Welcome to PatsFans.com

Two Qs about officiating in Dolphins game

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Seacoast Fan, Dec 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seacoast Fan

    Seacoast Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +26 / 1 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    I was at the game last Sunday, and there were two calls by the officials that had everyone in my section...hell, the stadium...really ticked off.

    1. The spot of the ball on the play where BB threw the challenge flag. From where I sat, I didnt have a great view of it, but they showed the replay once on the jumbotron and it sure looked like the official spotted the ball a good two yards down the field, thereby giving Miami a first down. I have not seen a replay since....Was that a good spot or not?

    2. Pass interference on (I think) McCourty, in front of the Miami sideline, about the 30 yd line or so...it was on third down and extended their drive. On this one, I had a decent view of it, and it sure looked uncatchable...the receiver looked to be fully extended, and the ball was still 3-4 feet over his outstretched arms. It looked like Mccourty did give him a shove in the back, but it didn't look that hard, and didn't seem to keept the pass from being caught as the ball was way high. No replay was shown at the stadium and I haven't seen a replay since. Was that a good call or not?


    P.S. On both those calls, we all booed the sh!t out of the refs...just saying :D
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2011
  2. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,788
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The ball was very uncatchable and it was a terrible call by the officials.

    However, it went right along with their refusal to call PI twice earlier when Dolphin defenders mugged Wes Welker on short third down passes. All in all, the officials hit the trifecta with their PI decisions.
  3. patfanken

    patfanken On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    371
    Ratings:
    +640 / 17 / -8

    #91 Jersey

    I fully agreed with you on this....UNTIL, they showed the 3rd view of the play, which was diferent from the other 2 which seemed to show that they officials got the call corretly. From the initial call ,and a couple of other replays it looked like they got it wrong, but the 3rd one got it right. After the fact it was amazing they got it right the first time.

    On the second, I thought it was a very unnecessary call. The ball was well overthrown, but there was some incidental contact. You can blame the ref, but McCourty's lack of situational and ball awareness also contributed to the illusion that it "might" have been called a PI. Even then it was marginal, and totally out of context with the game.

    McCourty is going to have to develop that "game smartness" in the playoffs, and not allow the official to even think about a flag on a senseless play like that one.
  4. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +67 / 4 / -0

    #24 Jersey

    Can't speak on 1, but 2 was a horrible call. I believe the receiver managed to get a finger or two on the ball, but it was pretty clearly uncatchable. The other issue is McCourty contacted the receiver at about the same time as the receiver touched the ball. If the refs were calling a tight game as far as PI all game long I could stomach this call, but there were at least 3 times where Phins defenders tackled Welker a split second before the ball arrived, if you're going to let that go there's no way you can call McCourty on that play.

    I firmly believe it was a make-up call for the BS personal-foul against the Phins on the previous play, but the two just don't equal out... The second completely negates the damage caused by the first, plus extra yardage, and a free first down. Two embarrassingly bad calls by the refs on back to back plays that clearly had a large impact.
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The commentators said that since the receiver touched the ball (with his fingertips) it couldn't be considered uncatchable.
  6. UK_Pat37

    UK_Pat37 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +44 / 5 / -8

    #12 Jersey

    This,...I think it was marginal, but I understand why they called it..they're trained to call penalties when they see certain things...when they see a player get a finger on it, that's deemed catchable.

    What annoyed me was it was very marginal, and then there were two cases where Welker seemed to be clearly impeded in his attempt to catch the ball....they were marginal too, and had McCourty's not been called I could have lived with it. I was a little annoyed they called McCourty's and not at least one of the potential flags on Welker's catch attempts.

    As for the spot of the ball review...I was pretty sure they were going to overturn it...but they clearly felt they had nothing to go by (they always looks for something to gauge it against). Now obviously we are biased, but I don't think there was a great deal the officials could gauge it on. It wasn't a case of 2 yards, it was more case of half a yard if anything.
  7. Seacoast Fan

    Seacoast Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +26 / 1 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    I didnt realize the ball grazed his fingertips...I thought it sailed well over his hands.
  8. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,309
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +364 / 24 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    I know the commentators claimed that Hartline touched the ball, but they were full of garbage. He never got close to it despite his claim. Replays showed it clearly.
  9. PatsFanNM

    PatsFanNM Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I looked at a replay over and over, frame by frame, and never saw his fingers close to the ball. Someone claimed the ball was 10 feet over his head, which it wasn't. But I'd say it was 2-3 feet beyond his fingertips.

    Given that he already had made a pretty good jump to try and get the ball, it's hard to imagine that McCourty's contact could have made up the difference.

    Frankly, a lot of defensive PI is called on balls that look uncatchable. It could be that the refs are looking at the players to see if one or both are interfering with each other. They don't actually see where the ball is, except in their peripheral vision -- especially, as in this case, where the ball was so far away! That might have been a clue for them.

    After the game McCourty said he has to play with the proper technique so he doesn't give the refs a chance to make a [bad] call. He's right.
  10. Seanzayyy

    Seanzayyy Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +73 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    This. On the one bomb to Marshall (at least I'm pretty sure it was Marshall), it looked like McCourty could have easily played the ball and batted it down or come away with a pick. He was in great position, yet he just looked at Marshall the entire time. If that ball was underthrown, it would have been another PI call.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>