I have another question not in rule book

[waltjp]

I'm just sorry I spent any time at all with that site.

[ABoselli]

Fans in Buffalo are convinced there is a conspiracy against them as well. (The smoking man in the X Files revealed that there was). And that Mike Ditka and Dan Dierdorf are biased against them.

Bring up Home Run Throwback and you'll really feel the love.

[golfnref]

Wonder what Hillary has to say about these conspiracies?

[waltjp]

Originally posted by golfnref
Wonder what Hillary has to say about these conspiracies?

Hillary was on the grassy knoll.

[RamTime]

Originally posted by ABoselli
My take on Kukar's comments is in line with what most of us use as our philosophy - did the foul impact the play? Kukar was, in effect, saying to the guy, "This is a game turning play. Did the foul you saw have an effect? Are you absolutely positive?" The H stuck with it, and rightly so, as I recall. Didn't then DE or the OLB hold the TE off the line preventing him from getting into his pattern? On any pass play, especially one where there's a sack or a hit on the QB while he still has the ball (because the defense has gained a definite advantage by keeping receivers from running their patterns illegally) a defensive hold has a definite impact on the play.

It appears Ramtime feels that is evidence that Kukar was trying to favor the Patriots.

Anybody else got a beef from games played years ago? Maybe some UM faithful could pontificate about how their DB didn't mug the OSU wideout?

Actually that is what I thought to. However a pass interference was called against the Rams OFFENSE on a play early in the game 20 yards away from the incompletion and there was nobody hustling around trying to talk anyone out of a flag. Matter of fact there was a hold on the patriots that last for only 5 or 6 yards and it ended with a blatant clip of the receiver that was being held. Of course some people can actually look at this play and say it never happened that way which is why I hesitate to link you to it but just to prove a point http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/001a.wmv
Also the only flag that was succesfully picked up on the day was when Prohel fumbled late in the 2nd quarter and though Kukar mumbled something about it, it was unclear on what he said and naturally there was no replay shown.

[JasonTX]

[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually that is what I thought to. However a pass interference was called against the Rams OFFENSE on a play early in the game 20 yards away from the incompletion and there was nobody hustling around trying to talk anyone out of a flag. Matter of fact there was a hold on the patriots that last for only 5 or 6 yards and it ended with a blatant clip of the receiver that was being held. Of course some people can actually look at this play and say it never happened that way which is why I hesitate to link you to it but just to prove a point http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/001a.wmv
Also the only flag that was succesfully picked up on the day was when Prohel fumbled late in the 2nd quarter and though Kukar mumbled something about it, it was unclear on what he said and naturally there was no replay shown. [/B][/QUOTE]

This clip shows that whoever made that video has no knowledge of any kind about the responsibility of the Referee. It was funny "Referee has clear view". That's not even the Refs key. He is not responsible for that player. The Ref is looking at the tackle and then reads pass and then stays with the QB. If he throws a flag in that area, he'd be seriously downgraded. It's called "fishing is someone elses pond", which is a no-no. The receiver runs toward the DB and appears to be driving the defender. It doesn't show what the receivers arms are doing. Their was no clip. A clip is a block that is below the waist from behind when the intial contact was below the waist and behind. If anything it was just incidental contact. I don't see any cheap shot. The NE player doesn't appear to see the receiver coming accross, and he got the worse end of the deal. Receiver puts him to the turf. You'd have a better argument by saying that offensive pass interference was committed. Or maybe it wasn't seen. You got 3 receiver running a route covered by 3 defenders. Do you expect the Back Judge or Side Judge to be able to see all that? You need to learn the areas of resposibility of each official so that you will realize how easy it is to miss something. What you failed to point out is all the dropped passes, missed blocks, poor play calling, missed tackles. How about the good calls the officials made. You can't hinge a game on the officials. So they may have missed something, but I guarantee you they didn't miss their assignments anywhere near what the players did. By the way, I was cheering for the Rams in that game.

[Edited by JasonTX on Jul 14th, 2005 at 10:07 AM]

[waltjp]

Where to begin???

The ball was snapped at the Ram 38 yard line. From this video you have at best illegal contact beyond 5 yards.

Now, getting technical, there's no way that the referee will ever!!! throw a flag for holding on the receiver. He's not responsible for the receivers. The annotations added to 'aid' us in showing that the referee had a clear view mean nothing.

Clipping? Get real. Clipping is the act of blocking in the back below the waist. (Hoping that's true in the NFL.) I didn't see anyone get hit in the back. Again, illegal contact at best.

Also, can't tell if the receiver was being held or not.

I hope everyone else here agrees with me because I really, really want them to like me.

[RamTime]

Wait! are you telling me that you do not see the defender go in low before contact was made? C'mon he went in low how else did he end up on the ground? Certainly your not saying the receiver knocked him to the ground while he was engaged with another defender?

[JasonTX]

Originally posted by RamTime
Wait! are you telling me that you do not see the defender go in low before contact was made? C'mon he went in low how else did he end up on the ground? Certainly your not saying the receiver knocked him to the ground while he was engaged with another defender?

The initial contact was above the waist and in the front. The best I can tell his the helmet hit the stomach. Absolutely, positively, 100% without a doubt there was no clip as you said. At best, illegal contact, but most likely incedental. It's the offensive players responsibility to avoid contact with the opponent. In this case you could have OPI and Illegal contact, or better yet a no call.

[MJT]

There was not an "illegal contact" foul as there is now when that game was played.

If you look at the video, it looks as if the Rams are trying to run a "Pick" pattern and it backfired!

It is not holding if you are locked up with a player, and you are taking them where they want to go. If the two guys are just dancing, you will NOT have a flag.

Now way of telling anything from that play.

[ABoselli]

Let me second the motion that whoever put that together has no idea who covers what in a seven man game (I'd be willing to guess any game, but that's just me).

Just going from memory, it looks like it was snapped at the Patriot 42 and Law was in front of the reciever until the 36. This is what the Patriot corners do - they don't let recievers get off the line clean. I don't see him holding him - he's in front of him the entire route - the reciever never gets "even" with him because Law has position.

To assert that those are all holds (on a grainy Zapruder-like video) is nonsense.

Watch Aeneas Williams cover somebody man up sometime. You might catch a grab or a pull here and there. Just maybe.

I just watched it again. If Law is holding, then the RT and RG for St. Louis are as well. They're in close contact to the defenders who are trying to get past but cannot. It also appears that the other defender sees that Law and his guy are coming at the last second. He doesn't "break off coverage" like it says - why would he give up covering his guy and leave him wide open just to hit a guy who was already covered? In any event, it looked like he took the worst of the collision. He ends up on his back.

You're definitely looking through the blue and gold glasses here.

[Edited by ABoselli on Jul 14th, 2005 at 04:41 PM]

[RamTime]

For those who question the legitimacy of the statement here is the full interview. I'm sure if you google the title you will find the link as to its source.

Five Minutes with Bernie Kukar
By
Carl S. Ey

Bernie Kukar was the referee at Super Bowl XXXIV. His first experience with the Super Bowl was as an alternate in Super Bowl XXX and his second effort was as the referee during Super Bowl XXXIII.

Referee: What is the difference between being the referee at a Super Bowl vice refereeing a regular season game.
Kukar: There is a lot of hype and things that we have to get involved with in the Super Bowl that you don't have to in a regular season game. You have press conferences, meetings with various individuals and groups. During the regular season, we don't have any of that; we just get prepared for the game. We have pre-game meetings, film reviews and that type of thing. We still do that at the Super Bowl but much more so in the Super Bowl.
Referee: One of the challenges in the Super Bowl is that you don't have the same crew. Instead you have a new group of guys to work the game. Can you elaborate on getting used to a new crew for a game with this magnitude?
Kukar: You have to keep in mind that these guys were rated number one at their position for the season, which means they are awfully good officials. As far as the mechnics of officiating are concerned, I don't see much difference with any official that I have worked with regularly in a crew and the new guys that get selected to do this game. It may involve a bit more communication because you are not quite sure exactly what they are going to do, whereas with your regular crew you know what they are going to do every game.
Referee: Is there anything particular about this Super Bowl that influenced you during your pre-game meetings that made an impact in your mind prior to addressing your crew?
Kukar: You understand the magnitude of it all; this is probably the premier sporting event in the world and that sets you mind thinking, Ok, you better get things done properly here. The last time I was involved with the Super Bowl, there were over 130 million viewers in the United States and a quarter of a billion, worldwide. You understand the impact that this game has worldwide.
Referee: Was there any call in this Super Bowl that you wish you could have had back?
Kukar: Absolutely not. The only play was the holding penalty after the Rams quarterback fumbled the ball and the Patriots ran it backs 99 yards for a touchdown; I certainly tried to talk the head linesman out of that penalty. I gave him every opportunity to back off but he held fast. He was convinced it was a hold and I kept hammering him. However, I did see it on television last night on the replay and it was definitely a hold. It was a good call.


-MORE-


Referee: Could you give the high school official, just getting into officiating, some advice on how to get to your level?
Kukar: I think the main thing that you have to do to get to this level is you have to have confidence in yourself. Secondly, you have to have pretty darn good judgment.
Referee: Why did you start officiating?
Kukar: I think it gave me the opportunity to stay in football after I graduated from college. When I graduated in the early 1960's, there weren't many opportunities. I came out of a small college in Minnesota - St. John's Univesrsity - which is a Division III school now, so if you wanted to stay anywhere near the game, you officiated. I liked the game and wanted to stay around it and I still enjoy it.
Referee: What are your thoughts on instant replay?
Kukar: I think it is a good thing. Let's face it, in this business, plays happen so fast and there is so many big people out there, that a lot of times you just can't see certain things. If it involves a play that will determine the outcome of the game and you just couldn't see it, instant replay can help you out; all the better. All we want to do is call the plays correctly. As far as I am concerned, it is an officiating tool.
Referee: The follow-up question is do you think that instant replay allows officials to get lazy, thinking they can refer to the instant replay?
Kukar: Not a chance. Nobody would approach it that way. Not a chance.
Referee: What happens now that you are done with the game?
Kukar: I am staying around, relaxing and enjoying the sites; New Orleans is a good city for that.
Referee: What was your best Super Bowl"
Kukar: Last night.

[schmitty1973]

Ramtime,
As much as I disagree with your persistency on this Sb thing, I do think sometimes the Patriots get calls. Like the AFC Championship vs the Colts. The only one I can remember exactly off the top of my head was the 4th down at the end of the game when Pollard was mugged and there was no call. However, I did notice that in the SB vs Carolina, on their first or second drive there was 2 penalties against NE's secondary for illegal contact, which told me that the ref's were going to let the Pats know they weren't getting away with it. Long behold, Delhomme goes on and lights up the secondary.

With all this being said, I don't believe all this is intentional. If you go back and look at some of the dynasty's, you'll notice that things always seem to go their way. They always get good bounces, and the opponents always make bonehead plays against them. I remember a Cowboys/Eagles game when the Boys were good, and somebody from the Eagles had a long run and wound up fumbling the ball and it rolled out of the back of the endzone. Guess what the rule is? Touchback for Dallas. It's aggrivating but it's just one of those things. To win a championship in any sport requires alot of luck, bounces, and sometimes even a couple calls. But like I said, it's not necessarily intentional.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by schmitty1973
With all this being said, I don't believe all this is intentional. If you go back and look at some of the dynasty's, you'll notice that things always seem to go their way. They always get good bounces, and the opponents always make bonehead plays against them. I remember a Cowboys/Eagles game when the Boys were good, and somebody from the Eagles had a long run and wound up fumbling the ball and it rolled out of the back of the endzone. Guess what the rule is? Touchback for Dallas. It's aggrivating but it's just one of those things. To win a championship in any sport requires alot of luck, bounces, and sometimes even a couple calls. But like I said, it's not necessarily intentional.

Oh no... what did you want them to rule it?

[schmitty1973]

I'm not saying the touchback was a bad call... I know that's the rules. What I'm saying is that right when you think the bad guys (dallas) is going to lose, they catch a break like this. I'm not disagreeing with the ruling.