Officiating in Chargers/Colts game

[QuiGon]

"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."

Heh heh... that is a classic line

 

[maverick4]

How about that ridiculous spot the ref gave the Colts before the false start and field goal?

He WANTED to give them the first down, he gave the spot an extra yard or two before the officials upstairs reviewed it and did not award the first down.

The refs are so biased, it's clear they want the Colts to win. The Colts enjoyed another discrepency in penalties yesterday, 80+ penalty yards against the Chargers versus 20 yards for the Colts.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

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.

...

I understand what you're saying and agree with you. I was referring to the fact that Dungy claims to have done the same "play" in the past, assumably in the same situation.

I'm saying that the play, in the situation where they are obviously trying to draw a guy offside, should consistently either be a penalty or not. I am solely going on Dungy's word here that they have done it without being penalized in the past.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Re: Strategy to Draw Penalties

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?

It is the ONLY way they have EVER beat us.

They cheat on every play. The Oline holds on every play. Bob Sanders spears on every play. The secondary pass interferes constantly.

Game after game after game.

And because of Polian bullying the refs, they somehow get away with it.

Which is only half the story. The other half is all the fake penalties that the Pats accumulate just for being on the same field as the most corrupt organization in modern memory.

 

[everlong]

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.

Probably not but he would have been beyond the 20. Hard to say if it cost them 7 or not but it cost them field position.

 

[All_Around_Brown]

The officiating is officially offensive. it sucks, period. There were non-calls that in light of what was doled out to us last week, looked very very suspicious. I was not ready to subscribe to the conspiracy theory of officials sticking it to the Pats, but after watching last night, I find it hard to come to any other conclusion.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Sometimes even th best Ref can't really enforce a poor Rule.

The Pass interference rule is a poor Rule. There is no distinction between a grievous and obvious attempt to interfere with a reception, and incidental contact. Both can result in a penalty that can be as long as 99 yards, and effectively award a TD, by giving a FD on the opposition's one yard line.

No other penalty effectively awards points. No other penalty can be as severe.

The PI Rule needs very explicit codification to provide guidance to the Referees. You just can't do that the way the Rule is written. It is absolutely necessary first of all, to distinguish between slightly more than incidental contact, that still merits a penalty, and and true egregious examples of interference. With the great distinction being made by two different penalties, egregious PI, and incidental PI, now finally you can codify the PI Rule(s), sensibly.

Then you can give the Refs a more reasonable penalty for the appropriate kind of offense observed.

Sometimes when the Refs can't enforce a Rule consistently and equally, it's not their fault; it the poorly written Rule itself.

 

[sanvara]

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.

When the whistle was blown almost all the players stopped. There's a good chance that the interception doesn't get returned very far if that whistle wasn't blown. In fact if the whistle hadn't blown the Colts might not have even gotten out to the 20 if the Chargers O hadn't stopped playing. The Colts may have actually benefited from that whistle.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Sometimes even th best Ref can't really enforce a poor Rule.

The Pass interference rule is a poor Rule. There is no distinction between a grievous and obvious attempt to interfere with a reception, and incidental contact. Both can result in a penalty that can be as long as 99 yards, and effectively award a TD, by giving a FD on the opposition's one yard line.

...

I agree completely. I think the PI non-call that the Colts didn't get is a perfect example of this.

The WR (was it Wayne?) went deep and the defender clearly got his hand on the WR's shoulder. This contact didn't appear to hinder the WR, who simply let the ball go through his arms.

There is no way this should be a 40 yard penalty. At the same time, the defender made contact and should be called for it. If the ref only has two options, letting the contact go or rewarding Indy 40 yards, I think he made the right choice. We've all seen 40+ yards rewarded for minor contact and it is a huge, game-changing play.

The refs need a "minor infraction" option. A minor PI could be a 10 yard penalty, with a major being the current "spot of foul" rule.

No one has a problem with a team being rewarded 40 yards on a clear PI. The problem is minor contact being penalized harshly.

 

[patological]

There's only so much we can do.

 

[bradmahn]

When the whistle was blown almost all the players stopped. There's a good chance that the interception doesn't get returned very far if that whistle wasn't blown. In fact if the whistle hadn't blown the Colts might not have even gotten out to the 20 if the Chargers O hadn't stopped playing. The Colts may have actually benefited from that whistle.

A lot of Colts Complainers also forget that, had every member of the Chargers offense been pursuing Session, there is a very real possibility for a fumble. Anything could have happened.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

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.

What you say is impossible, isn't it? I mean, Dungy would never intentionally CHEAT, would he?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Sometimes even th best Ref can't really enforce a poor Rule.

The Pass interference rule is a poor Rule. There is no distinction between a grievous and obvious attempt to interfere with a reception, and incidental contact. Both can result in a penalty that can be as long as 99 yards, and effectively award a TD, by giving a FD on the opposition's one yard line.

No other penalty effectively awards points. No other penalty can be as severe.

The PI Rule needs very explicit codification to provide guidance to the Referees. You just can't do that the way the Rule is written. It is absolutely necessary first of all, to distinguish between slightly more than incidental contact, that still merits a penalty, and and true egregious examples of interference. With the great distinction being made by two different penalties, egregious PI, and incidental PI, now finally you can codify the PI Rule(s), sensibly.

Then you can give the Refs a more reasonable penalty for the appropriate kind of offense observed.

Sometimes when the Refs can't enforce a Rule consistently and equally, it's not their fault; it the poorly written Rule itself.

They enforced it against Hobbs and Moss.

The refs seem to have a very very simple time enforcing that rule. If a Pats defender is in the same hash mark area as a Colts WR, BINGO, pass interference.

 

[Metaphors]

What you say is impossible, isn't it? I mean, Dungy would never intentionally CHEAT, would he?

I know you are being sarcastic, but want to use your comment to illustrate a point. I don't think Dungy was being underhanded or devious (the underlying aspects typically associated with cheating). He was trying to improve his team's chances of winning. No different than a lineman grabbing a defender's jersey to protect his QB and hoping he doesn't get caught. Breaking a rule? Yep. Cheating? I don't think the term accurately captures the situation.

I think the C-word is way overused at this point in time. Whenever words get used too often or in situations where they don't belong, the word starts to lose meaning...and people start appearing in cartoons wearing tinfoil hats.

Maybe it isn't all bad...

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I know you are being sarcastic, but want to use your comment to illustrate a point. I don't think Dungy was being underhanded or devious (the underlying aspects typically associated with cheating). He was trying to improve his team's chances of winning. No different than a lineman grabbing a defender's jersey to protect his QB and hoping he doesn't get caught. Breaking a rule? Yep. Cheating? I don't think the term accurately captures the situation.

I think the C-word is way overused at this point in time. Whenever words get used too often or in situations where they don't belong, the word starts to lose meaning...and people start appearing in cartoons wearing tinfoil hats.

Maybe it isn't all bad...

Hey, if NE is going to be branded as cheaters for breaking a rule about where (not what) they videotape the least we can do is cheapen the term.