I am so sick....

Moderator: bwgood77

User avatar
SteveScheffler
Junior
Posts: 316
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
Location: seattle

I am so sick.... 

Post#1 » by SteveScheffler » Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:40 am

of nfl games being decided by questionable late penalties. i see this week in and week out. the penalties are usually holding, or p.i., or defensive holding, all calls that cant be challenged and are largely opinion based. i think the nfl might have the same problem the nba does. launch the probe!
User avatar
Wizards2Lottery
RealGM
Posts: 10,317
And1: 26
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Location: All aboard the TANK

 

Post#2 » by Wizards2Lottery » Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:41 am

I agree. Let the guys play. Thats absolute bush league.
User avatar
Chach
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,330
And1: 2
Joined: Jan 23, 2003

 

Post#3 » by Chach » Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:50 am

Just because a call is late doesn't make it bad. A lot of those penalties were holding. Holding is a pretty obvious call. If it were pass interference, maybe I'd agree with you, but a lot of those late penalties against the Ravens were pretty obvious on replay and it's the Ravens fault for not executing. You can actually blame the Patriots for this because of their manhandling of the Colts a few seasons back. Everyone pissed and moaned about how physical the Pats corners were so now you can't make contact. You can't have your cake and eat it too. mahalo
~Chach~
Monkeyfeng06
Banned User
Posts: 19,810
And1: 6
Joined: Jul 20, 2005

 

Post#4 » by Monkeyfeng06 » Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:51 am

how about coaches need to let their own players play instead of calling that stupid late time out?
User avatar
RaoulDuke79
RealGM
Posts: 11,849
And1: 5,103
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
Location: purchasing stunning amounts of pudding.

 

Post#5 » by RaoulDuke79 » Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:53 am

ROFL. Yea, the refs cost Baltimore the game and not the (Please Use More Appropriate Word) timeout and the fact they still couldn't stop Brady from running for the 1st down.

The Ravens deserved to win this game until they gave it away, and STILL almost won at the last second.

Fantasic game.
SportsWorld
RealGM
Posts: 51,601
And1: 133
Joined: Dec 03, 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:
       

 

Post#6 » by SportsWorld » Tue Dec 4, 2007 5:01 am

User avatar
El Turco
GOTB Fantasy Basketball Ultimate 2x Champion
Posts: 53,956
And1: 21,428
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

 

Post#7 » by El Turco » Tue Dec 4, 2007 5:02 am

people dont waste any time do they
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
User avatar
Chach
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,330
And1: 2
Joined: Jan 23, 2003

 

Post#8 » by Chach » Tue Dec 4, 2007 5:05 am

Good teams put themselves in a position to win. Your players keep their emotions under control and don't BREAK THE RULES. If you grab a receiver and get away with it, fine by me. But don't piss and moan when he gets called. The Ravens lost the game, they kept giving the Pats second chances. Had they been able to actually run the ball in the 4th then they never would have put themselves in a position where the refs decided the game.

The Pats almost lost the Indy game in the worst officiated game in terms of calls/non-calls. But they overcame those and pulled out the win. I've always said that if one or two calls "loses" you the game, you never had a right to win it in the first place. What about that INT by Sanders? Had Boller not unleashed a crappy pass, they would have been in FG range. Boot the 3, the Pats are down by 7 and the game goes to OT. Baltimore did a lot of little things (that INT, switching to a prevent, not being able to get first downs with less than 10 minutes left) that cost them the game, not a DB grabbing a WR. mahalo
~Chach~
User avatar
deeney0
RealGM
Posts: 10,594
And1: 9
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
Location: Cambridge, MA

 

Post#9 » by deeney0 » Tue Dec 4, 2007 5:07 am

That was holding. I wish it weren't, but it was. Had to be called. Move on.
Icness
NFL Analyst
Posts: 16,964
And1: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2001
Location: Back in the 616
Contact:
   

 

Post#10 » by Icness » Tue Dec 4, 2007 12:39 pm

I don't think the calls in the Pats games were questionable at all. I do think the refs jobbed the Browns on Winslow's catch, esp. when you look at what the same crew allowed two weeks earlier on a very similar play. I also think the Packers got screwed on the Al Harris strip and the 2nd deep PI call. There was a pretty iffy holding call on the Broncos that wiped out a 1st down early in the 4Q that blunted a promising drive that could have led to a win too.

No calls were worse than the Pitt-WVU game, where the refs were basically saying "Go Mountaineers!".
J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 23
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

 

Post#11 » by J.Kim » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:14 pm

Icness wrote:I don't think the calls in the Pats games were questionable at all. I do think the refs jobbed the Browns on Winslow's catch, esp. when you look at what the same crew allowed two weeks earlier on a very similar play. I also think the Packers got screwed on the Al Harris strip and the 2nd deep PI call. There was a pretty iffy holding call on the Broncos that wiped out a 1st down early in the 4Q that blunted a promising drive that could have led to a win too.

No calls were worse than the Pitt-WVU game, where the refs were basically saying "Go Mountaineers!".


That last-minute TD by Winslow was a horrible call by the refs. Absolutely horrible.

He was right in front of the action too. How could he not see that Kellen was going to come inside the lines, before being pushed by the Arizona safety?

Not complaining though, since it pulled the Browns back into a tie with the Titans in the playoff race.
Worm Guts
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 27,289
And1: 12,143
Joined: Dec 27, 2003
     

 

Post#12 » by Worm Guts » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:28 pm

There shouldn't be a force out rule, either you catch the ball in bounds or you don't. Unless a referee is blessed with psychic powers I don't see how he's supposed to predict if someone would have come down in bounds.
J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 23
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

 

Post#13 » by J.Kim » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:32 pm

Worm Guts wrote:There shouldn't be a force out rule, either you catch the ball in bounds or you don't. Unless a referee is blessed with psychic powers I don't see how he's supposed to predict if someone would have come down in bounds.


Force out is a pretty objectionable ruling IMO, more so than PI or Holding anyway....
Worm Guts
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 27,289
And1: 12,143
Joined: Dec 27, 2003
     

 

Post#14 » by Worm Guts » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:46 pm

I'm not sure what you mean by objectionable.
Fatty
Head Coach
Posts: 7,495
And1: 11
Joined: Jan 02, 2005
Contact:

 

Post#15 » by Fatty » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:53 pm

I'd say force out is the most non objectionable call. If a defender pushes the reciever out while the reciever has the ball is landing than it is a force out.
Worm Guts
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 27,289
And1: 12,143
Joined: Dec 27, 2003
     

 

Post#16 » by Worm Guts » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:55 pm

Fatty wrote:I'd say force out is the most non objectionable call. If a defender pushes the reciever out while the reciever has the ball is landing than it is a force out.


How do you know where the receiver would have landed? It involves guesswork. Sometimes it's obvious but most of the time it is not.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#17 » by Basketball Jesus » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:56 pm

Worm Guts wrote:How do you know where the receiver would have landed? It involves guesswork. Sometimes it's obvious but most of the time it is not.


The thing is, referees are only supposed to call it on the obvious ones.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 23
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

 

Post#18 » by J.Kim » Tue Dec 4, 2007 3:57 pm

Worm Guts wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by objectionable.


Sorry. Wrong suffix. Objective is what I meant.
Worm Guts
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 27,289
And1: 12,143
Joined: Dec 27, 2003
     

 

Post#19 » by Worm Guts » Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:09 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



The thing is, referees are only supposed to call it on the obvious ones.


I still think it's a rule that doesn't need to be there. We need less room for referee interpretation, not more.
User avatar
deeney0
RealGM
Posts: 10,594
And1: 9
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
Location: Cambridge, MA

 

Post#20 » by deeney0 » Tue Dec 4, 2007 5:08 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



The thing is, referees are only supposed to call it on the obvious ones.


Then I guess the Cleavland call was right. It looked like he would've landed in bounds, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Return to The General NFL Board