Steve that's about the same argument as saying "But Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan agree...". :)

Thanks for the laugh this morning. It was much needed. :D

The rest of your post is eloquently stated.

So how many games have you called again?

I will leave this quote for everyone's consumption, I think it is most appropriate.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt

I thought instant replay was instituted to correct obvious mistakes.

Here we have the most obvious blown call in recent memory and despite all the technology and experience in the replay booth the system is impotent.

If that call stood despite being so obviously wrong what is the point of reviewing ANY call?

Well, there is that. But that has little to do with Ed Hochuli in particular and more to do with the rules of the competition in general. And "correct obvious mistakes" should actually read "correct most obvious mistakes, but not all of them" (and for reasons I'm not completely clear on, either).

Things happen and the rulesmakers react to them. Replay is seen as having this overarching God-like ability to write every wrong, when the unfortunate truth is, it probably can't and a big part of that is because of the way the rules are written. Like anything else, it'll get addressed in the offseason.

No consolation for the Chargers, I grant you.

Shouldn't, but in some ways, it does.

I mean, what do they want, exactly?

Hochuli fired? Doesn't work that way.
Result overturned? Doesn't work that way.
Money back? Doesn't work that way.
A shoulder to cry on? You'll have to find someone else's.
An asterisk? Unlikely.*
It's Wednesday. Norv Turner might be over it by now for all I know. The Charger players are professionals, they have another game Sunday. You don't forget, but you move on.

I guess the degree of the petulance and immaturity by fans (which is one thing) and officials (which is another thing) surprises me a bit. I keep thinking that one day we'll have sports in their proper perspective, but I guess that's a ways off still.







*Though for years - and maybe to this day, for all I know - the Bears' media guide had an asterisk on the result of the game from November 5, 1989 because instant replay upheld a touchdown pass that had been called as an illegal forward pass. It said "Instant Replay Game" on that result for a long time, at the demand of Mike Ditka, IIRC.

Doing that would have proven conclusively that you weren't Ed (or any other official worth his whistle, for that matter).

It's just the evolution of replay. I'm surprised they went with allowing a runner ruled down by contact to result in a turnover if replay determines it was a fumble. But even in that case it has to be obvious the other team would have recovered the ball if the runner hadn't been ruled down. They probably didn't include the incomplete pass/fumble situation because it hadn't happened that way very often. They can review it on the offseason and add it as a reviewable play like the down by contact. The same principals can be applied.

I am in favor of the concept of using instant replay to help officials get calls right. You can't always be in the right place at the right time or get the right view of every play and there are many times I wish I could look at replay in our games. My issue with instant replay is it forces the rules to become much more black and white and absolute. A good example from football was the 12 men on the field in last year's Super Bowl. If the player gets within a yard or so from the sideline, you usually let it go but he techncially violated the rule and it was overturned.

Another good analogy will be if baseball extends its replay to other types of plays. The foot swipe on a force at second or the tag of a runner when the ball obviously beats him could then be overturned. Baseball is saying they will not expand instant replay beyond where they are, but you know it is eventually coming.

According to Pareira Phil Luckett asked to be removed from the White Hat position.

He was involved the Pitt/Det coin flip in '98. (may or may not have been his fault)

He was involved in Testaverde TD v. Seattle in '98. (not his fault and pre-instant replay)

He was involved in Music City Miracle. (lauded as a great call)

He collided with Joe Horn on a long pass attempt. (probably his fault but I don't the mechanics of football)

Wow! "Great play?" They didn't perform a "great play" here, they merely should have benefited from a misplay by Cutler. They didn't force the fumble, the ball just slipped.
Obviously, if this call had been made right, they would have won. If they'd covered the receiver, they would have won. If their receiver had kept his toes in bounds on the ensuing drive before going OOB, they could have won as well, on a 48 yard FG.
As with most missed calls, there was time to recover; although admittedly not as much time.

I was just using him as an example, and maybe not the best one, but, as has been pointed out (and as we know, but Michael Wilbon apparently does not), every official gets graded (and downgraded) all the time. Graded well for getting it right, graded poorly for getting it wrong.

I'm not grasping how the Testaverde thing wasn't his fault, though (wing's call?).

I know this is a minor issue, but from my understanding they are only downgraded for bad plays. If they get a play right or they use the proper mechanics or positioning, they do not get an "upgrade." I will ask in a couple of weeks to be sure when I will see at least two NFL Officials at an association function.

Peace

You may be right. The term "upgrade" may be a misnomer (though I didn't use it in the post you quoted). "Graded" they do get. I read once how it all works, and I think they can get a +1 or something (I think it's in one of Markbreit's books, not sure) for a really good call under pressure. I may be misremembering.

The Testaverde TD wasn't his call, it was one of the wings. All he did was report the TD after the discussion.

I know one of the disputes a few years ago during the brief union strike was this issue. I have no idea if that ever changed; I just remember the longest current tenured NFL Official from this area said that that was in issue in their negotiations from the NFL. I do not remember if that specific issue was resolved or not.

Peace