I have another question not in rule book

[RamTime]

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?

[BktBallRef]

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?

[waltjp]

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.

[RamTime]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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?

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.

[RamTime]

Originally posted by waltjp
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.

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?

[grantsrc]

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

[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?

[AlexH]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by RamTime

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.

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

[MJT]

Originally posted by RamTime
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?

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.

[mikesears]

I recall in Chad Brown's book, Inside the Meet Grinder, 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.

[Bob M.]

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.

[jfurdell]

Originally posted by RamTime
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.
[/B]

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

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.

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 outside inside the pocket on that not-intentional-grounding play:



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]

[ABoselli]

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

[Snake~eyes]

LOL This website is funny,

THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE NFL RULES THEN THERE ARE BRADY/PATRIOT RULES WHICH TRUMP ANY OF THOSE OTHER STUPID TRADITIONAL RULES THAT OTHER TEAMS PLAY BY.

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