Okay, those three plays from the Super Bowl....

[OverAndBack]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
no. That's still only 0.38 OPIs per game. And most of those were blatant. <20 of those were of the hand-check variety.

And you know this......how, exactly?

Did you see all 98 of them?

First you said there were only <20 of them, which you couldn't possibly have known to begin with.

Now, when confronted with the evidence that there were nearly five times that many called, you say that most of them were blatant, and and that <20 were of the hand-check variety, which you couldn't possibly know, either.

.38 OPIs per game. Well, then, I guess it's HORRIBLE when there's even ONE in a game! That's three times the average!

You know, there were more than 32,000 plays run in the NFL last year, and, surprisingly enough, a flag isn't thrown on every one. I don't know what number you'd be looking for that would tell you it's okay to call offensive pass interference - if there were 300 of them called, would that appease you? Quarterbacks and receivers are fairly proficient at what they do, I wouldn't expect there to be an OPI very frequently.

There are only about 7 penalties per team per game in the NFL, on average. That's with holding (the most common offensive penalty), false starts, illegal motions on offense and pass interference (the most common defensive penalty), illegal contact, blocks on special teams, everything else.

To just say "Well, there's only .38 OPIs called per game in the NFL, so therefore, it's never called and shouldn't be called in the Super Bowl" is just ludicrous. Players are almost never ejected from an NFL game, yet Sean Taylor was ejected from a playoff game! Are you going to say "Well, he shouldn't have ejected him, because there's only .0004 ejections per game in the NFL?" No. Why? Because he deserved it.

In the play in question (way too much in question, seemingly among people who can't deal emotionally with someone losing a football game and have to look for supernatural explanations), the receiver pushed off the defender, the defender went backwards, there was separation and the ball came in a second later. That's OPI, every day of the week. Anyone who wouldn't call that play when it's right in front of them, especially on the game's biggest stage, would be making a mistake.

I think that's the general consensus. It's not unanimous, obviously. But I think the folks who are on the side of the call being fair and correct have elucidated their case a hell of a lot better than you have.

[OverAndBack]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
In a game as crucial as the Super Bowl, the referees should let the players play.

Most penalties, both teams, Super Bowl

20...Dallas (12) vs. Denver (8), XII
.....Carolina (12) vs. New England (8), XXXVIII
16...Cincinnati (8) vs. San Francisco (8), XVI
.....Green Bay (9) vs. Denver (7), XXXII
15...St. Louis (8) vs. Tennessee (7), XXXIV
.....Baltimore (9) vs. N.Y. Giants (6), XXXV

Super Bowl XL: 10 penalties.

You can argue each call as correct, but when put together, it was a poor job of officiating,

How, exactly, do several correct calls put together add up to a poor job of officiating?

[carolinaRRREF]

Definition of poor job of officiating:

When the calls made are not made consistently and adversely affect the outcome of the game.

You're good at pulling numbers off the internet, but you're missing the entire point. There was only one non-illegal procedure call on the Steelers. If you believe that they only committed a single foul, then great for you, but the reality is there were probably 100 calls that COULD have been made, that could just as easily be scrutinized and validated by you, but they WEREN'T. If they HAD been, then you have a consistently called game. They weren't. The calls weren't consistent, and one team got the benefit of the doubt while the other didn't. Luckily, I had money on the Steelers, so it worked for me. I was still embarassed by the officiating in the game, the response of the NFL, and the response of the people here.

This is the reason people don't life refs. Every call is correct if it meets the obscure words in the rulebook, with no regard for the spirit of the rule or the reason the officials are there to begin with -- to make sure the game is played on an even playing field. Certain officials unfortunately believe that they run the show and can't stand it when people say they (or their heros) make mistakes.

As a result, instead of watching what could have been an exciting, classic Super Bowl, we saw a crappy game and afterwards everybody is focused on the officials. That's unfortunate, but will happen again and again if officials like some of those here don't take a step back and see things for what they are.

[OverAndBack]

And you're good at making stuff up.

And refusing to do anything but go blindly along with the lemmings who always look for a conspiracy behind every loss.

OPI - good call.
TD - debateable call.
Hold - good call.
BBTW - still haven't seen it, can't say.

If you want to debate calls, fine - that's what sports is about. But if you're going to get hysterical and say the game was ruined by the officiating and that it's national outrage and anyone who doesn't believe with your made-up bullsh** is an apologist or a poor excuse for an official, then you've crossed the line.

I've got facts. You've got hysteria. Which one makes for the better argument?

Every call is correct if it meets the obscure words in the rulebook, with no regard for the spirit of the rule or the reason the officials are there to begin with -- to make sure the game is played on an even playing field. Certain officials unfortunately believe that they run the show and can't stand it when people say they (or their heros) make mistakes.

Man are you off when it comes to the people you're arguing with here.

[Edited by OverAndBack on Feb 10th, 2006 at 04:16 PM]

[carolinaRRREF]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
And you're good at making stuff up.

And refusing to do anything but go blindly along with the lemmings who always look for a conspiracy behind every loss.

OPI - good call.
TD - debateable call.
Hold - good call.
BBTW - still haven't seen it, can't say.

If you want to debate calls, fine - that's what sports is about. But if you're going to get hysterical and say the game was ruined by the officiating and that it's national outrage and anyone who doesn't believe with your made-up bullsh** is an apologist or a poor excuse for an official, then you've crossed the line.

I've got facts. You've got hysteria. Which one makes for the better argument?

you have numbers, but calling something a "good call" is not a fact. It's an opinion -- one shared by the vast minority of America.

I'm not saying anything about a conspiracy. I don't believe anybody was paid off or intentionally biased (although I guess that's possible, I don't THINK that's the case). I just believe the game was officiated poorly, and the people here are defending the refs because they're defensive about everybody saying how bad they were, instead of considering the possibility that their heros in the NFL had a bad game. And that shallow-mindedness, I believe, is a very bad trait for somebody calling a game to have.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
There was only one non-illegal procedure call on the Steelers. If you believe that they only committed a single foul, then great for you, but the reality is there were probably 100 calls that COULD have been made, that could just as easily be scrutinized and validated by you, but they WEREN'T.

Let me guess, you are the fan or coach who sits beside a basketball court and keeps track of the foul count for the guys on the floor aren't you......

I do believe that Pittsburgh executed as well as any team in the league that last 2 months. With good execution comes less likelyhood for fouls so yeah I will believe what the statistics show. I have heard that every big play the seahawks had was called back...while I don't believe this, I will point out one thing....Those big plays don't happen without the advantages gained from what were called as fouls. That to me is the essence of an even playing field, not allowing one team to gain an advantage illegally....CarolinaRRRef, go ahead and bring some video evidence of what you believe and maybe we can get somewhere, until then just go hide under your bridge like the troll you appear to be...

[rulesmaven]

[/QUOTE]

no. That's still only 0.38 OPIs per game. And most of those were blatant. <20 of those were of the hand-check variety.

[QUOTE]

Well, nice going CarolinaRRREF. It appears you've entirely gutted your own very hard to understand point.

So, OPI is called in about 38 percent of all games. Yet somehow it's a tragedy that it got called once in the superbowl?

My guess is that tripping gets called in about 20 percent of all games. What's our rule for the superbowl? Can't call it?

Where's the cut-off in your mind? A call that gets made in .25 games, can that be called? How about kick off out of bounds. I bet that's very very rare. So what do we do in super bowls?

[carolinaRRREF]

Originally posted by rulesmaven

no. That's still only 0.38 OPIs per game. And most of those were blatant. <20 of those were of the hand-check variety.

So, OPI is called in about 38 percent of all games. Yet somehow it's a tragedy that it got called once in the superbowl?

My guess is that tripping gets called in about 20 percent of all games. What's our rule for the superbowl? Can't call it?

Where's the cut-off in your mind? A call that gets made in .25 games, can that be called? How about kick off out of bounds. I bet that's very very rare. So what do we do in super bowls?

tripping doesn't happen in 90% of all passing plays. kick off out of bounds is a stupid comparison, so I won't bother with it.

I'm not saying calls shouldn't be made just because it's the Super Bowl. I'm saying that if a player is allowed to do something all season long, then it's wrong to suddenly flag him for it, and it's especially unfortunate during the Super Bowl.

[OverAndBack]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
you have numbers, but calling something a "good call" is not a fact. It's an opinion -- one shared by the vast minority of America.

I suppose you have the numbers from that survey? I hear a very vocal minority of people who aren't educated as to the rules, who can't handle the fact their team lost and look for a scapegoat (and officials are the easiest scapegoats there are), who are sports talk show hosts and internet morons. I have a very, very hard time believing that those who feel this is much ado about nothing are in the minority.

But, hell, you probably know, since you were so close on how many OPI calls there were last year and how many of them were blatant and how many were ticky-tack hand-checks.

I just believe the game was officiated poorly, and the people here are defending the refs because they're defensive about everybody saying how bad they were, instead of considering the possibility that their heros in the NFL had a bad game.

Again - have you ever considered that it's just because we don't share your opinion? I'm not defensive - I know Jeff's not defensive. We (and others) happen to think the calls were correct. We're also not averse at all (if you've been around here long enough) to saying "Now THAT was a bad call." NFL refs aren't my heroes - I respect the hell out of them, but if the caterwauling is misplaced (as I believe this is), I'm going to share my opinion: which is that most of the arguments seem to boil down to this:

(a) "Well, yeah, but that's just the way the rule reads, I wouldn't want you to actually call it in a scoreless game;"
(b ) "That's never called, so it shouldn't be called;" or
(c) "The Seahawks were penalized more often and at crucial times than the Steelers were, therefore it's not that the Steelers made fewer mistakes, it's that the refs were picking on Seattle."

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

And that shallow-mindedness, I believe, is a very bad trait for somebody calling a game to have.

But making stuff up and being hysterical and refusing to admit that maybe a reasonable person would disagree with you - those are great traits for somebody calling a game to have.

You don't know the people here. You don't know how they officiate. You don't know their preparedness or their commitment to officiating. You don't know how much they study or how much they care, yet you have no problem presuming that because they don't agree with your opinion (like you said, opinion, not fact), they're a "poor excuse for an official" and "shallow-minded, which is a bad trait for somebody calling a game to have."

I don't know anything about you as an official. But from what you've written and how you've presented your arguments, I figure you're not open to having your beliefs challenged at all by visual evidence or the experience of your colleagues in the profession. And that, I can tell you without a doubt, is not a trait you want an official to have.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF

no. That's still only 0.38 OPIs per game. And most of those were blatant. <20 of those were of the hand-check variety.

tripping doesn't happen in 90% of all passing plays. kick off out of bounds is a stupid comparison, so I won't bother with it.

I'm not saying calls shouldn't be made just because it's the Super Bowl. I'm saying that if a player is allowed to do something all season long, then it's wrong to suddenly flag him for it, and it's especially unfortunate during the Super Bowl.

Ok CarolinaRRRef, so if you don't call it all year long, it shouldn't be called in the super bowl...that sounds logical....along those same lines, if it is called all year long it should be called in the super bowl??? I would think that this sounds logical....

So with that in mind logic dictates we should use those same applications in discussions as well...so why is it ok for you to spout statistics about .38 calls "PER GAME" then when someone points out that tripping occurs in x% of games you suddenly change the reference to passing plays only....another example of your misguided argumentative skills sir...

[carolinaRRREF]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OverAndBack

I suppose you have the numbers from that survey? I hear a very vocal minority of people who aren't educated as to the rules, who can't handle the fact their team lost and look for a scapegoat (and officials are the easiest scapegoats there are), who are sports talk show hosts and internet morons. I have a very, very hard time believing that those who feel this is much ado about nothing are in the minority.

This is a good example of the bad attitude exhibited here. People calling people names and discounting "fanboys" and "so-called" experts just because they're not referees? Have you not seen the news, the internet, etc... all the surveys? Even the Pittsburgh newspaper had a poll asking if people thought the game was officiated fairly. Last I checked that was 51% NO. Nationwide, that number was 70-75%. But not here... oh no... 'cause your heros couldn't make mistakes.

But making stuff up and being hysterical and refusing to admit that maybe a reasonable person would disagree with you - those are great traits for somebody calling a game to have.

How am I hysterical? You keep saying that, and all I've ever said is that I feel the game was poorly officiated. You disagree. Big deal.

I don't know anything about you as an official. But from what you've written and how you've presented your arguments, I figure you're not open to having your beliefs challenged at all by visual evidence or the experience of your colleagues in the profession. And that, I can tell you without a doubt, is not a trait you want an official to have.

According to your tagline, I've officiated about TEN TIMES the number of football games you have, working in both the ACC and Big East... started before instant replay was even invented and maybe while you were still in grade school. What we understood and were taught then were that we were there to officiate the game, not take it over. Then came along refs that had a power trip and thought they were what the game was all about, and didn't APPRECIATE the game for what it was supposed to be, over-analyzing every detail instead of realizing that our job is to keep the game in control, not call every possible foul and to be able to admit when we messed up.

And I know this much about you -- you're a wannabe ref working a couple of high school JV games and wish you were in the NFL, but never will get out of butt-f*** Egypt's dirt playground games.

[mcrowder]

What the detractors here don't seem to realize is that this group, in general is MUCH harder on officials in televised games than the general populous is. To say we're biased in FAVOR of them is just flat wrong, and if you'd spent any time here you'd have seen that. Problem is - you came here for one specific reason - to bash what you thought was poor officiating and look for support for your grievance. Having not gotten that support, you resort to inventing numbers and flat out lying. You're no better than the trolls over on the baseball board who refuse to crack open a rulebook, yet call everyone else names.

Go back under your rock.

[mikesears]

Guys, may I offer a suggestion? Ignore these guys and they will go away. Most of the naysayers aren't interested in a discussion. They are only interested in hearing support for their own opinions. They won't believe that we truly do believe that the game was well officiated. They won't believe we can form an opinion without bias because they think THEY have the only unbiased opinion. They wonder how two unbiased groups can have differing opinions.

Frankly, the only group whose opinion counts is the NFL and they've already stated their opinion on the matter.

When you wrestle with pigs, you only get dirty and the pigs enjoy it.

[mikesears]

Moderator, I think it's about time this thread was closed.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF

This is a good example of the bad attitude exhibited here. People calling people names and discounting "fanboys" and "so-called" experts just because they're not referees? Have you not seen the news, the internet, etc... all the surveys? Even the Pittsburgh newspaper had a poll asking if people thought the game was officiated fairly. Last I checked that was 51% NO. Nationwide, that number was 70-75%. But not here... oh no... 'cause your heros couldn't make mistakes.

Now we are polling the public who has not training at officiating or does not know rule one. I hope the public can take a poll about your real job and decide you are not qualified and fire you based on a public poll. Since we are not asking the public about something when commentators are not even knowledgeable about a system they were involved in. That is a great judge of evaluation.

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
According to your tagline, I've officiated about TEN TIMES the number of football games you have, working in both the ACC and Big East... started before instant replay was even invented and maybe while you were still in grade school. What we understood and were taught then were that we were there to officiate the game, not take it over. Then came along refs that had a power trip and thought they were what the game was all about, and didn't APPRECIATE the game for what it was supposed to be, over-analyzing every detail instead of realizing that our job is to keep the game in control, not call every possible foul and to be able to admit when we messed up.

Ten fouls in a game is taking over?

Also be careful what you claim to be. The Big East and the ACC at times over the past few years were seen as some of the worst officials and had some of the worst games if you listened to ESPN Analysts and other media outlets. I am not sure you want to jump up and say you have take the word of the fans and public when the fans and public thinks the conferences you claim to work were at one time considered very mediocre.

Also the reason I have been on you is because you used statistics to cover your point of view and you were unaware of the statistical issues that you claimed did not take place in your game. You have the right to believe the game was not officiated very well, but when you start giving comparisons, you have to back it up. You did not do that. Actually you made the point of the opposing view. Remember you said the call was made less than 1% of the time and there was only less than 1% of calls made that you claimed was "ticky tack."

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
And I know this much about you -- you're a wannabe ref working a couple of high school JV games and wish you were in the NFL, but never will get out of butt-f*** Egypt's dirt playground games.

I do not think that was called for. But if you think it matters so much, what is your name and where do you live so we can all verify that you actually work that level. We do have people that live in that part of the country, I sure someone here can verify that it is you and what you claim to have done. Also, just because you worked a game or two does not mean you are on the staff either. There are many officials that work a couple of non-conference games and fill in, but they were never hired by those leagues. Now I know you will never give out that information in any way shape or fashion. At least if you are going to call people out, be willing to give out information that verifies you existence. It is one thing to make a claim; it is another to back it up.

Peace