Has a head referee ever tried to talk you out of a penalty flag that you threw and after you told him you were convinced it was a penalty he in fact kept hammering away at you to pick it up?

If the R decides to wave it off, he waves it off. But a short discussion is usually involved with any officials involved. Contrary to what you seem to believe, we work as a team. We don't stand on the field and argue about calls.

Why would you ask such a ridiculous question?

I don't know of too many cases where a Referee would would abitrarily decide to wave off a flag without a good reason to do so. Each official on the field has an area of responsibility and they will flag any infractions in that area.

That being said, there are times when an official will throw a flag but may agree to pick up the flag if more information becomes available. One example may be when a downfield or wing officials throws a flag because he an offensive playing blocking downfield on the play. This may be waved off if the pass did not cross the line of scrimmage. The official was not wrong in throwing the flag because he can't determine where the pass was caught. It's usually the umpire who will supply this information.

Waving the flag off in this case is not an arbitrary decision by the referee. His decision is based on information provided by the crew.

Why are some of you guys so touchy? Its just a question. Here is why I ask.


QUESTION: 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".

This is why I asked, so as you see it was a valid question. By your response it is obvious what this head ref did was indeed ridiculous. Thanks for making this one so very clear.

I can see why Kukar would want to make sure that it was indeed a hold due to the signifigance of the play however he stated "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". Does this statement seem a little odd?

RamTime, just curious, the interview that you are quoting, is it available someplace? Online or otherwise? This would help put the comment into context. Also, who conducted the interview?
Thank you

While we stroll down memory lane
 

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?

I'll have a go at this one as well.

First of all there is always reason to doubt the way fans remember quotes from officials. Nothing personal - but fans tend not to be very objective.

The "talk him out of it" is more of an officiating lingo thing. What it really means is "make sure it was the right call". In that perspective Kukar was really helping the H.

And trust me at the NFL level, the H is not going to be bullied by the R to changes is call.

Please provide a link to this quote, if you can fanboy.

RamTime, this exact question was asked to two NFL officials at an officials clinic I attended about a month ago, and they said NO. Officials will get together and talk, and discuss who had the better angle. If they are both convinced of what they saw, then they (or a 3rd official) will decide "we have to go with Steve's ruling because you both say you saw something different, but Steve has the best angle, so we will go with his ruling." That is exactly how they said it works when discussions take place. They also said, "we are not TO BIG to back down if a crewmate is sure, or we both are sure but he has the better angle."

These are the reasons they are the best in the world!

Now at lower levels, does an R's EGO ever take over a rookie, probably once in a great while, but that is WRONG, and why he would never move up in the ranks. It is unfortunate that such an incident would occur at any level.

I recall in Chad Brown's book, <i>Inside the Meet Grinder</i>, that he writes about an incident in which he called a chop block on a critical play near (or maybe at) the end of the season. He was a rookie official at the time, and from my understanding, he had a difficult first year as an NFL official and called a several fouls that weren't there. After he reported what he had, the R came to him and asked if he was 100% sure he had seen a chop block. I recall the R said something like, "Chad, you had better be right about this".

Initially it didn't show up on film, but they found an angle somewhere that showed he was correct. Chad believed this was a make it or break it call for him in the NFL.

I think any good NFL Referee will want to make sure that 1) the foul is there, and 2) that it had an impact on the play.

REPLY: The incident with Chad Brown that Mike referenced included Jerry Markbreit (one of Mike's hometown boys) as the referee and the NY Giants as the offenders. Markbreit relates that he was watching the same action as Brown and swore that he didn't see the chop. But, as Mike said, after questioning Brown, he let Chad live or die with that call. It turns out that the chop did not come from the adjacent offensive lineman (where Markbreit was looking) but rather from one lineman removed. It was the TE chopping on the G's defender. Usually such a chop would come from the tackle. In fact, the tackle was obstructing Markbreit's view of the play so that he couldn't see the actual chop block that Brown had called. I heard this on a tape by Markbreit.

The passage was taken from this (scary, scary) fansite:
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/

This would have been more convincing with attribution. This particular passage seems to be nowhere else online. It appears to be a paraphrase of an interview typed in by hand, hence the incorrect spelling in "ran it backs 99 yards". And also, RamTime left out the sentence I bolded, in which Kukar verifies it was a good call, which kind of changes the tone of the whole thing.

But more importantly: HOLY CRAP that website is scary. I ran a word count on it: 10,000-plus words! Practically dissertation length! My favorite part is where they try to convince us that Brady is <strike>outside</strike> inside the pocket on that not-intentional-grounding play:

<img src="http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/images/grounding.jpg" border="1"/>

Yeah, it would have been more convincing if the author had drawn parallel lines down the hash marks. Instead of, you know. Totally crooked lines. And also, if the top line had actually gone through the tackle, instead of two yards outside him. Hilarious. People really will believe whatever they want to believe, I guess.

I just don't understand these people. They spend a huge chunk of their lives breaking down a Super Bowl like it was the Zapruder film instead of, I don't know, going outside? Spending time with the kids? Or maybe, and here's a wild idea, learning how to officiate football themselves, since we have a nationwide shortage and they think they can do so much better than the best referees in the NFL? Why not spend some time doing something active and productive for your community, instead of dwelling on a competition you didn't even participate in, only watched, and from which everybody else in the world has moved on?

[Edited by jfurdell on Jul 11th, 2005 at 03:16 PM]

There are a few Rams within shouting distance of him as he is in his throwing motion. No wonder he dumped it!

LOL This website is funny,

After looking at another site, there's someone saying theres a consipriacy against the Raiders. Some fans just don't get it...

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

Buffalo
 

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.

Wonder what Hillary has to say about these conspiracies?

Hillary was on the grassy knoll.

Re: While we stroll down memory lane
 

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.

Re: Re: While we stroll down memory lane
 

[/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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

I thought that Dallas was "America's Team"?

Exactly! I can't see that the defender initated the contact in this video clip. (added the word video as not to confuse)

[Edited by waltjp on Jul 15th, 2005 at 01:10 PM]

Phone Number or Contact Info
 

Does anyone have Mike Periera's contact info? I think RamTime would like to become an NFL official. Anything we can do to help your officiating career along RamTime, we will be happy to help.

RamTime, if you don't make the NFL Officials roster, check with your state's high school association. I know we are always looking for more excellent officials. There is no doubt that with your diligence, rules study, and keen understanding of the game that you would be a great official.