From this morning's Chicago Sun-Times (with my comments in italics):

Okay, look at this sequence:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...wl_pushoff.jpg

I don't think there's any question he got separation from the push. Look at the difference in where the defender's feet are in photo #2 versus photo #3. And that was right before the ball arrived (photo #4). And the brief (and I think negligible) contact by the defender just inside the goal line was before the pass was thrown, so if it was a call, it couldn't have been pass interference. I'm thinking the Back Judge either didn't see it or saw it and thought it was negligible. VIDEO CLIP

I've looked at this over and over and then over some more. Here's a sequence:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...r_bowl_ben.jpg

In photo #2, the ball might be touching the inside plane of the goal line. Having looked at it over and over, I think that's the best still.

I think the key is that Roethlisberger gets hit and goes straight down and the ball isn't in when he lands. I don't think it hit the line and if it did, it was barely (which is, by rule, enough). But the Head Linesman first signals the play down and only signals touchdown well after Roethlisberger is down for a second or more. I agree the replay wasn't enough to overturn. And I don't think it would have been enough to overturn if the HL had called it down an inch away. VIDEO CLIP

Can't agree. I think it's a legit hold. You can actually see it better on the regular shot than you can on the replay, but I think the circled still on the replay shows #75's arm hooking the defender's arm. VIDEO CLIP

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...wl_holding.jpg

I think calls 1 and 3 are spot-on and that Leavy couldn't overturn #2 no matter how it was called based on the replays. The real controversy about the Roethlisberger call, to me, is the delay and the arm raised as if the HL was going to spot the ball.

wow Over and back, great post. you not only give your opinion and that of others you bring pictures. I only wish there was a clearer shot on the Big Ben TD or not play. It was hillarious this morning watching Cold Pizza guys, One was 100% sure after seeing the replays that Ben crossed the Goal line. the other 100% sure he stopped him 3 inches short. Its amazing that these brilliant sportscasters who are always so knowledgable and unbiased can disagree so adamently. You know this was a dam close call, the HL even had to think a whole extra 2.3 seconds (slow old guy). But I think we can all agree that the best angle was between the ears of the HL, whose replay wasn't hazy, or judgement clouded. personally I thought he was in, but 2 inches short would have just padded Bettis's Stats even more.

PS if you didn't know most of the above comments were meant to be read in a facetious tone. (don't worry I spellchecked it!)

The one call I was most dissapointed in was the "block below the waist" on Hassleback when he was making the tackle in the INT return.
I had no problem with the off interference and the hold and my opinion on the td is on the other thread. There was a comment about an OOB play for Seattle instead of a TD and it not being reviewed along with Steven's dropped pass/possible catch and fumble. I felt those were the exact right calls.

The officials are getting lambasted on the sports talk around here and on the national level but other than Roths TD and the Hassleback BBW I felt they did a great job, especially Levy. Someone on the other thread did not like his lack of explanation on the Roth TD. But in watching a high number of games this season, if there was a lack of evidence to overturn, the WH's to a man all said "the ruling on the field stands" instead of saying there was a lack of evidence. If there was conclusive evidence one way or the other then they would expound that info.

Another Call
 

How can you have OPI before a pass is thrown? That one still boggles my mind.

Re: Another Call
 

Unfortunately, I don't have an NFL rule book available. But <B>IF</b> the NFL code agrees with that of the high school level (for this particular rule), let it no longer "boggle" your mind. OPI restrictions begin with the snap. DPI restrictions begin once the pass is thrown. Again, I can't say whether the codes agree but if they do, there's your answer. Hopefully someone can clear this up for you.

OverAndBack - very nice work!

How can you have OPI before a pass is thrown? That one still boggles my mind.
__________________________________________________ _________

From the nfl.com rulebook section http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/passinterference

4. It is pass interference by either team when any player movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player of such player’s opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

You cannot just push the defender out of the way then get wide open. Remember the defense cannot contact a receiver before the ball is thrown either for similar reason. The penalty is not DPI before the ball is thrown (NFL does have a 5 yard window).

Peace

WOW!!!!!!!
 

This is the best break down of the video that I have seen. Great post Over and Back.

Peace

Wow!! is exact. During the game I admit I didn't see that hold, but now with this clip it is plain as day. If he doesn't hook him then that player makes the sack. Good Call!

And the replay also shows the defender grabbing Jackson right at the goal line, causing him to break stride...so I ask again, if the BJ doesn't call that illegal contact, why does he throw the flag on Jackson's push? If you're gonna "let them play", then let them play...

Jackson was already cutting when Hope touched him. IMO, Jackson wasn't impeded by Hope's touching. Run the replay and watch Hope get knocked backwards by Jackson's push, which clearly prevented him from making a play.

There's nothing inconsistent there.

I didn't see the goalline contact as a "grab," and I didn't see it cause the receiver to break stride. The receiver looks over his shoulder, then turns to his left to make a cut. He has to STOP to make the turn effectively. I thought the goal line contact was fairly negligible, while the pushoff got the separation that enabled him to catch a touchdown pass a second afterwards. You can't let that go.

REPLY: Over and Back...great post!! Thanks. I had seen all he controversial plays except the hold on the Seattle tackle. I agree with JasonTx...the hold was there. And a more mediocre official might not have seen it or realized its impact on the play

did anybody notice
 

On the holding call, the defensive player was offside?

If I knew how to post pictures, I would, but if you pause the video right at the beginning, you'll see the ball still on the ground in the center's hand, and both the nose tackle AND the player that supposedly got held already in motion, stepping across the line.

This is my first post, but I have to say I'm a little disappointed with the reactions of the officials on this forum (although I understand). We tend to give our own the benefit of the doubt with calls, as we've all made mistakes, but that game was embarassing, for the following reasons:

The OPI may have been a legit call BY THE BOOK... but it's a call that never gets made. We can all say we'd call it, but in the Super Bowl, who really would? That play happens on every passing play in football, and gets called twice a year. If you're going to make it a point of emphasis, do it all season, not at the most crucial point of the most important game, after a full season of non-calls. To say it was called according to the rules is a cop-out... you can call holding on every play, illegal formation on every play, and illegal contact on every play, but you don't, because you let the players play.

The holding call referenced above -- If that's holding, then there is nothing an offensive lineman can do legally. The man was offsides, then got on his outside. The lineman put one hand squarely on his chest and pushed him, never grabbed him. The stills are misleading, as they show him sliding off, but there was no grab. The telling pic would be after the supposed hold, the defensive player never protested. When was the last time you had a defensive player say he WASN'T held?

Illegal block was without a doubt the worst call in the history of football. No excuse for not huddling up to discuss that and pick up the flag.

I've been officiating high school and college football for 20 years, and I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night if I was on that crew. Defend your brethren all you want, but look at it objectively and you'll see it was a terribly called game.

Re: did anybody notice
 

If you have to use a still image to come to the conclusion he was offside, then how would you expect an official to make this call at full speed. Still images are deceiving. It's about at inconclusive as using a still image to say a receiver made a catch. You have to view these types of things in full speed and then make the call. Sure OPI may happen a lot, but how many times do we see a player right in front of the Back Judge get clear separation and then make the TD catch. You'd be a fool not to toss that flag. He'd probably be fired for not making that call.

Re: did anybody notice
 

The BBW was a wrong call, but the others were fine.

The OPI only gets called twice a year but happens EVERY GAME!! You exaggerate like my wife!! OPI not called when the receiver displaces the defender and catches the ball for a TD in the super bowl, that would really be a great time to decide to NOT have the balls to make the call.

NFL says well officiated
 

Re: NFL says well officiated
 

That is good enough for me. The NFL says when they make mistakes so if they were happy, then it is just bias fans whining. Like that never happens.

How about the block on Roethlisberger after he tossed his 2nd interception... What is the general consensus on that among you official types?

Check these out granted they're small...

http://www.lucas-mullen.info/images/xl/cap0013.jpg
http://www.lucas-mullen.info/images/xl/cap0014.jpg



[Edited by Franknbeans on Feb 8th, 2006 at 09:36 AM]

stills are tough to judge
 

Still images are really hard to judge a BIB by, or any play for that matter as stated above. When it happened (semi) live I thought it was a penalty...on the replay it shows the guy gets him in the side of the ribs then the back of the shoulder then slides to the back...all legal in my opinion

<b>That is good enough for me. The NFL says when they make mistakes so if they were happy, then it is just bias fans whining. Like that never happens.</b>

This HAS to be a joke.

There were two blatantly bad calls: the illegal block, and the timeout that was granted well after the play clock hit zero.

On top of that, there were half a dozen extremely questionable calls, all going against the same team, including one where the quarterback involved said on national TV he didn't score. To me, that gives the "whiners" a valid point.

The NFL could have done two things; 1) admit there were some mistakes, adding fuel to the fire and getting the refs linched next time they're in Seattle, or 2) deny everything and hope the offseason heals all wounds.

They took the easy way out and said "they did fine, end of story". If that's "good enough for you" in face of the evidence, then you're a sad, sad excuse for an official.

I saw this on TiVo several times. The first contact was with the shoulder first and the right hand contacted the back which was second. This was a good no call.

Peace

I disagree. The NFL grades every official on every single play. Not just by one or two plays, EVERY PLAY. There are always mistakes with coverage or even judgment calls. Why would they come out and say there were mistakes in this game because there was one mistake. Remember the NFL is not the media. They know what they teach their officials to do and every call for the most part followed their teachings. The only call that was messed up was the Hassleback BBW. I am sure calls like that are made all the time during the season and you never hear about it. The NFL knows what percentages of calls were correct or not correct. I bet the things they even had a problem with the media would not know what to talk about as it related to those plays. The NFL does not have to validate what uneducated media members think. BTW, the NFL Network reviews the officials every week. I am sure something will be talked about there. This has been done all season long.

Peace

so mr rrref, do you know when the time out was requested or only when the referee signalled time out??? Try this scenario: Play clock running down at 1 second the coach screams "TIME OUT" the official hears it and checks the play clock and sees 1 second, the official now glances to the sideline to confirm that it was the head coach that requested the time out,the play clock is now at 0. The official grants and signals the time out, the clock has now read 0 for a second or so...no foul for delay of game. There are times, for several reasons, that the time out request is heard and acknowledged, and made in time, and the actual granting takes a little while to get processed....

Exactly. Another reason is this. The Back Judge is responsible for the play clock. The Referee is the one that the QB turned to and signaled timeout. The Referee had no idea the clock was on zero since that's not his responsibility, the Back Judge isn't watching to see if a timeout is being called before he tosses the flag. So the two officials come together to determine what happened first and clearly there is no way of knowing if the T/O was first or the Delay, so the logical thing to do is go with the T/O. If you watch the game again you'll actually see the headlinesman running in signalling timeout, and that would indicate to me that the head coach called timeout prior to the clock hitting zero and prior to the QB calling for timeout. But the NFL philosophy is to go with the T/O instead of the delay of game in those close plays like that.

That's the biggest joke I've seen in criticizing the goalline call, that Ben says he didn't think he scored.

How in the world would he know for sure? He's not watching down the line, specifically looking for the ball to break the plane.

I don't think anyone will debate the BBW call. However, the OPI was a good call in my book. I'm all for letting them play...and had that contact occured 2 seconds before it did, I would have held my flag. In this instance you have a reciever clearly gaining seperation and an advantage a fraction of a second before the ball is caught. It may have not been a visable reaction by the defender, but IMHO the defender could have been in position to at least deflect the ball had the arm not been used by the reciever.

When it coumes down to it, most of these are judgement calls. Is the same for all of us that wear the stripes. Do you call a minor hold on a wide out when he's getting blocked at the line and the play is a dive up the middle? no. Do you call a Jr. High game as tight as you call a varsity? I suspect not. This was the Super Bowl. A match up between the two best teams in the league. There is no excuse for not calling the game as tight as it was called. And the calls that were made (O-line holding that brought back a TD and the OPI) were infractions that occured and gave the offending team a distinct advantage.

Re: did anybody notice
 

I've tried to stay out of the arguments about the officiating. When you wrestle with pigs .......

I don't feel that I can be silent any longer.

It has often been said that even average officials can look good when a game is played by two great teams. But even a great official can look terrible when the game is played by two poor teams. Frankly, this superbowl was played by two poorly prepared teams. All of the dropped passes, the missed assignments, the terrible clock management, etc.

The officiating was fine. Nearly every forum I have visited has new members or annonymous posters who want to bash the officiating. Some of them even claim to be fellow officials with extensive experience. (It's funny how they all come out of the woodwork after a big game).

I don't see what all the commotion is about. Even on the night of the Super Bowl, I thought the officiating was pretty good. My belief is further validated because many of the regulars that I have come to respect think that the officiating was pretty good too. Some may claim that we are just sticking together because we are officials. BOLOGNA! If you have frequented this forum often, you will know that we aren't afraid to discuss the SPECIFICS of what we felt could have been done better. There are examples of plays from the Super Bowl scatterd about on the forum. (i.e. the mechanics of the dead ball then touchtown signal, the illegal block below the waist call).

To those of you who are generalizing about how poor the officiating was, come up with some specific examples. Otherwise your post will have little meaning and sound like sour grapes (no matter how you attempt to clarify yourselves).

To the guys in stripes who worked the Super Bowl, I say KUDOS for a job well done. To the NFL, I would encourage you to ignore the rantings of the TV personalities and the fans. The game officials did a fine job.

Re: did anybody notice
 

Makes you wonder why it's still IN THE BOOK, then, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

If it was right in front of me, with 140 million TV viewers (many of them officials, and one of them Mike Pereira), I would hope to God I'd make that call. Why wouldn't you? It's the right call. You were in the right position. IT'S THE RULE.

It was a classic call. If you do not want enforcement of rules, then let the players call their own fouls and we will see how fun that will be.

Peace

if it's the "rule" it should be called EVERY time. My point is that it's NOT. It happens on every passing play in every game, and it's part of the game.

By definition of the rule, "It is pass interference by either team when any player movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player of such player’s opportunity to catch the ball."

By that definition, knocking the ball away is a foul. Instead of looking at the strict definition, consider the SPIRIT of the rule, which implies doing something that gives an unfair advantage to a player.

I just watched the video of the play. The defender grabbed the receiver, and the receiver pushed his arm away. That was it. Equally amount defensive pass interference by the letter of the law, but nobody here would have called that.

And to answer the posters question about why so many new people come out of the woodwork after a big game -- it's because people search for things after they see them. I stumbled across this forum because of the controversy and am very disappointed by the attitudes here.

It does not happen on every play. I did not see a push off on the Randal-El/Ward play. I think you are exaggerating a little bit to try to bolster your point. It does not happen on every play. Please stop all the hyperbole for God’s sake.

Extending your arms on a push off seems like that fits the spirit of the rules pretty much if you ask me. Just because the player did not fall on is back on his back does not make the call any less accurate. Basically what took place was similar to an arm bar where the extension of the arms prevents the player from moving forward. The defender moved back and both feet moved. It was not like he was standing still and the contact did not affect him. The receiver was able to move without any problem. I wonder who got and advantage here?

There is such thing as incidental contact. If the defender was holding the receiver, he would have had to struggle to get away. Touching does not constitute holding someone by any means. If it does in your mind, you need to go back and read the definition of a hold in a dictionary or rulebook.

His question was rhetorical at best. His point was if you really want to learn about our feelings, we debate all season long on games when the media does not say a word about a game. I read more critical comments about officiating all season long here than I ever did in the media. Only when someone did something in the Super Bowl are you seeing folks like you that come here now telling us what is proper and what is not. Where have you been all year?

Peace

You are a troll. Go away. Feel free to let the door hit your a$$ on the way out, it might wake up your brain.

I'm a troll why? Because I have an opinion different than yours? Because I think the officiating was sub-par? Or because I don't blindly defend fellow referees just because I know their job is hard?

The officials of this game should be embarassed by their performance. Everybody has an off day, and they do an amazing job in general, considering how fast things happen and how mere inches decide whether their call is right or wrong.

Still, man up when you make a mistake, and that game was full of mistakes. For the NFL to simply say "no errors in the game" is sad. To say "that's good enough for me" is, to me, a joke. I expressed my opinion, others refuted that opinion with theirs -- which is what this forum is for... to open lines of discussion and debate.

I respect people that have opinions different than mine, but for you to resort to name calling and pissing third grade comments shows what kind of a man you are.

Anyone who joins this forum just to whine about the SB officials should let the door hit him on the way out.

Actually, I checked out the forum because I was curious what other officials thought about what I saw as a very poorly called game. I was surprised to see so few people questioning the calls, and nearly everybody defending the calls, giving the benefit of the doubt on EVERYTHING.

I had a different opinion, and thought I'd share that to open discussion. Some people have responded with constructive answers and differing opinions, then others simply attack those that don't agree.

To me, that's the difference between a referee that discusses the calls with the players and explains it to them (did you see the "He spit right in his face" explanation that ended all complaining by the players?), which is a GOOD job of officiating, and the basketball ref that gives a technical if anybody questions a single call, which is a BAD job of officiating.

I can see which one you are.

The other funny thing is that in Tuesday's Tampa Tribune, Darrell Jackson said of the OPI, "I didn't even touch him."

So much for eyewitness testimony.

You're really on a roll. "Knocking the ball away is a foul" by definition? Excuse me? Did you read the rule you just cited and typed? Do the words "hinders the progress of an eligible player" mean anything to you? If I have to connect those dots for you, maybe you shouldn't be wearing stripes on a football field.

I guess I need to introduce myself to everyone. I've perused this site for over a year without ever posting, but with the Super Bowl controversies, I couldn't resist joining in. I've worked as a young official for two years in football and am starting my second in baseball. I don't hold myself out as an expert in this world; only a learner at this point.

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/useofhands

A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender. The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops. Beyond this five-yard limitation, a defender may use his hands or arms ONLY to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. In such reaction, the defender may not contact a receiver who attempts to take a path to evade him.

doogs what is your point??

My point being that if you want to take the strict reading of rules, after the first 5 yards the defender can only put his hand on a receiver in order to protect himself from impending contact. This I feel was not the case. The play started as a 1st and 10 at the Pitt. 16. When the defender put his hand on the receiver he was at the goal line, beyond the 5 yard cushion. In reading that rule the play should have been offsetting penalties and replay the down.

How did the defender impede the progress of the receiver? The receiver ran toward the defender. The receiver got away with no problem.

Also to be technical, the officials are taught things that are interpreted outside the "words" of the rulebook. If you were an official you would at the very least know that. In HS the casebook is our interpretation and application book. In the NFL they see tape, see play after play to tell them what is a hold, OPI, DPI or any other infraction that has taken place. The NFL uses tapes to tell them about mechanics and what is the proper technique. I even saw a tape on what is the proper procedure to throw a flag.

Peace

The NFL reviewed all of the calls and found nothing wrong. I disagree with one, the bogus call on Hasselbeck when he tackled Ike Taylor (and didn't even hit the blocker in question) but other than that what evidence do YOU have other than your opinion?

The NFL did not say "nothing" was wrong. The NFL said that the game was officiating properly. The reason that distinction needs to be made, is because things we have no idea about things that were not fouls or not fouls. For all we know there might have been a problem with a mechanic, a spot or positioning. There might have even been a problem with who threw a flag and who did not throw a flag. NFL officials can get downgraded for things we never see or understand or hear about.

Peace

Granted, I should have said nothing wrong with the calls in question. I still don't see how they could have said it was properly officiated given the Hasslebeck call. I think the other calls, while mostly judgement calls, were documented fouls according to the rules. Jackson clearly got an advantage (separation) by pushing Townsend away and I don't know how anyone can fault the referee for making that call considering it happened right in front of him.

One call does not change how an entire game is officiating. It really is that simple. If that is the case every game would not be properly officiated if we use that standard.

When people do not understand the rules, they do not understand the logic behind why things are called.

Peace

The rule does not state anything about impeding progress. Only contact.

Does that mean the word contact has a different meaning for this rule than it does for the down by contact rule?

I understand the rules. I understand the logic behind why it was called.

My only problem was the consistency. If a play is called consistently, then nobody can complain. Complaints are valid when the call is never made, then made at the most crucial of times.

Officials unfortunately forget that the game is about the players and the fans, not about them. Let the players play. A properly officiated game should leave the officials virtually invisible. This was not the case in the Super Bowl.

If you look for proof to support the calls, you can find it. If you look for proof to refute the calls, you can find it. What people SHOULD be looking for, is what is correct.

There is a term that many call a "rulebook official." That is when an official only looks for justification in the rules and does not use any training or common sense. In order to hold someone, you have to impede, restrict or change the actions of a player. The rules do not have to say that, but all the training and interpretations do not suggest a hold as "touching." If I have freedom of movement, not sure how I can be held on a play like this?

No, there is just such thing as incidental contact. No where are you going to find in any football rulebook where contact is not expected. Illegal contact in the NFL code I am sure is defined and there are further interpretations that say exactly what that is. BTW, there are not special restrictions for defense over the offense. Both offense and defense have an equal right to the ball or to a spot. Either you do not understand the entire pass restrictions or you are just looking for one line in a rulebook to support something you otherwise cannot support. Even the media is not focusing on that aspect of this foul.

Peace

I am not so sure you do.

Consistency based on what? I have seen that called all year. The NFL for the past several years has cracked down on OPI and this was one of many calls made all year. One of our jobs is to call the obvious. When you extend your arms and make the defender move backwards, that is pretty obvious. If he was slicker and did not have the same arm extention, he might have got away with it.

What do you mean it is about the players and fans? If it was about the fans then betting would be legal across the country BTW. If the players only want it to be about them, why do they spend so much time trying to tell the officials what should be called? There were 10 fouls total in the game. If you look over the entire season you might be lucky if you find one game that has less than 10 fouls in en entire game. I have seen games where 10 fouls were called in a half or a quarter. Not sure what the officials did that changed the game. There were about 160 plays in this game and only 10 the officials had anything to do with. That is less than 10% of the plays involved a penalty. When players stop making mistakes, officials will stop making mistakes and this call you are complaining about was not a mistake.

I do not think anyone is looking for anything to prove the situation. You are the one trying to convince us that the calls were wrong. Some media guy that thinks fouls is supposed to be even to have a properly called game is not a good reference point.

If you would spend more time here during the season and off season, you would see that we talk about things like this all the time. We do not just pick the Super Bowl to debate calls or consistency. You are just a Johnny come lately complaining about something you have proven you know nothing about.

Peace

<i>Consistency based on what? I have seen that called all year. The NFL for the past several years has cracked down on OPI and this was one of many calls made all year. One of our jobs is to call the obvious. When you extend your arms and make the defender move backwards, that is pretty obvious. If he was slicker and did not have the same arm extention, he might have got away with it. </i>
256 regular season games, <20 OPI calls, yet that same amount of contact happens on 90% of all pass plays. Watch the video. The defender puts both hands on the receiver, and the receiver swats his arms off him. Ticky tack at best. Bad call (unless it's called all the time, which it isn't).

<i>What do you mean it is about the players and fans? If it was about the fans then betting would be legal across the country BTW. If the players only want it to be about them, why do they spend so much time trying to tell the officials what should be called? There were 10 fouls total in the game. If you look over the entire season you might be lucky if you find one game that has less than 10 fouls in en entire game. I have seen games where 10 fouls were called in a half or a quarter. Not sure what the officials did that changed the game. There were about 160 plays in this game and only 10 the officials had anything to do with. That is less than 10% of the plays involved a penalty. When players stop making mistakes, officials will stop making mistakes and this call you are complaining about was not a mistake. </i>
this proves my point. You're an official that has a power trip and wants to be bigger than the game. You're wrong. There were 10 fouls called. 1 of those was on Pittsburgh, aside from the 2 illegal procedures. 5 of the 7 against Seattle were controversial and on key plays, which greatly hurt their chances of scoring, thereby affecting the outcome of the game. Scandal? No... but still not an even playing field.

<i>I do not think anyone is looking for anything to prove the situation. You are the one trying to convince us that the calls were wrong. Some media guy that thinks fouls is supposed to be even to have a properly called game is not a good reference point.

If you would spend more time here during the season and off season, you would see that we talk about things like this all the time. We do not just pick the Super Bowl to debate calls or consistency. You are just a Johnny come lately complaining about something you have proven you know nothing about.

Peace [/B][/QUOTE]</i>
Look at the original post of this thread. It's trying to prove the situation. My opinion is this "proof" is slanted because of bias of the officials in this forum.

I haven't tried to prove anything. I'm stating my opinions. Just because I'm new to the forum doesn't make my opinions invalid. Neither does my having an opinion different than yours.

This is why you are a poor excuse for an official. You have an idea and are unwilling to hear any other sides. You defend another official's work because everybody else in the world is coming down on them, and you get defensive.

The Super Bowl was officiated poorly. You think it wasn't because you're a poor excuse for an official.

Are those from the Department of Statistics I Just Made Up? Do you see 90% of all pass plays in the NFL?

How many plays with that contact happen right in front of the back judge in the end zone, with an unobstructed view, and separation after the contact, followed within a second by the catching of a touchdown pass?

You watch the video. Where's the receiver swat? I don't see a swat. I see a receiver cutting back and changing his pattern, and I don't see him swatting.


See, here's where I know your point isn't being proven. Do you know Jeff Rutledge? I do. He's a lot of things, but someone who thinks he's bigger than the game? No way. If anything, he knows precisely how much bigger the game is than he, than me, than you, than all of us.

So....what are you saying? A conspiracy? Controversial doesn't mean conspiracy, and one man's controversy is not another one's. The OPI call, to me, is an OPI. No controversy. No controversy on the holding call. Roethlisberger, yes, there's a controversy and reasonable people can agree to disagree despite seeing the same things.

You mean what they SHOULD be looking for, is what agrees with YOUR opinion, right?

Actually, Jeff's a very good official. But you wouldn't know that. And "everbody else in the world is coming down on them?" REALLY? Here I thought there was some difference of opinion - not everybody in the world on one side and one or two of us on the other side.

It's your OPINION that the Super Bowl was officiated poorly. How can you rip on someone for ripping you for having an opinion contrary to his, while at the same time ripping someone for having an opinion contrary to yours?

But being new to this forum does make your opinion less "respected". Respect is earned, not something that is freely awarded. The only thing we have heard from you is that the officiating was terrible. I don't think I would feel comfortable walking into the teacher's lounge as the newbie and telling the teacher's how terrible other teachers are.

This is why you are a poor excuse for an official. You have an idea and are unwilling to hear any other sides. You defend another official's work because everybody else in the world is coming down on them, and you get defensive.

Many of us who frequent this forum are always willing to listen to the other side of a discussion. However, this isn't a discussion of a call. This is simply someone with no record here submitting an overly general opinion. If we come across as defensive, it is because we have yet to hear a rational argument as to why the officiating was sub-par.

Just because people disagree with your opinion doesn't make them terrible officials.


The Super Bowl was officiated poorly. You think it wasn't because you're a poor excuse for an official.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the Super Bowl was well officiated. But just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean we are poor officials or that we are somehow circling the wagons. You have yet to say WHY you feel the game was poorly officiated. You really can't bring up the controversial fouls because they were in fact controversial. In order to have controversey, people must have polarizing views of the call(s). In other words, there are an equal number of people who felt the calls were correct. The argument that I'm right because I'm on a certain side of the issue isn't very compelling.

The NFL (and truly the ones whose opinion really matters) agrees with us. If the game were that poorly officiated, you can bet the NFL would have said something about it. They have a history of admitting when mistakes are made in games.

I refuse to play in the mud anymore. I doubt anything anyone says here will sway your opinion.

Whether I am a good official or a bad official is for other people to decide. I do know that I attend two clinics every single year. One is a college camp where Dave Parry attends and speaks and many of the Big Ten officials teach (also MAC and Gateway guys as well). There is also a guy that gives a presentation about the NFL at this camp. He shows NFL training tapes and goes into great detail as to what the NFL does in their training and the philosophies that they use. As a matter of fact, a NFL Back Judge gave a presentation on "Pass Interference" who is also a member of an association I belong to and showed NFL Official's evaluation tapes on what is OPI and DPI. Anyone can attend this camp it is held in Naperville, Illinois every July and it is called the Central Officials Football Clinic. I have attended for about 4 years now.

I teach at another clinic where some of the best officials in the state train officials. Officials much better than me teach what to do as a football official and I am fortunate to be apart of that group. Most officials are either State Final officials or they have extensive experience and work deep into the playoffs. I do not have the same background that everyone has, but I did work further than most in the playoffs last year. I also have two guys on my regular HS football crew that worked a State Finals. As well as teaching football officiating, I listen to officials that have been places I have yet to go. At this clinic that I am referring to, it is considered the best football clinic in the state by the state officials that regularly attend.

Now I do not work any college ball and I do not claim to be a great official. I have worked with some of the best officials in the state and I belong to an association where the teachers you can watch many nationally covered games, these are the guys that come to our meetings and teach the rest of us. We currently have 4 Big Ten Crew Chiefs that regularly come back (one is the Arena League Supervisor) and train the officials in this association. Four Big Ten Technical Advisors were members when they officiated in the Big Ten. BTW, Jerry Markbriet is also a former member and speaks to our organization yearly.

I am bombarded with philosophies, rules and mechanics by some officials that you only read about or see on TV. When many of our guys work a nationally covered game, they come back and talk about the situations and the way to make calls and handle players and coaches. You can think whatever about me, but much of what I am saying here is based on what I have had the opportunity to talk to the people and know the people that are at this level. I am not just dealing with an "opinion" I am dealing with people that rub work at that level and teach the lowly officials like myself what to do and not to do.

As Over and Back said, you do not know me and you certainly do not know anyone here. There was a clinic held in Detroit surrounding the Super Bowl, I know both people mentioned personally as the teachers of that clinic. You do not know who comes here or what they have done. I am just a blip on the screen, but I can tell you do not know much about officiating if all you can say is an "opinion" and that is supposed to be factual. I can guarantee you that this game will be featured on some level at the CFO Clinic in July and many of the plays will be used for training purposes. I will trust their word over some guy that uses a funny name on a discussion board.

Peace

I would posit that virtually any time OPI is as blatent as it was in the play in question, it gets called.

To the extent you are articulating a "but don't call it in the superbowl" rule, I'd urge you to watch the last minute of Superbowl 38. Carolina and New England are tied. New England is driving to try to get in field goal range. Exact same play occurs. Troy Brown makes a catch to get inside the Carolina 40 yard line to essentially put them just a couple of yards from a championship. But wait -- the precise scenario unfolds -- flag on the play. Brown had briefly touched the defender's chest, pushing him back on his heels, to get momentary separation, and Brady put the ball right on the numbers. Instead of being in Vinatieri range, ball gets marched back near the Patriot 30, for a 1st and 20. (Brown then redeems himself with a spectacular catch, the Patriots ultimatley convert on 3d and 3, and the rest is history.) Same play. Same situation. Same call. If anything, it was a much bigger call in Super Bowl 38. If the patriots don't convert from the 1st and 20, the call would have essentially been responsible for taking away a kick by the most clutch kicker in the NFL that year to win a championship.

As for the Roethlesberger crossing the goal line call, is it just irrelevant to everyone that the Steelers had a down left? The chances of them not getting one inch are like 2 percent. The same people who say without hesitation that, but for the holding later in the game, Seattle would have scored a touchdown from the 3, seem to be the same ones saying that Pittsburgh wouldn't have scored from the one inch line.

[Edited by rulesmaven on Feb 9th, 2006 at 07:22 PM]

what position?
 

What position do you mainly work, Carolina RRRef?

Has there been any explaination for the Hasselbach BBW foul? That is the only one that I do not understand why it was called.

Being a wing (LOS NF, Deep NCAA) at all levels, I want to make sure that I understand the rule and when to use it.

I believe the spirit of the rule is to not allow players to take out blockers in the open field, but if the tackler goes through the blocker below the waist to take the carrier down, I personally would have a hard time calling it.

But I am not sure of the extent of the contact (photo anyone?) with the blocker.

I remember that this exact foul happened late in the regular season. The QB threw an Int and then took out the blocker below the waist, even though it appeared he was attempting to make the tackle. A flag was thrown and the NFL made their announcement that there wasn't any exception to the foul even if he was attempting to make a tackle. In the Super Bowl play my only guess is he must have thought that there was contact against another player. I'd personally like to see the play posted on here just for us to learn from it and discuss the mechanics.

I saw the hold real time, and said outloud: "that's holding; I wonder if he (R) saw it." When either Michaels said there was a flag or a yellow "flag" came up on screen, I did my holding call and a split second later, so did the R!

There was no question it was a hold.

Didn't see the OPI, so the BBW (are we SURE that's what was called??) and the Seattle reception/fumble that was blown incomplete were missed, while the TD was inconclusive.

Spot on, CarolinaRef. At least someone sees the Superbowl for what it was.

Carolinarrreff is only one right
 

Who are all you idiots saying there was only one bad call during this game, that being the bbw on hasselback. how bout the blown fumble call against the seahawks that thank god was overturned only because of replay. how bout the catch and fumble that was ruled incomplete and whistled dead by Stevens. Every questionable call that was made was against the seahawks. And pretty much, every call was questionable. I guess you all know more about the game and how its played than Marino, Sharpe, Young, and Madden. They all said the dpi was something that could be called every play and happens on almost every play barring a wide open situation. I can see the justification for that call, but then call it more often- and call the illegal contact on db's more often(like everytime they put hands on after 5 yards). You can't apply a spirit of the rule one time and then come out with that's the way the rule reads on the next. The holding call was a complete joke. look at the play in speed- didnt look like the defender's progress was held up to me. Just cause still picture showing the ol hand on the dl chest doesn't mean he is holding. Peace and sr. member- you can learn a lot from carolinarreff. I have read all the posts and hers/his are most objective. If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys are Pittsburgh Steeler Fans. Darren

Uhhh.... Hmmmmmm.....Yeaaaaaahhhh ..... Let's seeeeeeeee... I think Puh-Hiitttsssssssburgh would've recovered the fummmmmble by Stevens, sooooooo Seattle gotta break... YEEaaahhhh.... That's greeeaaaaatttttttt...... Thanks for playing!

You can be sarcastic all you like. The truth of the matter nothing is going to change because we complain or agree with the calls we have discussed. The NFL is going to do what they see fit and they are going to evaluate their officials the way they see fit. If these calls were not within the philosophies of the NFL, those officials will get some repercussions from that. If the NFL liked the job they did, they will get awarded for that. It does not matter what they say on ESPN or sports radio either. Most of the commentators have said the dumbest things as it relates to accountability by the officials or the way officials are trained.

Thank for the discussion but all our points are basically moot. For those that do officiate and disagree with the calls, I hope you can defend your calls that might seem controversial to those on either side of the game. If you work long enough you will be faced with a call that might be tough or not so obvious by the naked eye. I hope you then remember this conversation that we are having and I hope you get support by your fellow officials. You might just need it.

Peace

I'm not being sarcastic, I was just saying that the Stevens no-catch was actually a call in favor of Seattle. I've already lost my battle, I just don't see why a guy would come in here just for the sake of complaining about the SB.

Re: Carolinarrreff is only one right
 

Except that he almost went to the ground and still nearly got the sack. I'd say his progress was held up. His arm was hooked.

Re: Re: Carolinarrreff is only one right
 

He actually did go down to one knee so yeah I agree a pretty significant advatage was gained.....as for the quote above by mr Stevens...you contradict yourself with all the calls going against seattle and mentioning the catch/fumble argument...When we watched it at our college rules meeting this week, granted it was in slow motion, but according the the DI philosophies out here, it was no catch..he didn't get his second foot down before he got hit so I think it was a good call...so MR Stevens, why don't you go on back to Samantha and see if she can wiggle her nose and make things all better for you....

JRutledge,
Thanks for taking the time to explain my points of interest. Not sure if I totally agree but I appreciate your clear explanations of your point of view. I am not a official and came to this board for some insight from people who do officiating on a regular basis. If my not being a official makes me unwelcome to this board I will refrain from posting anymore comments. Thanks again.

Would it surprise you to know that the actual number of OPI calls in the 2005 NFL season was 98?

Would you be shocked to know that nine touchdowns were called back during the 2005 NFL season because of an OPI call?

Would you be taken aback if you knew that Plaxico Burress of the Giants led the league by being flagged for five OPI calls?

What if you knew that Randy Moss had two touchdown catches called back because he pushed off a defensive back?

I'll bet you would. But those are the facts.

Doogs,

I think you're missing the point if you feel you're unwelcome here. I haven't seen you do anything other than ask some questions and while you may not agree with the answers you haven't resorted to the conspiracy theory that some non-officials seem to accuse us of.

If you read this board regularly you'd see that we can be critical of our brothers working in the NFL, while maintaining respect for the work they put in to get there. I've had many conversations with NFL officials and know the kind of scrutiny they're subjected to. I think most fans would be shocked to hear how they're evaluated on every play, good or bad. I think it would do them well if the public were allowed to see the training and evaluation system these guys work under. I don't know of any of us that could survive this type of scrutiny, whether on the field or in our private business.

In short, you have a collection of officials from all over the country with varying backgrounds and experience generally agreeing that the Super Bowl was a well-called game. Sure, there may have been a missed call or 2 but they're not the ones getting all of the attention. After reviewing those plays, with the ability to run the play forwards and back, stop action and slow motion, I've concluded that the correct calls were made. I could only hope to see that same thing during live action and make the correct call.

So please, keep asking your questions. In general, I don't think we mind answering. But do accept the fact that we're not covering for anyone. We're just telling you what we feel the ruling should be based upon our knowledge of the rules and how we're instructed to apply them.

OMG, that is some good stuff right there. Man, you are really coming trough with the information. THANK YOU VERY MUCH Over and Back. This puts some things in perspective. If these calls have been made all year, not sure what there is to complain about.

Peace

You are more than welcome to come back and discuss things. Just understand that we know the rules better than the regular public even if we do not work those levels. Many of us go to camps and know officials that work at these levels and we know what they go through. You are more than welcome to discuss any officiating issue, just understand that we are not going to just take your word for it without considering what we know. Many times the officials here disagree on what we should do because not all of us are taught the same things or have the same experience. Just understand that this is an "Official's Forum" so our point of view is not going to be as friendly to fans that accuse officials of being bias or purposely making the wrong call. The guys at the NFL or major college is not going to jeopardize thousands of dollars to make one call that will lose them that all what they worked years to accomplish. I am sure their salary with the leagues put their kids through school, pay for their mortgages and any expenses that life will bring.

Peace

</b>
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.
<b>

Quote:

Would you be shocked to know that nine touchdowns were called back during the 2005 NFL season because of an OPI call?

</b>
same answer as above.
<b>

Quote:

Would you be taken aback if you knew that Plaxico Burress of the Giants led the league by being flagged for five OPI calls?

</b>not at all. He uses his hands and arms to create space to make catches... on pretty much EVERY pass play. And he only got called FIVE times. To lead the league. What's that tell you?
<b>

Quote:

What if you knew that Randy Moss had two touchdown catches called back because he pushed off a defensive back?

</b>Randy Moss is famous for pushing off. Why does he do it? Because he gets away with it. Like all receivers do. Sometimes, it's blatant -- when it is, sometimes it's called. Mostly, it's not.
<b>

Quote:

I'll bet you would. But those are the facts.

My original point remains the same: A call was made that's a judgment call, that by the letter of the law was valid. However, the same play doesn't get called during the regular season 99% of the time, and now it does. By itself, not a big deal. Combined with half a dozen other borderline calls all against the same team, and there's a problem.

In a game as crucial as the Super Bowl, the referees should let the players play. You can argue each call as correct, but when put together, it was a poor job of officiating, because the officials changed the course of the game, which is unfortunate.

interesting point
 

Interesting point CarolinaRRRef....the one about 99% of the time it doesn't get called...I know that you just pulled that number out of your A## and didn't go through the research to back it up....but I did do a little (very little, cause it didn't take much time), but there were over 100 offensive plays in the super bowl. Of those I believe I only saw 1 OPI, that would mean less than 1%, which also means that more than 99% of the time in the super bowl OPI wasn't called. I believe that in your analysis, this would be consistent with the rest of the season....As for letting players decide the game, this is such a lame argument. If the players don't put the officials in the situation to decide if they gain an advantage or not, then there isn't a foul...So in essence the players do decide the game by their actions, again matching your argument step for step....CarolinaRRRef are you really sure what you are arguing about anyway?????

I must be missing something here. There was only 1 OPI call in the Super Bowl. There are about 160-170 plays in the Super Bowl. That would make OPI called less than 1% of all the calls in the game. Sounds pretty consistent to me if we use your logic right?



Do you have any evidence that he did it on every play? Do you have evidence that he made contact with a defensive player on every play? Calls also are based on advantage and also if the defender did something. I did not see every NY Giants game, but I did see Burress beat some DBs and there was no contact with anyone.

I can tell you do not watch much football. Randy Moss's best route is a fly or go route. He does not go across the middle that much. He is one of the fastest players in the NFL. He goes right by people when he decides to run out the route. Moss was infamous for not even running a route when the play did not call for him to get the pass. I have also seen a lot of passes to Moss where he just outjumps a DB that he is about 6 to 7 inches taller than. He does not have to push off.


If the season average is less than 1 percent and the amount of times it was called in this one game is less than 1 percent, then what you just stated is not only wrong, but you obviously do not know how to use statistics. If the time it was called in this game was over 50%, then you have an argument. You are only percentage points away from calling it. Also, as a non-NFL official that is exposed to HS ball only, I know it does not get called enough because we do not have the balls to call OPI. But if the defender does anything wrong, we call them for penalties all day long and no one thinks anything about it.

Ten total penalties in an NFL game with all the timing issues and amount of plays is pretty much “letting them play” if you ask me. Letting them play does not mean to turn the other cheek when infractions were made. I can guarantee you that there were many times throughout the game where players were complaining about being held or push offs all over the field.

Also it must be noted that you or I are not in the NFL. You and I have likely not ever had one of our games evaluated on every play no matter what we called or did not call. You and I have also not seen what the NFL thought were good calls and thought were bad calls in every game these guys work. You might look at some statistical data and think you have the answer, but they see every tape of every game. They know why they are being downgraded. They know why their partners are being downgraded. They are in constant contact with the NFL on what they did wrong and they get to see things from other official's games to determine what a trend is and what needs to be tightened on. Now I have only seen a couple of videos that the NFL produces for the officials. These guys see this information all the time. And you are going to tell us you know better than they do? I DO NOT THINK SO BUDDY!!! You might be a really good official, but until you get to that point (if you ever get to that point) you will see. I do not think you are in the NFL, so I am not sure how you can tell us what is "technically" right as to what the NFL wants and what is actually a good call.

Peace

Who's Down with OPI?
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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]

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.

let me guess
 

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...

[/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.
<b>
[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?

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.
<b>

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

ok here we go again.....
 

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...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OverAndBack

Quote:

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.



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."

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

If players don't like our judgement, then they shouldn't do things that force us you use it. Players know it's illegal to push off. It doesn't matter how minor you think it is, that player knew for a fact that their was a .0004% chance or whatever the number was that was decided in this thread that a flag will be thrown. In a Super Bowl of all games I don't think I'd want to take a chance at pushing off, and if I did, I dang sure aren't going to do it in the end zone within 4 ft. of an official. I don't keep foul counts. Some teams more disciplined than others and better coached, so arriving at the point that things weren't consistent based upon the foul count is bogus. Sometimes a team doesn't foul but yet the other team is 10 fouls ahead of the other. Does that mean I'm not being consistent? I'm using the same judgment and holding each team to the same criteria. I'm sure not going to make up a bogus call just to make the foul count even.

Maybe if you keep saying that enough, it'll be true.

Doubt it.

How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in to your head? NFL officials aren't my heros, and they do make mistakes. I just don't think the plays that you're getting so high and mighty about were incorrectly called. If I thought they were, I'd tell you. Not that you'd listen.

So you're saying 70-75% of Americans think the Super Bowl wasn't officiated fairly? Where's that poll? Or are you just pulling numbers out of your *** again?

So if 91 million people watched the Super Bowl, you're telling me that about 66 million of them thought it was unfairly officiated? Where's that poll? Show me the surveys. Show me something. Show me anything other than that you're a bitter old f*** who doesn't like to be questioned.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by carolinaRRREF

Quote:

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.

Maybe the seats in the stands could be wired to allow the fans in attendance vote after watching replays on the scoreboard?

What you fail to acknowledge is that the officials working the game were rated highest at their position by the league. They rated highest because they called the game the way the league wants the game called. They called the super bowl the same way they called the rest of the season.

Officials cannot and should not officiate to please the players, the coaches, the fans or the media. They call what's in the books. If you don't like how the game is being called then change the rules but don't blame the people for enforcing the rules as written.