*****ty Head Ref Gives Texans 3 Fugazi Points

[PatsFaninAZ]

Clock stops on the whistle, not when the guy is down.

Football is different than basketball in that in basketball, the clock stops when a time out is granted. In football, if a time out is granted, the clock can be reset to the point where the timeout was called. It almost never matters except in the last few seconds of a quarter or to beat a play clock or to stop a play like a FG "ice" attempt. If the clock stops at 11:01 instead of 11:03 nobody cares.

You can't call a time out in the NFL until a play is over, which is signified by a whistle, but if you call time out before the play is over or are continuously calling time out, it is customary to grant it as soon as the play is over so long as you retain possession. I heard two whistles on the replay, one of which was before the clock his zeroes. If someone had called time out or was continuously calling time out -- "time out, time out, time out" -- the time out is granted as soon as the whistle ending the play occurs.

So, bottom line, if someone was calling time out near the end of the play, the sole question is whether the whistle blew to end the play before zero. It sounds like you think it didn't. I heard the first whistle before zero on the replay, but that's the issue.

 

[Sivy]

The white hat had money on the game for sure. Did you see how sad he looked toward the end when he had no choice but to call a pen. on Houston?

Fire his ass

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The white hat had money on the game for sure. Did you see how sad he looked toward the end when he had no choice but to call a pen. on Houston?

Fire his ass

For what it's worth, the "white hat" didn't make any of the calls anyone is complaining about, except for going under the hood on the replays. He just tells the crowd what his colleagues called. He didn't see the flip by Lloyd. he just called what was reported. He doesn't spot the ball, and he doesn't generally call holding unless it's obvious -- that's the umpire. He would never overrule the side judge on forward progress. He's not even looking at the play -- he's staying on the QB. I have no problem with Corrente in that game. I thought he managed the game well.

My bigger concerns are with one side judge and Umpire. But I'll tell you this about the Umpire -- he worked his butt off to get the ball ready for play, which is one of those little things that makes a huge difference when the Patriots play. There were about 5 plays where the Patriots got a huge advantage with the hurry up, and that would not have happened with at least half the Us in the NFL. That guy knew the Patriots were a hurry up team and he was on his marks all day long getting that ball ready. He also was super fast with the kicking balls and making a decision whether or not to bring the ball in the game on fourth down, which mattered in that game.

 

[Sivy]

For what it's worth, the "white hat" didn't make any of the calls anyone is complaining about, except for going under the hood on the replays. He just tells the crowd what his colleagues called. He didn't see the flip by Lloyd. he just called what was reported. He doesn't spot the ball, and he doesn't generally call holding unless it's obvious -- that's the umpire. He would never overrule the side judge on forward progress. He's not even looking at the play -- he's staying on the QB. I have no problem with Corrente in that game. I thought he managed the game well.

My bigger concerns are with one side judge and Umpire. But I'll tell you this about the Umpire -- he worked his butt off to get the ball ready for play, which is one of those little things that makes a huge difference when the Patriots play. There were about 5 plays where the Patriots got a huge advantage with the hurry up, and that would not have happened with at least half the Us in the NFL. That guy knew the Patriots were a hurry up team and he was on his marks all day long getting that ball ready. He also was super fast with the kicking balls and making a decision whether or not to bring the ball in the game on fourth down, which mattered in that game.

That makes my point even more valid.

The replay clearly showed Foster had no TD..white hat looks at it, calls it a TD

Other refs are saying fumble, (clearly because they are all trying to figure out who has the ball in the pile) they signal pats ball. Then the white hat says forward progress was stopped.WHY WAIT? WHY go through all that with the pile? I'll tell you why, because if it was Texans ball, he could have let that one go without cheating.

At the end when the ref called holding on the Texans, that pretty much sealed the game, the white hat had no view of it, there for could not make up some BS lie on why it wasnt holding, and he had the biggest look of disapointment on his face I ever saw from a ref.

Sucks he lost a bunch of money on the game

 

[BKBroiler]

The foster TD...I was not up in the air as much about whether he was in or not but as an official the #1 thing that you are taught is to see the ball before you make a call....The ref that called it a TD saw Foster's back and couldn't see the ball....If you watch the replay the other official is walking in at the half yard line and never signaled TD as he saw the ball and the play....So the call stands meaning they didn't have evidence to overturn a call that was made by an official that never should have made this call....Real nice officials....

This is exactly what got me up in arms about this play. Our seats are on the goal line 18 rows up, directly behind the ref who made this call. We couldn't see the ball from our angle at all. All you could see was his body landing short, and the official opposite with a better view not making a call. There is a zero percent chance the official on our side could have seen anything, yet he signals touchdown.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

That makes my point even more valid.

The replay clearly showed Foster had no TD..white hat looks at it, calls it a TD

Other refs are saying fumble, (clearly because they are all trying to figure out who has the ball in the pile) they signal pats ball. Then the white hat says forward progress was stopped.WHY WAIT? WHY go through all that with the pile? I'll tell you why, because if it was Texans ball, he could have let that one go without cheating.

At the end when the ref called holding on the Texans, that pretty much sealed the game, the white hat had no view of it, there for could not make up some BS lie on why it wasnt holding, and he had the biggest look of disapointment on his face I ever saw from a ref.

Sucks he lost a bunch of money on the game

1) He didn't call TD on the field, the side judge did. He said the play "stands" not confirmed, which means he didn't see enough to disagree. I didn't either. If that play had been called a TD or short of the end zone, either way, it has to stand. Replay was not "conclusive." I don't have any problem what that review. I think the side judge may have gotten it wrong, but in the NFL, the call on the field is very important. There was not clear video evidence to overrule. If the Patriots had been denied a TD in that situation with inconclusive evidence, I would be bothered.

2) The ref didn't call forward progress stopped. The side judge did. He was standing there pointing to the field saying it while the scrum was going on for the ball, but only the back judge knew it, which is why he wasn't messing with the pile. It was only after a little while that Corrente understood that the side judge has called forward progress. Plus, as a matter of mechanics, you don't understand the game. You must make a ruling on whether the Patriots recovered the ball and the spot if they did not, even if you know forward progress has been called. Why? Because there might have been been a penalty on the play you don't know about yet and it might be relevant to enforcement or decline or line of gain. Or, even with the forward progress call, replay could show the ball coming lose before the tackler engaged, in which case the call could be overruled. You always let the entire play finish and then make your call on the field so that you can reconstruct it later. The notion that he was waiting to see what happened because he didn't want to call forward progress is silly tin foil hat nonsense.

3) The ref never calls or doesn't call holding in the secondary. He reports it. The conference there was to make sure it was holding not PI, because PI would be negated by the tip. That's good officiating.

 

[upstater1]

Football is different than basketball in that in basketball, the clock stops when a time out is granted. In football, if a time out is granted, the clock can be reset to the point where the timeout was called. It almost never matters except in the last few seconds of a quarter or to beat a play clock or to stop a play like a FG "ice" attempt. If the clock stops at 11:01 instead of 11:03 nobody cares.

You can't call a time out in the NFL until a play is over, which is signified by a whistle, but if you call time out before the play is over or are continuously calling time out, it is customary to grant it as soon as the play is over so long as you retain possession. I heard two whistles on the replay, one of which was before the clock his zeroes. If someone had called time out or was continuously calling time out -- "time out, time out, time out" -- the time out is granted as soon as the whistle ending the play occurs.

So, bottom line, if someone was calling time out near the end of the play, the sole question is whether the whistle blew to end the play before zero. It sounds like you think it didn't. I heard the first whistle before zero on the replay, but that's the issue.

Gotcha. I didn't know there were two whistles. It sounds like we agree. If a whistle came before the time expiration, then the TO was granted then.

 

[upstater1]

Football is different than basketball in that in basketball, the clock stops when a time out is granted. In football, if a time out is granted, the clock can be reset to the point where the timeout was called. It almost never matters except in the last few seconds of a quarter or to beat a play clock or to stop a play like a FG "ice" attempt. If the clock stops at 11:01 instead of 11:03 nobody cares.

You can't call a time out in the NFL until a play is over, which is signified by a whistle, but if you call time out before the play is over or are continuously calling time out, it is customary to grant it as soon as the play is over so long as you retain possession. I heard two whistles on the replay, one of which was before the clock his zeroes. If someone had called time out or was continuously calling time out -- "time out, time out, time out" -- the time out is granted as soon as the whistle ending the play occurs.

So, bottom line, if someone was calling time out near the end of the play, the sole question is whether the whistle blew to end the play before zero. It sounds like you think it didn't. I heard the first whistle before zero on the replay, but that's the issue.

One more thing. sometimes this issue is confused in basketball as well: Connecticut v. Syracuse - 2010 Feb. 10 - Last 6 Minutes - YouTube

At 5:45 you see the ref grant the timeout and blow the whistle but it's after the ball leaves the player's hand. Three separate contradictory rules went into this play as explained here:

UConn-Syracuse ends on questionable call - Men's College Basketball Nation Blog - ESPN

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

One more thing. sometimes this issue is confused in basketball as well: Connecticut v. Syracuse - 2010 Feb. 10 - Last 6 Minutes - YouTube

At 5:45 you see the ref grant the timeout and blow the whistle but it's after the ball leaves the player's hand. Three separate contradictory rules went into this play as explained here:

UConn-Syracuse ends on questionable call - Men's College Basketball Nation Blog - ESPN

I remember that game. There's some really interesting stuff in there I didn't know -- like the part about it going to alternating possession. Every time I see this play at the end of a game in NCAA, it seems like they never really put the clock at the point at where the official signals time out. They always add a few more tenths. I think, basically, they say to themselves, "ehh, I granted it in my mind earlier and I'm not going to punish a team for my old man reflexes."

 

[Claremonster]

No,now the ravens come to town with Ray Louis and Jon Harbaugh. Wouldn't it be nice to see Ray Ray go out with the SB as his last game. And what a story it would be seeing the Harbaugh brothers playing against each other in the SB. If the fix is going to be in, its going to in in this week.

I thought about this as well. The Pats better just plan on steamrolling the next two games, so the bad calls from the refs don't change the outcome of the game.

 

[GaryfromTO]

If Loyd's flipping the ball at the ref was unsportsmanlike conduct, then what would you call JJ Watts' little display of trash talking and wagging his finger at Ridley after making a tackle?

 

[Claremonster]

Yeah and I thought they blew the whistle when he was contacted down. It was a bang bang play so not unheard of to get the whistle and TO within 2 seconds. In all fairness they deserved the attempt because he did make the catch, was contacted on the ground with 2 seconds left.

The clock never stopped until it was 0:00.

Also, on the special teams play, there was obvious holding as a Texan was giving a Pats player a bear hug hold...right in the front of a ref. He does nothing about it. Blatant negligence.

 

[Sivy]

1) He didn't call TD on the field, the side judge did. He said the play "stands" not confirmed, which means he didn't see enough to disagree. I didn't either. If that play had been called a TD or short of the end zone, either way, it has to stand. Replay was not "conclusive." I don't have any problem what that review. I think the side judge may have gotten it wrong, but in the NFL, the call on the field is very important. There was not clear video evidence to overrule. If the Patriots had been denied a TD in that situation with inconclusive evidence, I would be bothered.

2) The ref didn't call forward progress stopped. The side judge did. He was standing there pointing to the field saying it while the scrum was going on for the ball, but only the back judge knew it, which is why he wasn't messing with the pile. It was only after a little while that Corrente understood that the side judge has called forward progress. Plus, as a matter of mechanics, you don't understand the game. You must make a ruling on whether the Patriots recovered the ball and the spot if they did not, even if you know forward progress has been called. Why? Because there might have been been a penalty on the play you don't know about yet and it might be relevant to enforcement or decline or line of gain. Or, even with the forward progress call, replay could show the ball coming lose before the tackler engaged, in which case the call could be overruled. You always let the entire play finish and then make your call on the field so that you can reconstruct it later. The notion that he was waiting to see what happened because he didn't want to call forward progress is silly tin foil hat nonsense.

3) The ref never calls or doesn't call holding in the secondary. He reports it. The conference there was to make sure it was holding not PI, because PI would be negated by the tip. That's good officiating.

You're not understanding my point, but I'm way to lazy to type out any more.

I will say that the silly tin foil hat comment is laughable, just ask NBA refs.

When I say Ref, I dont mean just the Ref, thats just what the general public calls every person with stripes on their shirts on the field. I understand that there are line judges, umpires and what not. I too was a High School ref, but I stopped because that ***** sucked.

 

[Claremonster]

Also on the hit that Gregory did...that was about as tickytack as you can get. BS.

 

[Sivy]

1) He didn't call TD on the field, the side judge did. He said the play "stands" not confirmed, which means he didn't see enough to disagree. I didn't either. If that play had been called a TD or short of the end zone, either way, it has to stand. Replay was not "conclusive." I don't have any problem what that review. I think the side judge may have gotten it wrong, but in the NFL, the call on the field is very important. There was not clear video evidence to overrule. If the Patriots had been denied a TD in that situation with inconclusive evidence, I would be bothered.

2) The ref didn't call forward progress stopped. The side judge did. He was standing there pointing to the field saying it while the scrum was going on for the ball, but only the back judge knew it, which is why he wasn't messing with the pile. It was only after a little while that Corrente understood that the side judge has called forward progress. Plus, as a matter of mechanics, you don't understand the game. You must make a ruling on whether the Patriots recovered the ball and the spot if they did not, even if you know forward progress has been called. Why? Because there might have been been a penalty on the play you don't know about yet and it might be relevant to enforcement or decline or line of gain. Or, even with the forward progress call, replay could show the ball coming lose before the tackler engaged, in which case the call could be overruled. You always let the entire play finish and then make your call on the field so that you can reconstruct it later. The notion that he was waiting to see what happened because he didn't want to call forward progress is silly tin foil hat nonsense.

3) The ref never calls or doesn't call holding in the secondary. He reports it. The conference there was to make sure it was holding not PI, because PI would be negated by the tip. That's good officiating.

The more I think about this post, the more its laughable. Forward progress calls are almost always called right away. We dont just let things keep going on "just in case"

Its also "tin foil hat nonsense" to think that another human can not be influenced by another human or humans or, even more so. Money.

Why do you defend these refs so much? THat was one of the most clear examples of a game trying to be controlled by the Refs. The only problem they had is that the pats were to good for the **** texans for it to matter. The game was no where near as close as the score said.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I too was a High School ref, but I stopped because that ***** sucked.

Well, we can agree on that.

 

[bresna]

Why wasn't the hit on Wes Welker in the 1st deemed "Hitting a defenseless receiver" while the Patriots hit on Walters in the 4th quarter was?

 

[Chopblock CB]

I don't know how players show so much restraint out there. After that "foreword progress" bs on the fumble I wanted to grab one of those clowns by the neck. That was as clean as a strip you'll see and it was almost instantaneous on the tackle. Its also funny how a whistle never blew immediately and only after it was clear possession was lost and there was a huge pile did that ******* come running in pointing to the ground.

Happened right in front of me...we knew it when it happened..even up on the jumbotron they could see he screwed up so they called it "Forward progress stopped" to cover his fellow officials arse....That's called as much as "In the Grasp" is called

 

[reflexblue]

I thought about this as well. The Pats better just plan on steamrolling the next two games, so the bad calls from the refs don't change the outcome of the game.

Again i think if the fix is in it will be this Sunday against the Ravens. If the Pats make it to the SB there wouldn't be a reason to try and get the most favorable out come as far as TV ratings go. Ray Lewis's last game and the Harbaugh brothers battling it out would be a great audience draw. I'm pretty sure the Godell, NBC, and the rest of the sports media would love and prefer the Niners and Ravens.

 

[Sivy]

Well, we can agree on that.

Usually I defend the Refs because that job is brutal. Even on the lowest level, you got fans, parents, coaches and players screaming at you every which way. Thinking you have eyes behind, and on the sides of your head.

It gets heated out there. Even on the pee wee level, I've known some refs to take guns to certian cities, parents getting in fist fights over games and players punching officals. Its crazy