled the 30 with both feet touching the ground however briefly.

Which essentially made Florio's observation that the call would clearly not have been overturned on review a false assumption.

DW Toys said:

As I have stated in a previous post, llet him explain how the official with X-Ray vision who could see through Faulk

Click to expand...

You have to read between the lines with Pereira. He got to the point where he explained that the ball should have been spotted where Faulk establishes control of the ball. He never uses the video to show where that is, even though the reverse angle clearly shows it. It is easy to combine the two shots and see Faulk has control just before contact when his left foot is on the 30 yard line (making the ball clearly on the other side of the 30). Pereira's only comment was "Wow, this is close". Translation: "Yikes, we spot that as a first down 99.99% of the time. Maybe we shouldn't look at this too closely."

Pereira effectively confirms what I've been saying all along. The side judge had the responsibility to spot the ball where Faulk established control...and he couldn't see when that happened. He saw the bobble, lost sight of the ball and saw the ball again (clearly in control) when Faulk landed. Since he couldn't see when clear control was established, he guessed. That is my problem with the whole situation. When officials start making calls without visual evidence, the league becomes Professional Wrestling. The officials have story lines in their head ("Wouldn't this be huge if the Colts made this comeback and fans got to continue following their undefeated season?") and their calls without visual evidence (guesses) will drift to supporting that conclusion.

Here is the way it should have went down. The side judge should have spotted his foot with forward progress beyond the 30 (where he lost sight of the ball) and the opposite side judge should have spotted as well if he got a view on the play. If the spots conflicted, the opposite side judge would win since he could see the ball. If the opposite side judge was blocked or out of position, then the original spot beyond the 30 would stick.

This usually isn't needed on forward progress spots since officials always award forward progress. So not only did this side judge make the spot up, he made it up in a way that is inconsistent with how the call is made by every other official in every other situation.

If the situation was completely reversed and the Colts got a first down to ice the game, I would have had absolutely no problem with the call. If the side judge had spotted Faulk's catch at or beyond the 30, I don't believe the Colts would have had much problem with it either (maybe a little grumbling about the bobble).

I'll just say that this side judge is lucky that Brady, Belichick and Kraft don't play these issues out in the media (don't know what they are doing with the league in private). I don't think the Colts would be as considerate if the situations were reversed.

As for Pats' ball spot, NFL VP Mike Pereira happy w/ linesman for being in perfect position. Still, slo-mo, stop frame made it very close.

Click to expand...

I've decided that this could be quite useful. If I make a mistake at work, I'll just say to my boss..."Well, I was at my desk when I screwed that up...aren't you happy that I was in the perfect position?" Yeah, that'll work!

Thanks Pereira!