Officiating

[reesebobby]

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.

The Chiefs lost multiple draft picks and were fined for a BS tampering accusation of Jeremy Maclin. But you probably don't care.

 

[venecol]

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

I thought it was called a TD. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[1960Pats]

The Chiefs lost multiple draft picks and were fined for a BS tampering accusation of Jeremy Maclin. But you probably don't care.

So they lost picks and were fined for tampering once. That it?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The Chiefs lost multiple draft picks and were fined for a BS tampering accusation of Jeremy Maclin. But you probably don't care.

A 3rd rounder and a 6th rounder, for a clear violation of actually agreeing with a soon-to-be Free agent on a contract.

The KC appeal/defense wasn't that they did not do it, but that losing a 3rd rounder and a 6th rounder, plus fines, was too harsh given that "others do it too". So is wasn't really "BS" as much as it was (arguably) selective enforcement.

A far cry from a team losing draft picks and having a QB suspended simply because the laws of he Universe demand that a football cooled down by 20 degrees will lose some pressure, and the NFL didn't know this, and decided to deny the clear scientific truth.

 

[reesebobby]

So they lost picks and were fined for tampering once. That it?

See? I told you you don't care. You're right. It's a huge conspiracy against the patriots and for the chiefs. Poor you.

 

[archstanton543]

A 3rd rounder and a 6th rounder, for a clear violation of actually agreeing with a soon-to-be Free agent on a contract.

The KC appeal/defense wasn't that they did not do it, but that losing a 3rd rounder and a 6th rounder, plus fines, was too harsh given that "others do it too". So is wasn't really "BS" as much as it was (arguably) selective enforcement.

A far cry from a team losing draft picks and having a QB suspended simply because the laws of he Universe demand than a football cooled down by 20 degrees will lose some pressure, and the NFL didn't know this, and decided to deny the clear scientific truth.

Not to mention getting more picks taken because some dummy from Kraft Sports filmed the sidelines (allegedly) at a game. Picks were take because of the Pats "history" and for no other reason.

 

[captain stone]

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

I thought it was called a TD. Maybe I'm wrong.

TD.

 

[fourhour]

How did they benefit from the tuck rule when they lost a game to the tuck rule, which changed the entire seeding for the playoffs? If there was no tuck rule, they have a better won loss record, and higher seeding.

I went back and looked at the final standings for that year (only 3 divisions then) and my guess is had we won that game against the Jetes that would've made Seattle the final wild card. Am I right?

 

[upstater1]

I went back and looked at the final standings for that year (only 3 divisions then) and my guess is had we won that game against the Jetes that would've made Seattle the final wild card. Am I right?

I honestly don't know. I quoted this from a Globe article I read a decade ago. That may have been what the writer determined. It would've been Seattle v. Raiders. Patriots would've been 12-4.

 

[fourhour]

Thanks for your reply. I was in an internet discussion about the "tuck" rule and recalled your reply and wanted to verify it. Seems to me that a Seattle/Oakland game would've occurred, altering the seedings.

 

[upstater1]

Thanks for your reply. I was in an internet discussion about the "tuck" rule and recalled your reply and wanted to verify it. Seems to me that a Seattle/Oakland game would've occurred, altering the seedings.

The problem with even saying this is that the Testaverde tuck rule was the 2nd game of the season, so the entire season changes for many teams. It's an impossible argument really but worth remembering.

 

[fourhour]

The problem with even saying this is that the Testaverde tuck rule was the 2nd game of the season, so the entire season changes for many teams. It's an impossible argument really but worth remembering.

How does it change for many teams? If the Jete loses that game, Seahawks get the 6th wild card, no?

 

[Jlaff]

It's an inadvertent whistle situation. Its not the chiefs job to referee the game. They sent the punt team out because they had to. The back judge waved off a play in the middle. It sucks for everyone but there's only one solution. And it's to redo the play. Nobody knows what chiefs receivers saw an official waving arms and quit the play. Nobody knows what patrick saw. I know you want the chiefs to lose that game, but when an official blows a play dead, it's dead. It's not a conspiracy. It's just how it is.

I've said earlier the way that ref half-assed called the play dead off camera then sat and waited for the outcome was suspicious as hell.

People who, without any critical thought, just automatically side with the officials and assume everything must be on the up and up - just because - are the people creating an environment that enables cheating.

 

[Jlaff]

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:

People who don't question things when questionable things happen are truly useful idiots. That's how deflategate happens.

 

[Jlaff]

See? I told you you don't care. You're right. It's a huge conspiracy against the patriots and for the chiefs. Poor you.

I change my vote to "in favor" of the up/down votes.

 

[1960Pats]

See? I told you you don't care. You're right. It's a huge conspiracy against the patriots and for the chiefs. Poor you.

It was a simple question. I actually care more that you chose to lie and call it a bs accusation, which it wasn't.

Thanks for agreeing with me about the conspiracy though. And thanks for the sympathy but as a Pats fan I'm in a very good place.

Oh, and I need to thank you as a Broncos fan. Before the season started I saw that the over/under win total for Denver was 10.5. No really, it was 10.5. I put 20K on the under and won that by mid-season.

 

[1960Pats]

Not to mention getting more picks taken because some dummy from Kraft Sports filmed the sidelines (allegedly) at a game. Picks were take because of the Pats "history" and for no other reason.

It was really sinister when you think about it.
Fine a team a record amount and take away their first pick over a nothing burger, and then use that as a reason to take more picks away for more nothings. And then take the QB away for 4 games for more nothings. Speaking of which, didn't the NYFL measure the PSI for all games the next season. Whatever happened to those results?

 

[1960Pats]

I honestly don't know. I quoted this from a Globe article I read a decade ago. That may have been what the writer determined. It would've been Seattle v. Raiders. Patriots would've been 12-4.

The key to that season for me was the last game of the year between the Jets and Raiders. That Jets win gave us the home playoff game.

I remember it well because I went to the Pats last game that year in Charlotte with my son and we were among about 10,000 Pats fans behind the Pats bench and a handful of Panthers fans scattered about. One Panthers fan with a bag over his head changed seats when he realized that we were taking over that side

I also remember all of us looking at the scoreboard and chanting J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets during the game. It worked.

And when I got home and was sitting at a bar I mentioned that the Pats could actually win it all. I was thinking back to the Rams game that was a loss but a very competitive game. One of my friends looked at me and said "they may make it to the SB but there's no way they're beating the Rams." I still remind him on the rare occasion that I see him.

I enjoy telling this story, one of many memories from that weekend.

 

[bresna]

It was really sinister when you think about it.
Fine a team a record amount and take away their first pick over a nothing burger, and then use that as a reason to take more picks away for more nothings. And then take the QB away for 4 games for more nothings. Speaking of which, didn't the NYFL measure the PSI for all games the next season. Whatever happened to those results?

The NFL did do that but when pressed on it, they claimed that they did it for internal reasons and that they didn't keep the records. So basically, the checks showed that they were the buffoons we all knew they were, so they didn't feel like saying it out loud.

All in their efforts to smear the New England Patriots.

Sometimes I wonder if this will change when Belichick retires but I'm guessing that it won't. The only way the biased replay officiating goes away is if the NFL moves that replay office out of Jets/Giants territory. There is no way the Patriots are going to get a fair review from any Jets fan.

BTW - Google images of "low tire pressure cold temps" and you'll get hits like this:

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Agree that the officiating is worse than ever, so bad that the announcing team needs to add a league officiating apologist to the broadcast to gaslight the viewers into not believing their lying eyes.