Some strange calls by refs in Broncos Steelers playoff game

[brdmaverick]

Re: Some strange calls

The Decker catch was ruled a incomplete pass.
Wtf are you talking about?

It was ruled an incomplete pass ONLY AFTER REPLAY.

My complaint is that it was initially ruled a reception when it should have been as clear as day to everyone else that it was incomplete. So that's "WTF" I'm talkin about.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

Re: Some strange calls

A point of emphasis for the refs in all 4 games this weekend was 12 men in the huddle, it looked like they were calling it by the letter of the law.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: Some strange calls

I genuinely believe these guys don't give a crap who wins. And the notion that commands to call it a certain way come from the league is message board conspiracy crap.

I have posted about Winter's crew not being up to the speed of the game. (Actually, though, I'm not sure this was the regular season crew or whether they do "all star" crews for the playoffs. I think it was the regular crew.) I thought that was true yesterday. Denver is actually a tough place for the officials, because they aren't acclimated. You could tell Winter was actually winded at the coin flip when he was trying to explain the OT rules.

I don't understand the "whistle blew" issue. I think that happens all the time. The usual context is that the crew calls a player down by contact, but replay shows it was a fumble. The ball in that case is frequently recovered after the whistle, but the rule is that so long as the fumble is shown and clear recovery is made by the defense and shown by video, you overturn. Maybe the rule is different when the fumble issue is forward/backward pass, as opposed to down or not down by contact.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Re: Some strange calls

The part that confuses me is weren't refs encouraged to let the play playout in questionable situations so that the recovering team could be determined?

 

[Yehoodi]

Re: Some strange calls

I don't think you can change the rule. If the whistle blows, and the ball is on the ground, the play has to be over. What's the alternative?

This was simply incompetence on the part of one of the officials.

what bothers me is that a few years ago the NFL made a point to tell the refs to let the play go and not call the whistle, its it just too bad on a call like that they blew the whistle . . . the realy cynical part of me thinks, that the refs knew that the game was in the control of the broncos and that call would essentially put the game away for the broncos, and was the way i felt when i saw it, basically game over, at least kill 2 mins on the clock and get at least a FG and go up by three scores . . . but that call changed all of that and thank God it did not effect the outcome of the game . . . after SB 40 and 43, i am kind of tired of seeing close game effecting calls go the way of the steelers . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

Re: Some strange calls

It was ruled an incomplete pass ONLY AFTER REPLAY.

My complaint is that it was initially ruled a reception when it should have been as clear as day to everyone else that it was incomplete. So that's "WTF" I'm talkin about.

to be fair the ref nearest the play was blocked by the player and did not see the ball come out and hit the ground . . . the same with the pitt WR catch, it was tough to see incomplete live, but one could see it after reply . . .

we much remember we have HD cameras nowadays that can take sharp, focus and slow motion replays that might it much easier to see things on replay then with the nake eye in real time . . .

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: Some strange calls

As for the conspiracy theory that the refs were trying to help the Steelers, even though I absolutely LOATHE the Steelers, I would have to disagree. Sure the play in question was a bad call, plain and simple, but the calls seem to go both ways yesterday. Denver was certainly the beneficiary of some questionable calls.

The 'roughing the qb' penalty was pretty weak.

And as far as bad calls are concerned, when Eric Decker caught that pass and it rolled away as it hit the ground, I'm sure it was pretty obvious to all of us that it should have been ruled an incomplete pass. Not sure why the refs were trying to give the Broncos the call there.

The roughing the QB call was absolutely the correct call, Tebow had already released the ball and the defender made no attempt to let up and just hit Tebow, that gets called 100% of the time and is the right call in todays NFL.
The Decker play wasnt as obvious as you're making it out to be, but the point is it was reviewable and they got it right.

 

[brdmaverick]

Re: Some strange calls

to be fair the ref nearest the play was blocked by the player and did not see the ball come out and hit the ground . . . the same with the pitt WR catch, it was tough to see incomplete live, but one could see it after reply . . .

we much remember we have HD cameras nowadays that can take sharp, focus and slow motion replays that might it much easier to see things on replay then with the nake eye in real time . . .

Sorry, I know we are arguing a small point, but it should be clear to everyone (close or not close to the play), the ball literally rolled way from the receiver after the play. It does not take HD cameras to see that. A player must maintain possession all the way to the ground, and he clearly did NOT.

If you said it takes HD cameras to over rule the Mike Wallace 50 yard catch, well I would agree wiht you on that one.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Some strange calls

Referees are only human and, as such, are not perfect. Human error will always be a part of football, especially given the massive amount of judgement calls made on a game by game basis. Absolutely nothing could ever possibly be done to eliminate such errors. Not more refs, not fewer refs, not full time refs. Not more replay, not less replay. There are no conspiracies either from Las Vegas based gamblers or the NY based commissioner.

People love feeling persectued; i.e. "we lost because the referees were against us" or "we won despite the fact the referees were against us." The officiating isn't any worse these days than in the past, the major difference is that every single call is analyzed over and over by our instant media culture, as opposed to 30 years ago where a bad call might get 5 seconds of play on the local news.

 

[lamafist]

Re: Some strange calls

Referees are only human and, as such, are not perfect. Human error will always be a part of football, especially given the massive amount of judgement calls made on a game by game basis. Absolutely nothing could ever possibly be done to eliminate such errors. Not more refs, not fewer refs, not full time refs. Not more replay, not less replay. There are no conspiracies either from Las Vegas based gamblers or the NY based commissioner.

People love feeling persectued; i.e. "we lost because the referees were against us" or "we won despite the fact the referees were against us." The officiating isn't any worse these days than in the past, the major difference is that every single call is analyzed over and over by our instant media culture, as opposed to 30 years ago where a bad call might get 5 seconds of play on the local news.

You think it's our 'media culture?' Seems to me that the sporting press has been pretty fanatical for some time. I think the big difference is that we now have multiple angles of close-up HD video of every controversial play to analyze. I think the immaculate reception would have gotten the Zappruder treatment if there had been the tv technology we have now back then.

As for the inevitability of officiating errors: the fact that they can't be 100% eliminated is not a valid argument for making no effort to minimize them as much as possible. (Imagine that line of thinking applied to surgery: "Hey, human error will always be a part of medicine, so why bother to make rules about counting to make sure you end up with the name number of surgical implements you started out with with?)

Yes, errors are inevitable, and there is no perfect system that will correct all of them. But nobody likes seeing a game turn on a bad call, so the league will, and should, do what it can, within reason, to keep this to a minimum.

Personally, with something like this, I think the correct rules are in place, and it was a pretty bad screw-up by the official. When it's questionable whether a pass is lateral or not, whether a ball was caught and fumbled or incomplete, etc., the refs have been instructed to let things play out before stopping the play and making their ruling.

I personally think that minimizing the number of brain-farts like these would be just one of many benefits of having full-time refs.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Some strange calls

You think it's our 'media culture?' Seems to me that the sporting press has been pretty fanatical for some time.

If by "some time" you mean the past 10 to 15 years or so then yeah. But 30 years ago there was no instant, endless internet, ESPN and talk radio discussion of every single play.

As for the inevitability of officiating errors: the fact that they can't be 100% eliminated is not a valid argument for making no effort to minimize them as much as possible. (Imagine that line of thinking applied to surgery: "Hey, human error will always be a part of medicine, so why bother to make rules about counting to make sure you end up with the name number of surgical implements you started out with with?)

I have no problem with tweaks to improve the system. But the radical overhauls that some people are suggesting are ridiculous and would cause 100 times more problems than the one they purport to solve. To use your own analogy, it is as if some people are suggesting "hey someone just died on the operating table. We should stop using hospitals and doctors!"

I personally think that minimizing the number of brain-farts like these would be just one of many benefits of having full-time refs.

This is what I consider the silliest, most non sensical of suggestions. How is studying a playbook in July going to stop a referee from miscalling a lateral in January? They have full time officials in baseball, so I guess baseball is free of atrocious calls, huh?

 

[102 Pat]

Re: Some strange calls

I hope that the Pats aren't on the receiving end of any bad calls saturday night that could potentially cost them the game...

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

Re: Some strange calls

I thought the Decker play should've been ruled a fumble. He caught it ran some steps, making it a complete pass to me and then fumbled the ball when he hit the ground. I thought the refs were back in forth in this game, though Steelers did get the best of the cheating.

 

[italia44]

Re: Some strange calls

The part that confuses me is weren't refs encouraged to let the play playout in questionable situations so that the recovering team could be determined?

You nailed it:rocker:

 

[BlitzFritz]

Re: Some strange calls

I genuinely believe these guys don't give a crap who wins. And the notion that commands to call it a certain way come from the league is message board conspiracy crap.

I have posted about Winter's crew not being up to the speed of the game. (Actually, though, I'm not sure this was the regular season crew or whether they do "all star" crews for the playoffs. I think it was the regular crew.) I thought that was true yesterday. Denver is actually a tough place for the officials, because they aren't acclimated. You could tell Winter was actually winded at the coin flip when he was trying to explain the OT rules.

I don't understand the "whistle blew" issue. I think that happens all the time. The usual context is that the crew calls a player down by contact, but replay shows it was a fumble. The ball in that case is frequently recovered after the whistle, but the rule is that so long as the fumble is shown and clear recovery is made by the defense and shown by video, you overturn. Maybe the rule is different when the fumble issue is forward/backward pass, as opposed to down or not down by contact.

This is a really important observation. The difference is lost on me too.

 

[lillloyd]

Re: Some strange calls

There's an article in the Denver Post this morning about how, by letter of the rule, Denver's game-winning play might have been illegal because they were technically in an illegal formation.

**DISCLAIMER: I'm a Steelers fan, but I'm *glad* this was not called because a great play would have been cheaply called back on what's basically a technicality. Denver played great--they definitely outplayed us--and deserved the win.**

That said, for those of you that believe in official and league-wide conspiracy theories (and believe it or not, these theories are forwarded by fanbases everywhere regarding teams they don't particularly care for), imagine for a second that the opposite had happened, and Pittsburgh had won the game on a great play where they were lined up improperly, and it wasn't called. Wouldn't you have been screaming bloody murder that the refs and the league were conspiring to favor Pittsburgh? (And if so, how does the fact that this happened for Denver fit into your grand conspiracy theory?)

Gerry: Was Tebow's winning TD an illegal play?

You can debate whether the Steelers get more calls than your team, but to call it some sort of ref- or even league-mandated conspiracy is bunk. Many Steelers fans forwarded similar conspiracy theories about Goodell and Kraft and the Patriots after the "Spygate" thing in '07, which to me was equally absurd. Believe it or not, refs can get calls wrong all by themselves, absent any express orders to do so from management.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Re: Some strange calls

Also they need to allow teams to challenge until they lose 2 challenges. It's stupid that you can use a challenge on something that obviously was the wrong call, then if you lose 1 borderline challenge, you are out of challenges.

 

[WhiZa]

Re: Some strange calls

I thought the Decker play should've been ruled a fumble. He caught it ran some steps, making it a complete pass to me and then fumbled the ball when he hit the ground. I thought the refs were back in forth in this game, though Steelers did get the best of the cheating.

I also thought he made 2 steps, but the ball came out after his elbow was down.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

Re: Some strange calls

I thought the Decker play should've been ruled a fumble. He caught it ran some steps, making it a complete pass to me and then fumbled the ball when he hit the ground. I thought the refs were back in forth in this game, though Steelers did get the best of the cheating.

The ground can't cause a fumble. He would have been down by contact in that case, which is what I thought the call was going to be because he had gotten possession and taken two steps before Harrison removed a ligament or two.