Ed Hochuli SUCKS thread

[Huckleberry1]

Not sure what the concrete evidence was to overturn McCourty's yards after interception either. Just bad.

I believe that's known as the Butterfly Effect, the breeze from McCourtys being passing through space fluttered against the returner and marked McCourty down. That may be the weakest call in NFL history.

 

[mosslost]

Now now, don't let the win + Jones let you forget that Hochuli made one of the most ****ing absurdly dumb calls ever on that "forward progress" on a strip sack of a QB who was in the pocket.

He is just so awful. It's a travesty that a certain ref being in a game is a cause of concern.

He wants to be part of the show so much

 

[RobertWeathers]

Saying that "we got a phantom hold call" and following it up with "it evened out in the end" makes it sound like it was a bad call against Baltimore.

I said during the game thread Hochuli seems to have become an NFL stooge. He had 3 bad calls in the first half.

Calling back the strip sack. The call of McCourty down by contact (you can't be down if you don't have control of the ball). The Unsportsmanlike on Butler when he's the one who got elbowed in the helmet by Smith.

Hock-A-loogie is a terrible ref.

I'm just glad there weren't any BS PI calls.

 

[archstanton543]

I believe that's known as the Butterfly Effect, the breeze from McCourtys being passing through space fluttered against the returner and marked McCourty down. That may be the weakest call in NFL history.

You can see his finger bend back when it contacts McCourty's hand. Look at it again. He does actually touch him.

 

[jri37]

Lets see if I can do good ol Ed justice...After review, the OP has a very good point. Although the the defender stripped the ball from the QB and was clearly a strip sack and turnover, it was determined that I blew my whistle in jubilant excitement thus killing the play even though it was pre-mature. As it turned out it was fortuitous for me as I know it will be a tremendous opportunity for quality air time. The draw back is I then had to make my way to the sideline with my tail between my legs and explain to Darth Hoodie and opine to him in only the way I know how and inform him of my error. The ball will be placed at the spot of where I erroneously blew my whistle and we will start the clock when i finish my 2 minute dissertation of the situation. What? Huh? my mike wasn't on? Awesome I get to do this again!!! Wait let me tear my sleeves off and flex. I have an even better explanation that is 30 seconds longer.

 

[Angelpats]

You can see his finger bend back when it contacts McCourty's hand. Look at it again. He does actually touch him.

He was touched on the hand but the refs forgot about the other part about down by contact. Mccourty needed to establish possession which didn't happen until after the touch.

 

[FortressX]

Hopefully that "forward progress" call that cost the Pats a chance at an early lead will mean Mr Muscles will not have a chance for "forward progress" into working a playoff game.

 

[aluminum seats]

On the plus side, that was a hell of a play by Flowers.

 

[GoBlue]

Refs ruin a lot of games. The Lions Bears was almost unwatchable because of all the penalties by Tripletts crew. Another of the really bad crews. They are all flag happy.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

He was touched on the hand but the refs forgot about the other part about down by contact. Mccourty needed to establish possession which didn't happen until after the touch.

Maybe Hocculi confused down by contact with down by contract?

I kid (mostly).

 

[TomPatriot]

I thought he missed a few calls, like a blatant hold in the end zone on the Weddle pick. On whole, there are referees who are worse.

 

[TBR]

Not sure what the concrete evidence was to overturn McCourty's yards after interception either. Just bad.

I thought it was crystal clear that he didn't gain possession until after the Ravens player grazed him.

At worst, it should've been not enough evidence to overturn.

Thankfully Brady & Bennett got the yardage back in 1 play.

 

[DaBruinz]

You can see his finger bend back when it contacts McCourty's hand. Look at it again. He does actually touch him.

Contact before McCourty has control of the ball doesn't mean jack. It has to be contact after McCourty has control and it wasn't there.

 

[chasa]

my only question is what the **** is pass interference now a days.

One play 11 had someone on his back before the pass arrived, on the int in the endzone a raven players was pushing our guy out the back of the end zone.

 

[GoBlue]

That was a tough call to make. I can live with those. It's the other blatant penalties that do or don't get called that are so obvious.

 

[XLIX]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the refs blew the whistle and killed the play. Once a play is stopped you can't overturn whatever happens after the whistle. It's as if the play never occurred.

They changed the whistle rule. If the ref blows a play dead but there is a fumble and a "clear recovery" by the defense, the recovery will count even though the whistle had already blown.

However, forward progress being stopped is a judgement call so it cannot be reviewed. As I mentioned in the game thread, it is the ultimate referee cop-out move and if that play was an instance of forward progress being stopped, then no QB sack has ever resulted in a fumble in the history of the NFL.

 

[XLIX]

HUH?? The false starts were legit, including Flacco's.

I agree but it is hardly ever called. Peyton Manning made a career of doing a little 2-step at the snap, which is illegal in a couple of ways.

 

[XLIX]

I thought he missed a few calls, like a blatant hold in the end zone on the Weddle pick. On whole, there are referees who are worse.

I'd like to comment on the above, but the ESPN camerawork was so atrocious on that play that I literally have still not seen the interception with my own eyes.

 

[Brick27]

The down by contact was very frustrating, especially when thinking about the intent of the receiver. I don't recall who McCourty was against, but it looked like the receiver was still looking to make a catch when he made the slight contact. It didn't seem like a matter of the receiver recognizing that McCourty was surely going to pick it off, and the receiver making an adjustment by making a "play" on him. Instead it was the receiver looking for the ball.

That can be a very grey area, so I don't know how officials would be able to firmly differentiate intent, and determine either: a) the receiver no longer had interest in going for the ball and instead was looking to bring down the defender who gets the pick or b) the receiver is solely playing the ball, and was in no way looking to make the defender down by contact. Again, could be hard to make that judgement call, but I wish the intent could be factored in in some way for a play like that.

 

[XLIX]

That can be a very grey area, so I don't know how officials would be able to firmly differentiate intent, and determine either: a) the receiver had no interest in going for the ball and instead was looking to bring down the defender who gets the pick or b) the receiver is solely playing the ball, and was in no way looking to make the defender down by contact. Again, could be hard to make that judgement call, but I wish the intent could be factored in in some way for a play like that.

Respectfully...

Asking referees to judge "intent" on tackles would be an absolute disaster. The rule should stay as it is, and I think it was interpreted correctly last night as I believe McCourty had possession of the ball when the WR's hand grazed him.