removed so as to not upset anyone

[Edited by RamTime on Jul 10th, 2005 at 01:30 PM]

Someone just lost what little credibility he had left. :rolleyes:

Buddy, the game was played in January of 2002. Whether you're upset because your team lost, you lost money, or both, get over it!

All these people that think that the officiating was "less than fair" in SB 36... I bet their favorite colors are blue and gold.... just a hunch.

RamTime, I cannot speak for all officials but I have some thoughts on many of the topics you have brought up on this forum so far.

The link you provided above shows many "cheap shots" from a Super Bowl that took place a <b>few years back</b>, 2001. The video shows these in slow motion, and many of clips do not provide the entire action of the play. The video also shows "cheap shots" that only happened to one team, the Rams. Although many fans, mostly Rams fans, might feel these hits were in violation of the rules, it is hard for any of us officials, fans, sportscasters or otherwise, to rule on these hits by watching a slow motion video clip. Some are close, but IMHO, many of the hits appeared to be ok. The two late hits, neither of them were malicious, the contact started inbounds or at the sidelines, and were not intended to injure the player. Many of the leading with the helmet shots appeared to be ok. None of the hits were helmet to helmet. Now, I do not officiate under NFL rules and I am not familiar with the precise wording of the rules, but from what I can tell, they appear ok.

On a separate note, many officials get a little sensitive when it comes to questioning judgment calls. It is part of the job that we all endure and it is something that we need to reflect on and learn from. Many of these judgment calls are broadcasted on TV in super slow motion, from an angle that the official isn't privy to. At times unfortunately, officials do miss calls. We are human and it is part of the game. Many times what nay-sayers forget is that we (the people watching TV or in the stands) are not on the field of play. We did not get the privilege of that camera angle. We don't know what the official is looking at or where his zone of responsibility is. We <b>CANNOT</b> duplicate what the covering official(s) saw or ruled on in terms of judgment calls.

To put it this way, what if everyone had a camera following them around all day? Each day, thousands of people tuned in and watch and listen to the play by play announcers comment on our lives, offering commentary and opinionated feedback to our everyday decisions. Would they agree with every decision we make? Would we in turn make the "right" decisions every time? I imagine it now, "That was a bad call RamsFan, I would have turned right back there but now you are stuck in construction and will be late for work." Next thing you know, your bad call shows up in a forum like this and we waste countless hours debating if you should have taken a right turn or not.

Now, imagine we are doing that exact same thing but the turn in question happened four years ago. You no doubt have changed as a person. You make different decisions now as opposed to four years ago. And in a situation like the one I described above, you might not have made that right hand turn. But who are we to say if that was the right or wrong decision? We weren't in your shoes. We don't know what your thought process was. We have no way in telling whether your decision was right or wrong. You see where I am going?

The last thing I will say is I appreciate you taking time to research and find out information to your questions. Many fans will not go the extra step to inform themselves on the intricacies of the rules or workings of the game. Keep in mind, none of us, at this forum or otherwise, are fully qualified to judge whether these calls were correct or not.

By the way, who claims the officiating was corrupt? Did the NFL say anything about it?

You're not a messenger, you're a fanboy. Here's a link to a site that fanboys are welcome to post about NFL conspiracies. Have fun!

http://refereestats.proboards22.com/index.cgi

Fair enough

RamTime, I have been very kind to your questions so far, BUT, you are now questioning the "integrity" of the best officials in the world. You can question judgment if you want, but DON’T question our integrity. The "135 yards missed" video was obviously put together by a Rams fan. We don’t even know if all of those plays occurred without a flag? I guess we are to "trust" the Rams fan, (who IS prejudice in this case) who made this video that each of these occurred without a flag? Even if that was the case, in ½ of them, I couldn’t tell what the fan wanted called. In one the defender had his leg wrapped up before he ever got OOB’s but he didn’t fall till after OOB’s. He is really “begging” on that one, and others as well.

Do you realize these calls happen at incredible speed, and the decision of flag, or not, must be made in less than a second! If an official does not see the WHOLE play involved, he CANNOT throw a flag, so do some get missed, YES, but as stated above, by cutting off the clips when this person did, we do not even get to see the whole play. Sometimes what appears to be a “clip” is not when you see the whole play and see the block started in the front, and contact was maintained as the defender spun around. In that case what ends up “looking” like a clip, is NOT. Most fans do not understand that concept.

Your questions are welcomed, but please do not come in here saying we are corrupt. We could care less who wins or loses a game we officiate. We just call them as we see them and hopefully see them correctly most of the time. I think a prejudice fan could take individual clips of MOST games and make a video similar to “135 yards.”

One thing I KNOW fans do not understand is that in major college and NFL a foul is ONLY a foul if it is a safety issue or occurs at the point of attack, meaning it had an impact on the play. A hold by the right tackle as the ball is being run over the left tackle is NOT a flag, and the official would receive a negative mark if he did call that on cuz it was not at the point of attack. Beyond that did you know there are seven “holding exceptions” in the NFL, meaning that even if holding is occurring, it is NOT a foul in these situations. I did not until I starting working NFL rules, and am a huge NFL fan. It is hard to argue with better than 99%.

We will continue to welcome good play questions from you RamTime!


[Edited by MJT on Jul 10th, 2005 at 01:45 PM]

Go away.

Actually no. Chief, steeler, panther, dolphin, colt, raider message boards have seen these videos and the majority says it was poor officiating while a close second refers to the events of 911. A small but noticeable percentage says it is BS and everyone gets bad calls. This is the only place that shuns every single one of them. However just about everyone says it was long ago and its water under the bridge.

[Edited by RamTime on Jul 10th, 2005 at 10:25 PM]

Go away fanboy.

Right... every post here has shunned every point you have tried to make. You have misquoted, misinterpreted and have come misinformed on several issues. When an opinion you asked for, is not in agreement with what you want to hear, we, as you would want to put it, are trying to cover for one of our own.

Maybe with all this extra time you have to look up old film from 4 years ago, you could find something more constructive to do. Obviously you know so much about our jobs, maybe you should give it a try... lord knows it would be more constructive than what your doing at the moment.

I'm a Rams fan, and yeah I thought the IG no-call at the end was bad. But anyone who knows anything about football in general, knows that Martz lost that game because he forgot to use his #1 weapon ... Marshall Faulk. Tell me how you can have 1st and goal inside the 5 and not at all give the ball to Faulk?
That's why they lost, not because of officiating.

RamTime,

The fact that fans on other fan boards agree with you on this one, simply does not matter.

Let me tell you something about rules in general and NFL rules in particular: Unless you have STUDIED the rule book, you simply do not know the rules. Knowing the rules is only a part of it, you must also know how to implement, to interpret, the rules. This is not personal, but there is no way you have the knowledgment necessary to do that.

The guys in the NFL are there because they have proven over and over that they are experts at reading situations and applying the rules to them. Nothing but the best is demanded of them by the league. When they screw up, because they do screw up from time to time, they are held accountable.

Several good points have been made already on why the majority of the plays in the clip are not fouls that should be called. If you want to disagree, that is fine. But at the same time, you confirm to us that you do not have enough knowledge to decide if the officials screwed up or not. If you don't know the alphabet, how can you write a book review?

But one thing should be absolutely clear: Claiming that the officials are corrupt or biased is simply ridicoulous and laughable. It tells us nothing about the officials involved, but it does tell us something about the person making such a claim. The NFL officials are competitive guys, competing not so much with colleagues as with them selves. They want to be the best officials they can be. One of the pillars of officiating is impartiality. Can you tell me why, these guys trying to be the best they can be, would want to be partial and biased? What is in it for them? What is the motivation? What would make them change their entire way of thinking?

It just tells me that you simply do not understand how an official thinks.

This is very interesting and it is why I came here. I wanted to know if there were things I was overlooking or was ignorant to. I have sense acquired an NFL official rule book. After reading through it I found something else very interesting and that is they have another book called "Official NFL Casebook" which has actual cases in it.

Now so as not to be rude I will field some of the other statements that were not as educational as the one I just quoted above.

Remember I did not start this type of trash talking.
Since intelligence is not required on the WWW some folks don't bother using it as in this case. What does the year the game was played have anything to do with someone that wants to understand the rules. Certainly you understand that because of that game a few rules had to start being enforced again. You must also be aware of the fact that because 7 seconds was allowed to run off the game clock 3 of which after the ball crossed the cross bar the NFL instated a rule that a FG attempt would run 5 seconds off the game clock from now on.

Only those who get their thoughts through the media believe that it was because Martz didn't utilize Faulk. However common sense and a look at the replay of the game holds much more realistic reasons. Remember the hold against McGinest on Faulk that negated a 99 yard fumble recovery for a TD? http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/015.wmv McGinest said:
"I'm not the referee so I don't know if it was holding or not, I played him the same way all game." If you look at that video and refresh your memory of that hold then think about the fact that he said he didn't know if it were holding and he also said "I played him the same way all game." This was confirmed by Faulk who said "It was going on all day for the most part" Now combine that with what the Patriots game plan was (Which was pretty smart) and that being they hit Faulk on every play with at least one player weather or not he had the ball made no difference. So your blanket conclusion of Martz being an idiot doesn't hold a thimble full of sense it does however echo the media's blanket conclusion. Unless of course you think Faulk was good enough to overcome holding all game and players putting hats on him all day. Probably would want to get the ball to someone else don't you think?
*Common sense rationally proven.*

Now to everyone here, I mentioned that I had acquired an NFL rule book and it specifically says
Article 8
There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
(b) tackling the runner when he is clearly out of bounds:
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/018.wmv
d) running or diving into, or throwing the body against or on a ball carrier who falls or slips to the ground untouched and makes no attempt to advance, before or after the ball is dead;
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/010.wmv

It also says that it is up to the defensive player to know where the boundaries are.

As far as judgment calls it says, Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

Now other rules say if in doubt there is no flag however because this is a safety issue if THERE IS DOUBT officials should ALWAYS call it.

Also relating to the helmet to helmet contact:
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/016.wmv
and
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/017.wmv
Note what the rule tells officials to look out for appears to be exactly what you see in these clips. "game officials will give special attention in administrating this rule to protecting those players who are in virtual defenseless postures (e.g. a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass + a runner already in the grasp of a tackler"

Article 8
(g) using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown, forehead/"hairline" parts) or face mask to violently and unnecessarily butt, spear, or ram an opponent although such violent and unnecessary use of the helmet and face mask is impermissible against any opponent , game officials will give special attention in administrating this rule to protecting those players who are in virtual defenseless postures (e.g. a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, a receiver catching, or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the grasp of a tackler, a kick off or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player on the ground at the end of a play) All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet or face mask that are described in the roughing the passer rules.
Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

Notwithstanding the recent explanation about there being exceptions to the rules such as holding So far I have found much to support the claim that the officials missed a few calls however as I have stated over and over that is not why I came here if I wanted to argue the calls there are several places on the net to do so. My purpose is to understand the calls or non calls and if that means questioning the explanation of a call or non call it does not necessarily mean I am arguing it it could mean that Gasp! your actually missing something. As much as you all would like to be right all of the time its like you all say. Your not going to see everything.

Finally; those of you who see me as a fanboy or irritating, I have an idea. Don't read what I ask then you won't get upset.

For those who actually try to explain things to me I honestly do appreciate the time you take. I have learned some things here.

Martz
 

<i>So your blanket conclusion of Martz being an idiot doesn't hold a thimble full of sense </i>

Martz is a football genius. Just ask him.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamTime

Since intelligence is not required on the WWW some folks don't bother using it as in this case. What does the year the game was played have anything to do with someone that wants to understand the rules. Certainly you understand that because of that game a few rules had to start being enforced again. You must also be aware of the fact that because 7 seconds was allowed to run off the game clock 3 of which after the ball crossed the cross bar the NFL instated a rule that a FG attempt would run 5 seconds off the game clock from now on.

I have a 2004 rulebook from an NFL official in my town and I haven't found any references to running 5 seconds off the clock during a field goal attempt.


Certainly NFL officials are guilty of missing calls. I don't think any of us here would dispute that.

You orignally came here asking if the plays were called correctly or not. I don't think any real NFL officials are here to positively answer the questions about how the NFL viewed those plays or if they are, they can't or won't comment.

I'm glad you got a rulebook, but bear in mind that rules are more than just the words written. While it is important to know the rules, game officials must know the spirit and intent of those rules and the philosphy of the person/people doing the assigning of those games. I am guessing the NFL makes its philosophy known through training, bulletins, phone calls and maybe other means. We don't have access to that information. The NFL Director of Officials also reviews each official after each game and grades their performance for each play. Again, we aren't privy to the grades an official gets. Frankly, most of us will never know if the plays you question were called correctly.

When a question is asked of non-NFL officials if the play was called correctly, we can only offer a semi-educated guess. Yes, some of us have the same rulebooks as the NFL uses because we officiate in leagues that use NFL rules, but owning and reading a rulebook doesn't make any of us experts of the rules. (Just because I buy and read a car repair manual won't make me a good mechanic).


Many of us have tried to answer your questions based upon our own understanding of an official's philosphy of calling the game and from our understanding of the NFL rules. The NFL may or may not share that same philosphy.


Personally, I believe the quality of NFL official is very good. There are a few officials I like better than others, but I am certain there is no conspiracy to cheat any teams.

Good post.
You know when I said that about the 5 seconds I thought to myself maybe this is not true since i read it on a fan board at football.com however I didn't check it's legitimacy so my bad. Believe it or not I am beginning to understand what you guys are saying probably because the officials here that do respond all are pretty much saying the same thing. that is you can not speak for another officials judgement. You guys say that they are reviewed after their games and I have heard that other places as well. In 35 - 40 years of watching football at the LA Coliseum, Anaheim Candlestick/3com/monster and Oakland I have never felt the officiating was bad. In fact I have always been amazed at how many close calls they get right. It still amazes me that they are almost never wrong. Furthermore if officiating never got any better then it is right now then that doesn't bother me at all. It was just this one game and perhaps I'm looking through blue and gold goggles while typing my posts with blue and gold pom poms on my hands but it just seemed very different then any of the hundereds of games I have watched in the past. Someone said it is completely laughable to think the officiating was corrupt and using common sense alone should make this clear and while I don't believe it was corrupt officiating I can't help but wondering about some of those non calls and this is why I am researching.

I honestly haven't had a chance to look at the video links because my workplace blocks them and I haven't been on my computer at home in a while. Anything we say is going to be pure speculation anyway. I can give you my opinions of what I would have done, but it is just an opinion in a sea of them.

I know watching things as a fan can skew our opinion. When I put on my own fan hat, I am far less likely to look at things objectively.

REPLY: I took a look at the video clips you pointed us to. Neither the first or the second give anyone enough information to make a call. One of the first principles of officiating is SEE THE WHOLE PLAY. Not just the end of it, but the WHOLE PLAY. Viewing these clips require you to look at a just a small part of the plays out of context.

In the first (less than 1 second long!!), it begins with the runner wrapped up by the defender near the sideline. It appears (just <u>appears</u>) that the initial contact with the runner is made just around the sideline--maybe inbounds, maybe out of bounds, but it certainly isn't clear in the video. All you see is a runner wrapped up and dragged (not thrown) to the turf in the two yard belt. Anyone calling that a foul based upon what the clip shows wouldn't last in HS ball more than a few seconds, let alone the NFL.

In the second (2 seconds in length), again it starts with a receiver just hitting the ground. SInce I have no real evidence as to what occurred before it, all I can do is surmise. It appears (again <u>appears</u>) that he made a laid out catch coming across the middle. As he hits the ground, a DB coming downfeld dives into him. Since the receiver just hit the ground, there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he was giving himself up. Since the NFL is a 'down-by-contact' league, he could have gotten to his feet and continued. The hit was legal. The rule you cited is there to protect the runner who gives himself up--the one who just lies there in a fetal position making it clear he has no intention of advancing. That's that play where you just see the defender come up and tap the runner to end the play. That's the player who needs to be protected.

In the third, there is helmet to helmet contact, but the runner is being tackled so that his head is dropping to the ground. It appears to be merely a coincidence that the defender's head hits him where it did--about two feet off the turf. I frankly don't know how the NFL wants that one called. Maybe others could offer their thoughts.

The fourth play is probably the only one where there is any possibility of a call for the Rams. From the movement of Warner's head, it does appear that there was intentional h-to-h contact. But...are you sure there was no flag?

Bob,

I agree with the majority of your post. There simply isn't enough to rule on the first two.

As for the second two, I have to say that I disagree with you, to me it looks like the first one is a definitely helmet to helmet contact. The defender does not even attempt to wrap the opponent up he just comes inwith his head down and nails him. The second one, against K. Warner looks like a legal play to me, I do not know NFL rules totally but unless the quarterback is specially protected against this because of roughing the passer then I do not have a call. It looks to me like the player was attemping to tackle the quarterback and their heads just slightly hit eachother. But again, I am not in the NFL and I do not know the NFL rules.

The fourth play is probably the only one where there is any possibility of a call for the Rams. From the movement of Warner's head, it does appear that there was intentional h-to-h contact. But...are you sure there was no flag?

Your just going to have to take my word for it. There were no personal fouls or unsportsmanlike conduct penalties called on either team.

REPLY: I appreciate your thoughts. Honest disagreement and discussion is good for this board.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamTime
Remember the hold against McGinest on Faulk that negated a 99 yard fumble recovery for a TD? http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/015.wmv McGinest said:
"I'm not the referee so I don't know if it was holding or not, I played him the same way all game." If you look at that video and refresh your memory of that hold then think about the fact that he said he didn't know if it were holding and he also said "I played him the same way all game." This was confirmed by Faulk who said "It was going on all day for the most part"

The video clearly shows a hold and apparently, it was flagged. I can't comment on stuff I don't see. And player comments after a game are not a good indication of if there were fouls that weren't called. I say this because players maybe don't fully understand the rules against holding, chucking, etc. I say this with all serious, but the typical player usually only knows the rules about as well as the average fan.

I have to agree with Bob on this one. Clip is too short. My initial reaction is that it looks like the tackle began inbounds and continued out of bounds (which is legal as long as the continuation isn't unnecessarily rough). At the start of the clip, the defender's feet (B45) are nearly off the ground and he is trying to drag down the offensive player (A50) from behind. It doesn't look to me like B45 threw A50 down out of bounds. They both merely went down and B45 took the brunt of the fall. A50 landed on top of him.

This one is too short to really say, but again, my initial reaction is that it was a good no call. It appears the receiver just made a catch and was trying to demonstrate control and the defender came in to try to knock the ball out. I can't say that I think this play fits the rule cited. We don't know if the receiver was going to try to get up because he had just gone down and was still trying to keep the ball under control.

Apparently, the covering official(s) had no doubt :)

There was helmet to helmet contact. But not all helmet to helmet contact is illegal.

The defenders head did compress as he made contact and it was dangerous to himself.

At the levels I work, my gut reaction was a flag. But I'd have to see the entire play.

I can see how they wouldn't flag this one either. The defender makes contact with the chest of the quarterback and slides up and possibly nudges the side of the quarterbacks' helmet. It doesn't appear that the QB's head goes backwards so the contact wasn't violent. If you read further through the rules, you will see that if the defensive player makes contact with his facemask to the passer's head, it isn't an automatic foul. The severity of the contact is what counts. In my opinion, the contact wasn't severe enough for a flag.


I hope I have done my part to introduce some doubt into your statements. What has been provided as support is not a smoking gun.

I think anyone who comes here with the purpose of understanding the rules has come to the right place. If you really want to understand the game, may I suggest you get involved in officiating? It really is great fun, even when we have to deal with the fanboys :D

Most of us are glad to teach those who are willing to learn. Those who come here to complain about the officiating aren't going to feel as welcomed. That's like a student going to the teacher's lounge and complaining about the teachers.

[Edited by mikesears on Jul 14th, 2005 at 11:04 PM]

<b>Mike, that is one of the best lines I have ever heard!!!! It especially hits home cuz I am not only an official, but my real job is a high school science teacher. I will be writing that one down to always remember. </b>

"Only those who get their thoughts through the media believe that it was because Martz didn't utilize Faulk. However common sense and a look at the replay of the game holds much more realistic reasons. Remember the hold against McGinest on Faulk that negated a 99 yard fumble recovery for a TD? http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/015.wmv McGinest said:
"I'm not the referee so I don't know if it was holding or not, I played him the same way all game." If you look at that video and refresh your memory of that hold then think about the fact that he said he didn't know if it were holding and he also said "I played him the same way all game." This was confirmed by Faulk who said "It was going on all day for the most part" Now combine that with what the Patriots game plan was (Which was pretty smart) and that being they hit Faulk on every play with at least one player weather or not he had the ball made no difference. So your blanket conclusion of Martz being an idiot doesn't hold a thimble full of sense it does however echo the media's blanket conclusion. Unless of course you think Faulk was good enough to overcome holding all game and players putting hats on him all day. Probably would want to get the ball to someone else don't you think?
*Common sense rationally proven.*"

Faulk only rushed the ball 17 times for 76 yards (superbowl.com), that's 4.4 yards a carry. Sounds to me like he had his way WHEN HE GOT THE BALL. When you have the best back in the league and he only gets to run the ball 17 times in the SB, that tells me you're not too smart. Like I said before, I'm a Rams fan, but no matter how many times you watch this game or blame everything under the sun for the loss, that's still what it is ... A LOSS. Get over it.

OK we disagree on this. No big deal. I'm just glad I found this forum. Though I still have questions many of the major questions I had have been answered to satisfaction. Furthermore the rule book alone could not have done this for me. Like I said before I feel the officiating in the NFL amazingly accurate nearly all of the time which is why I have questions about this game. Another thing I learned and perhaps you can confirm this but I read that the Head of officiating tells the officials not to change the way they call games just because it is the Superbowl which is contrary to what the average fan believes. Can't remember where I read it however it said something to the effect of "These are the best officials on the planet and they earned the right to officiate the superbowl so why change what works so well." Those are not the exact words but they were something like that.

RamTime,

You are correct in regards to how much time can now run off the clock. If it's a "clean" field goal (good snap, good hold), then it should not take more than 5 seconds off the clock.

It might not be in the rule book, but that is how they handle it.