Ravens/Steelers game

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by PSU213

I don't necessarily disagree with the main point of your post--that we are less likely to accept the view of someone who is not an official. However, I think you are missing a key point there. The OP went on to say (paraphrasing here): this was a terrible call, how could the officials miss such a obvious call, and (within a few posts) this person went on to say that NFL officials are clearly the worst in sports. I think this person would have been treated a lot differently if he was not so quick to dismiss this as a terrible call made by the worst officials in sports. In addition, when his view was questioned, he became way too defensive, continued to name-call, and ignored everything constructive being said to him.

So, in short, yes, non-officials may be taken less 'seriously' on this forum. However, I have never seen an instance where a non-official is dismissed when he/she has asked a serious, un-biased question. It seems (to me anyway, for what that is worth) that they are only derided when they come here with sour grapes.

I'll add, there are often times when a non-official comes on to ask a question about a play or ruling. The majority of the time they accept the answer and move on. The posts that become controversial are the one where the non-official starts making accusations about the pro or college level officials and disregard the information they were given.

You've heard it before, we're all officials and we'll always stick up for each other. Any regular reader of this forum knows that isn't true and we've had many debates about good or bad calls.

Want an example of a bad call in yesterday's Steeler/Ravens game??? Try roughing the kicker called against Baltimore.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

[RMR]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

How is it these perfect officials continue to screw up. I actually wanted to see the Steelers lose if given a choice, with that said, how did the replay officials come up with the reversal of Holmes catch on the goal line in the first half?? If it were ruled incomplete on the field, the replay showed he clearly caught it. The only question was, whether or not he got into the enzone with it(debatable). Calls like this happen in every game, week in, week out. In the earlier game yesterday, they blew several calls. Roughing the punter comes to mind for one, when the replay showed the punter actually makes the contact by collapsing on top of the defender as if he were shot in the head. Please dont try and defend the officiating in this league. It's borderline criminal. Maybe you should look into the difference in revenue the league generates when small vs. large market teams are in the superbowl. Money corrupts. If you dont believe that then your head it buried deep in the sand.

You need to make up your mind - are they incompetent or are they cheating to favor certain teams? And who are these "replay officials" that you make reference to?

You have zero credibility. Sorry.

[BigGref]

I'll chime in here.

I say this call is a simple coin toss, my first reaction, from behind (BJ) angle, looked like his legs cleared to the Right right at the hit (which would suggest that his body was turned to the side at contact), the view from the side was blocked by McGhee's ducking of his head, now if there was 50 officials on the field hovering with HD camera's and looking at super slow motion on every play they may have seen contact that was very close, I would lean toward helmet to helmet (since that has been a POE in our state/NFHS/ and my HS crew). So I would have probably thrown the flag from the FJ or LJ position (if I had a clear view of the player getting tackled's head).

But the fact that after 6 pages of discussion we are still divided just shows that it was a simple tossup. if the flag was thrown and things worked out differently, (like someone suggested) we would probably have the same response. We can all learn something from this discussion, we hopefully will further define in our own minds our standards for HTH contact and will be on the lookout (in 8 months or so, except for a lucky dozen or so) I digress

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

I'm not sure where the accusations of me "name calling" came from. I don't think I called anyone on here any names.

Another example was in the Florida/Miami game this year. I can't find the video of it online, but a Florida DB went up to intercept a pass by the sideline. He did come down with one foot inbounds, but he never even controlled the ball while going to the ground. The ball ended up laying on the ground next to him. They reviewed it and somehow ruled that he caught the ball and it was an interception. I wish I could find the video, because it really was inexplicable.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

I'm not sure where the accusations of me "name calling" came from. I don't think I called anyone on here any names.

And I am tired of people like you that have no experience officiating the sport, telling us what we should think. Or better yet when challenged with references, they get mad and claim people are not using their experience or knowledge to come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by zm1283

Another example was in the Florida/Miami game this year. I can't find the video of it online, but a Florida DB went up to intercept a pass by the sideline. He did come down with one foot inbounds, but he never even controlled the ball while going to the ground. The ball ended up laying on the ground next to him. They reviewed it and somehow ruled that he caught the ball and it was an interception. I wish I could find the video, because it really was inexplicable.

If I recall correctly, there was debate about that play on this site (it might have been the other site) and I do not recall that people across the board stuck up for the officials. Actually, it is clear you do not read this board very much, because we discuss all kinds of plays and give opinions. Those opinions are almost never monolithic or necessarily coming from the same point of view. And it is pretty clear that you did not read this thread either, because many people made comments about the roughing the kicker call that many of us feel was "kicked" (pun intended). I am not sure what board you are reading.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

Why aren't you a football official? Still waiting on that answer from you and zm. I know zm is a basketball official.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

I'd rule incomplete in (a) and (b), complete in (c).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I'd rule incomplete in (a) and (b), complete in (c).

This is consistent with Mike Pereira's ruling for the NFL.

[bisonlj]

Thanks Walt and Juggling. That seems to be the consistent answer so I will believe it's true. Now those of you who saw the play, do you think situation (b) or (c) applies on this play. From what I recall, I thought (c) applied. The R had the opportunity to review it on replay so it must have been pretty clear to him that (b) applied. He's a conference final official so I think his abilities are slightly above mine.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

That is a terrible misconception. Throughout this thread there are officials who are in disagreement. There are some things you need to understand. First we have a greater respect for someone who has studied the rules and reached the peak of their profession has opposed to someone looking on as a fan. Secondly, we will automatically give some credence to the person who made the call just because of the fact that they were right there on the field in real time and we were not. Another strong factor in this equation is that the league has not issued a fine. Many times there are hits that the officials on the field ruled as being legal, but when reviewed under a microscope by the league officials it may have been deemed illegal.

In my experience no one is more critical of an official than another official. The difference is the training involved. It's like the old adage I can beat the heck out of my brother, but no one else may dare touch him. So in a sense the first reaction will be to defend the official, but the second will be to take another look at the play.

[Adam]

Some people can't seem to see the difference between criticizing an isolated call and calling all NFL officials corrupt incompetent cheaters.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Some people can't seem to see the difference between criticizing an isolated call and calling all NFL officials corrupt incompetent cheaters.

Never mind calling ALL football officials incompetent. I'm sorry but that is such a generalized statement that it's almost comedic.

I think as a whole we're patient with fans and coaches that come in here and ask questions unless they are being disrespectful. I tend to not have a lot of patience on here for people that come in here and act like officials as a whole are incompetent, stupid or are cheaters. We deal with enough of that on the field, why do I want to put up with it here?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

We deal with enough of that on the field, why do I want to put up with it here?

You don't.

Peace