Officiating

[reesebobby]

Except no one recalls this happening before, especially in a CG. Your missing the point entirely, the consequence of the entire event was to add 10 secs to the game clock. The refs ****ed this up bad and now you have the entire Nation believing the game was fixed. Hope you enjoy your asterisk.

As I said it sucks for everyone. And ultimately had no effect on the game.

 

[bresna]

In any thread about this year's officiating, the Hunter Henry TD catch reversal has to be front & center because the head of the referees, Walt Anderson, quoted the old rule about surviving the ground. He said "ground" about 6 times in his response to Mike Reiss about the overturned TD.
>>>>>>
“Because as he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball upon contacting the ground,” Anderson said. “The term that’s commonly used is ‘surviving the ground.’ A lot of people refer to that. So, as he’s going to the ground, he has the elements of two feet and control, but because he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball when he does go to the ground.”

As Reiss pointed out to Anderson, Henry had two hands on the ball.

“Well, if he had maintained control of the ball with two hands, even if the ball were to touch the ground, if you don’t lose control of the ball after it touches the ground, that would still be a catch.”
>>>>>>

let's be clear - “Because as he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball upon contacting the ground." - is completely untrue. In 2018, the NFL removed "going to the ground" from the catch definition. They made a big point of it. No - they made a HUGE point of it. Steelers fans were joyous, as it made Jesse James' slight loss of control a catch if it ever happened again. They also modified the rule on ball movement, stating "If the ball moves within control of the receiver, he is deemed not to have lost control of the ball and it is a completed pass."

So these are the rules now... well, except for when it happened with the Patriots' Hunter Henry. Suddenly the ground was involved again. And his slight loss of control on his chest, which had nothing to do with the ground, was suddenly deemed "not a catch".

That was a TD and the fact that the NY officials overruled it using a 2017 rulebook shows how corrupt that replay office in NYC really is. They upped the ante when they failed to overturn the obvious out of bounds call in the Raiders game.

The NFL's replay office is clearly against the Patriots and they appear willing take use any means necessary to hurt the team.

Editing to add this:
New catch rule (2018)
1. Control
2. 2 feet down or another body part
3. A football move such as:
- A 3rd step
- Reaching/extending for the line to gain
- or the ability to perform such an act

I wonder what "reaching/extending for the line to gain" looks like. Let's post an example:

 

[Marko]

It got so bad the other night that I was waiting for a pick six against Burrow by a ref.

The tuck rule game was 21 years ago. Get over it already. Totally legit call at the time with the way the rule was written. Oh ****ing well.

The tuck rule was called correctly and had been called against the Patriots earlier that year. It was also called multiple occasions after that. The Patriots have a history of getting the benefit of one borderline call, like the Jones punt return this year, followed by over the top fan reaction which then causes them to be screwed on multiple ways in the games after. This year following the Jones punt there was the Henry catch overturn, the Raiders catch in the end zone and the forward progress fumble with Ramondre.

 

[fourhour]

I thought I saw in one of the playoff games a special teams punt team member step on the line in an attempt to down the ball, the same play that got called a touch back on Slater, but ruled down at the one?

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Let me add a general point here. Borderline or wrong calls that go against the team you are supporting have very high salience - they stick in your mind. Similar calls that go in your favor do not - at best you might acknowledge them when pushed. So "the refs were unfair (or crooked)" is the likely belief for most fans any time their team loses a close game.

That said, Judon was held multiple times every game without a call.

 

[bresna]

Let me add a general point here. Borderline or wrong calls that go against the team you are supporting have very high salience - they stick in your mind. Similar calls that go in your favor do not - at best you might acknowledge them when pushed. So "the refs were unfair (or crooked)" is the likely belief for most fans any time their team loses a close game.

That said, Judon was held multiple times every game without a call.

I think you're missing something though. Yes, bad calls are made every game. But not every bad call goes to New York for review. No call for someone holding Judon is reviewed. But Hunter Henry's TD catch and the Raider's Keelon Cole stepping out of bounds were both cases where replay review was supposed to make sure it was called correctly on the field. But in both cases, they ignored the video evidence to rule against the Patriots.

 

[TommyD4207]

Let me add a general point here. Borderline or wrong calls that go against the team you are supporting have very high salience - they stick in your mind. Similar calls that go in your favor do not - at best you might acknowledge them when pushed. So "the refs were unfair (or crooked)" is the likely belief for most fans any time their team loses a close game.

That said, Judon was held multiple times every game without a call.

There's a difference between 'borderline' or 'wrong', and 'egregiously incorrect', like, say, the TD against the Raiders, which was an edict from New York, even though the WRs foot was clearly out of bounds. It wasn't close, no matter what the announcers were told to say about it.

 

[venecol]

There's a difference between 'borderline' or 'wrong', and 'egregiously incorrect', like, say, the TD against the Raiders, which was an edict from New York, even though the WRs foot was clearly out of bounds. It wasn't close, no matter what the announcers were told to say about it.

Clearly out of bounds is a stretch. The problem with video reviews are the angles. Not everything is what it appears to be from an angle shot.

Watching the WC there was a play were a Japanese player kicked the ball that from the angle shots was clearly out of bounds and resulted in a goal. Twitter went crazy showing this angle and that angle all clearly showing the ball was out. Except the balls have chips in them and they released an overhead view that showed the ball was still in play.

The only solution is to install cameras on the 4 corners of the EZ to see the side views. NFL refuses to do it.

I won't rehash the TD since its been discussed ad nauseam. It was very close. Could his cleats been inbounds before the very tip of his shoe gone out by a 1/4"? Maybe. There's no way of really knowing, thus the TD call standing. We still had a chance to win and blew it.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

It was very close. Could his cleats been inbounds before the very tip of his shoe gone out by a 1/4"? Maybe.

NY has multiple camera angles, all synced. So (in theory at least) they have the ability to look at one video and judge at what point in time a ball was controlled, mark that time, and then switch to a different angle and see where the foot was at that same instant. Or they could look at a foot from multiple angles at the same time and get a much better sense than we ever could looking at sequential TV replays.

But I grant overturning a call needs to be definitive, and this seemingly wasn't.

 

[bresna]

NY has multiple camera angles, all synced. So (in theory at least) they have the ability to look at one video and judge at what point in time a ball was controlled, mark that time, and then switch to a different angle and see where the foot was at that same instant. Or they could look at a foot from multiple angles at the same time and get a much better sense than we ever could looking at sequential TV replays.

But I grant overturning a call needs to be definitive, and this seemingly wasn't.

There is a picture of Keelon Cole's "TD" that was posted by several people in the Vegas media to defend the call as being the right call. But this picture actually confirmed that his foot hit out of bounds, not that he was in bounds:

Look at the white paint/chalk in the air around his (black-bottomed) toe. It's especially noticeable on the left side. That toe is clearly stepping on the white-painted sideline and kicking up white paint. You'll hear the announcers go on & on about how an in-bounds toe will kick up "dirt" as evidence of it being in bounds. Well, here we have the opposite.

This play being out of bounds was very obvious on the replay, regardless of the angle. This was simple to overturn. There is no way that video showed any evidence that his foot was in bounds. And for what it's worth, I honestly don't think that the Vegas fans would have a complaint if it was overturned - it was that obvious.

Note: don't fall into the trap that the Vegas media did - that cleat has a black edge around the bottom. You can see it clearly on the back foot. The white tip is not the bottom edge of his cleat.

 

[1960Pats]

Brady and the Patriots got favorable calls over and over. Imagine this board if Mahomes was the QB in the tuck rule game.

The tuck call was right and there were plenty of other examples of that call, before and after that. The fact that the Raiduh fans whined about it for ten years and had it changed doesn't make it illegal then. You must have better examples than that one.

This reminds me of the time that Jets fans wanted to take away the Pats titles from 01, 03 and 04 because they violated a memo in 2007.

 

[reesebobby]

The tuck call was right

As was the roughing call on pat. And the dead ball when the back judge waved off the play. That's my point. When it goes for one's team it's the correct call and if not, it's the league conspiracy.

 

[1960Pats]

Are you guys saying the patriots super bowl wins were fake? Or the league started cheating after you got bad. It's not clear to me.

I can only speak for myself and I think it's been pretty obvious that the League was not pulling for the Pats or Brady. They punished the team and Brady for multiple infractions that didn't exist and even suspended Brady for 4 games to keep them from winning. Goodell even lied in court. That didn't work either as the Pats won anyway. Then there was the obvious TD that wasn't called in Brady's last KC game here that gave the Chiefs the #1 seed.

I do have a question concerning Mahomes though. Is it true that Mahomes has never played a playoff game on the road other than a SB? That's either a fix, incredible luck or a weak schedule. What's your guess?

 

[Vindicate]

As was the roughing call on pat. And the dead ball when the back judge waved off the play. That's my point. When it goes for one's team it's the correct call and if not, it's the league conspiracy.

*Guy comes into a specific team's forum and plasters a point of which we're literally all aware, which has been a part of the NFL zeitgeist, has been for eternity, while all fans are well aware as to its irrationality, similar to how we understand the premise of hating a player because they're in a specific city is silly*

What a new act.

 

[reesebobby]

*Guy comes into a specific team's forum and plasters a point of which we're literally all aware, which has been a part of the NFL zeitgeist, has been for eternity, while all fans are well aware as to its irrationality, similar to how we understand the premise of hating a player because they're in a specific city is silly*

What a new act.

I've been coming here for a long time talking about a lot of things. I'm not plastering anything. I'm replying in a thread that is calling the officiating terrible. And I'm pointing out that it's partly a matter of perspective and that the league used to have the same view about the Patriots as is developing with the Chiefs. And whether the calls are correct or not doesn't matter when it comes to that perspective.

 

[1960Pats]

NY has multiple camera angles, all synced. So (in theory at least) they have the ability to look at one video and judge at what point in time a ball was controlled, mark that time, and then switch to a different angle and see where the foot was at that same instant. Or they could look at a foot from multiple angles at the same time and get a much better sense than we ever could looking at sequential TV replays.

But I grant overturning a call needs to be definitive, and this seemingly wasn't.

I saw an analysis of a Gifford 1st down failure from the 1958 championship between the Giants and Colts that was done by a forensic mapper who would normally recreate crime scenes. He had Gifford being 9 inches short and he did it simply by looking at photos. Gifford went to his grave believing that the mapper was wrong and that he got the 1st down.

 

[Vindicate]

I've been coming here for a long time talking about a lot of things. I'm not plastering anything. I'm replying in a thread that is calling the officiating terrible. And I'm pointing out that it's partly a matter of perspective and that the league used to have the same view about the Patriots as is developing with the Chiefs. And whether the calls are correct or not doesn't matter when it comes to that perspective.

Whatever helps ya sleep, bobby.

 

[1960Pats]

I've been coming here for a long time talking about a lot of things. I'm not plastering anything. I'm replying in a thread that is calling the officiating terrible. And I'm pointing out that it's partly a matter of perspective and that the league used to have the same view about the Patriots as is developing with the Chiefs. And whether the calls are correct or not doesn't matter when it comes to that perspective.

Please tell me of the times that KC or Mahomes lost mulptiple draft picks and were fined and suspended for games because of violations that didn't exist? Then show me how those phony violations were used to punish the Chiefs more each time.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Clearly out of bounds is a stretch. The problem with video reviews are the angles. Not everything is what it appears to be from an angle shot.

The only solution is to install cameras on the 4 corners of the EZ to see the side views. NFL refuses to do it.

I won't rehash the TD since its been discussed ad nauseam. It was very close. Could his cleats been inbounds before the very tip of his shoe gone out by a 1/4"? Maybe. There's no way of really knowing, thus the TD call standing. We still had a chance to win and blew it.

Was the call on the field incomplete/out of bounds, or TD?

 

[reesebobby]

I do have a question concerning Mahomes though. Is it true that Mahomes has never played a playoff game on the road other than a SB? That's either a fix, incredible luck or a weak schedule. What's your guess?

Unless you believe the entire league is fixed, including all things Patriots, then a fix is off the table.

They have won the division for 7 straight years so theoretically they played the hardest schedule possible. I would say the AFC West has been mostly mediocre, but not terrible. This year they played 5 of the 7 division winners (the Chiefs were the 8th), they had the defending Super Bowl champs and runners up on the schedule, and what looked like the toughest division in the league to start the year. Over 5 years, I don't know what their strength of schedule is relative to everyone else, but I'd think it would have to be at least average. I'm sure you got tired of the weak division argument. There's nothing you can do other than play the schedule you get.

There's been luck obviously. This year would have been in Atlanta if the Bengals won. Twice they were the #2 seed and the Ravens and Titans lost in the divisional round. That's 3 of 5 years that someone else had to lose to make it happen. Over the past 5 seasons, the AFC has been pretty tough and I think that has made for some upsets in the playoffs.

I guess the answer is a combination of the Chiefs playing consistently well in the regular season to earn some high seeds and some teams not holding serve in the playoffs to help them. What also gave the Chiefs the number 1 seed that year was your loss to the 5-11 Dolphins at home to end the year. The Chiefs just haven't had those kinds of losses.