RealGM

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!

I agree. Let the guys play. Thats absolute bush league.

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~

how about coaches need to let their own players play instead of calling that stupid late time out?

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.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-hvI9kAUTKA
[/thread]

people dont waste any time do they

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~

That was holding. I wish it weren't, but it was. Had to be called. Move on.

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!".

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.

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.

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....

I'm not sure what you mean by objectionable.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry. Wrong suffix. Objective is what I meant.

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.

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.