Questionable Calls Superbowl 43

[fljet]

Fact - this was not McAulay's crew. The crew consisted of officials who graded out the highest at their position during the season. This also points to the fact that this is the way the league wants the game to be called.


So your telling me that Mcually didnt probably have hours of pregame preparation with his crew to discuss how the game would be officiated, doesnt really matter who is crew was it was who was in charge on the field during the game. Mcually was the one who kept screwing up and was inconsistent on his responsibilities anyways, so keep sticking up for him.











Everyone has an opinion. But having an opinion doesn't make you correct.[/QUOTE]

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fljet

So your telling me that Mcually didnt probably have hours of pregame preparation with his crew to discuss how the game would be officiated, doesnt really matter who is crew was it was who was in charge on the field during the game. Mcually was the one who kept screwing up and was inconsistent on his responsibilities anyways, so keep sticking up for him.

This is another example of your ignorance and ability to stay ignorant.

Crews do not talk about what they are going to call during the game. You review responsibilities of the crew, like who has what type of coverage and how that will be handled in certain plays that you might be aware of, but the NFL has already reviewed with those officials what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. And the Referee (Mcully) is not watching the entire field and in no way controls what everyone calls. When officials call a penalty, he just administrates the penalty. He does not necessarily have personal knowledge of the penalty or why it was called. It is abundantly clear you do not even know that by your comments and just more reason you are getting criticized. Honestly, it is not about defending anyone on the crew. If you are going to have a criticism, at the very least criticize the right person for the right reasons. But that would take knowledge and common sense to come to that conclusion. Things you seem to be lacking big time.

A person that officiates Pee-Wee Ball would have known these things.

Peace

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by fljet

Fact - this was not McAulay's crew. The crew consisted of officials who graded out the highest at their position during the season. This also points to the fact that this is the way the league wants the game to be called.

On Sunday, February 1, 2009 it was McAullay's crew!

So your telling me that Mcually didnt probably have hours of pregame preparation with his crew to discuss how the game would be officiated, doesnt really matter who is crew was it was who was in charge on the field during the game. Mcually was the one who kept screwing up and was inconsistent on his responsibilities anyways, so keep sticking up for him.

They did have hours of pre-game preparations on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. They all officiate by the same philosophy. I sure don't know where you get off thinking that he screwed up or was inconsistent! You apparently were watching a different game or simply didn't know what you were watching to begin with.

[pedr]

Official Review is up: http://www.nfl.com/videos

On the celebration no-call, it's confirmed that it was missed because it was far longer after the score than is normal. Pereira says that the covering official did everything he was supposed to - in other words, the mechanics make that a penalty that's unlikely to be called as no-one's looking for it.

There was a penalty on the fumble at the end of the game, which gave the replay official time to look at various angles. He did his job; he confirmed that the call was correct (which Pereira and the referee also believe it was, having now seen the replays). In future, though, close but almost certainly correct calls which could be game-changing that late on may be referred down to the referee more readily than is current practice. The replay official phoned the tv crews, to say he'd confirmed the call, apparently, which is why the commentators were saying that it had been reviewed.

At the end of the first half, the personal foul by Arizona prior to the interception would have been tacked onto the end of the run, so if the interception hadn't been run back for a touchdown, Pittsburgh would have got an extra play. (I didn't realise this, and it seems counter-intuitive, as the foul played no part in the events following the interception. But I'm just a fan, not an official! How is it in other rule-sets?)

Finally, roughing the holder is a foul, though note that running into the holder isn't (unlike running into the kicker) so there needed to be an element of unnecessary roughness. Pereira said, "he's not coming off a block"... I suppose running unstopped in the direction and running over the holder was enough to count as 'roughing'. He said he's not seen the foul called before!

[johnSandlin]

I just watched the link that was posted and I also watched most of the game last Sunday and I am not sure why everyone is throwing this crew under the bus.

Yes, there were a lot of penalties for a Super Bowl, but they got them right and that is what you want is calls being right.

The roughing the holder was easy to call. Normally in any football, the holder is a back up QB, punter, or kicker, and plus this player was defense less and in a defense less position, so it was a no brainer call for McAulay to make.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by johnSandlin

I just watched the link that was posted and I also watched most of the game last Sunday and I am not sure why everyone is throwing this crew under the bus.

"Everyone" isn't throwing the crew under the bus, just uninformed beer chugging goofs who don't know a thing about officiating are doing that.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by kdf5

"Everyone" isn't throwing the crew under the bus, just uninformed beer chugging goofs who don't know a thing about officiating are doing that.

I always wonder about those beer chugging goofs who complain about penalties called, "what if" those penalties were not called, would they still complain?

I believe the answer is yes because they have nothing better to do. Lets invite them to spend a day on the football field in the striped shirt and see how long they last.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

I believe the answer is yes because they have nothing better to do. Lets invite them to spend a day on the football field in the striped shirt and see how long they last.

Please, don't do that. It's way beyond our abilities to educate these fools. Folks who ask reasonable, rational questions because they're serious about knowing the answer, are a different story, but, "beer chugging goofs who complain about penalties" are only interested in the sound of their own voice.

The farther they stay away from the field, the better all of us, and the game itself will be.

[RMR]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

I always wonder about those beer chugging goofs who complain about penalties called, "what if" those penalties were not called, would they still complain?

I believe the answer is yes because they have nothing better to do. Lets invite them to spend a day on the football field in the striped shirt and see how long they last.

It may not be the same goofs, but there would be goofs complaining.

I like to refer to it as the law of inverse color and call.

Let's say there's a foul on the blue team. All the blue team goofs get all worked up telling you how it's a BS call, etc.

However if the red team does the exact same thing that "wasn't a foul" when blue did it, and there is no flag, then the goofs are complaining that it wasn't called.

Make sense?

Kinda like if you flag something it was either ticky-tack, or borderline or BS or whatever, but if you don't flag it well it's because you didn't have the balls to put your flag on it.

I have discovered that it is pretty much the nature of the beast.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

I always wonder about those beer chugging goofs who complain about penalties called, "what if" those penalties were not called, would they still complain?

Most fans like fljet simply reserve the right to remain stupid so talking to them is a waste of time anyway.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by pedr

Finally, roughing the holder is a foul, though note that running into the holder isn't (unlike running into the kicker) so there needed to be an element of unnecessary roughness. Pereira said, "he's not coming off a block"... I suppose running unstopped in the direction and running over the holder was enough to count as 'roughing'. He said he's not seen the foul called before!

Slight mis-understanding here on your part. He didn't say there had to be an element of roughing. He just said there isn't a running-into variety (5 yards) regarding the holder. Almost any contact with the holder would be considered roughing. They just don't get touched that often.

Great summary of the video otherwise.

[Forksref]

Great game. Officiated very well. No game is ever perfectly officiated. The calls and no-calls had no effect on the outcome.

Biggest play of the game was the last one of the first half. Warner would like to have that one back. Big swing and that was the difference in the game.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by pedr

At the end of the first half, the personal foul by Arizona prior to the interception would have been tacked onto the end of the run, so if the interception hadn't been run back for a touchdown, Pittsburgh would have got an extra play. (I didn't realise this, and it seems counter-intuitive, as the foul played no part in the events following the interception. But I'm just a fan, not an official! How is it in other rule-sets?)

Finally, roughing the holder is a foul, though note that running into the holder isn't (unlike running into the kicker) so there needed to be an element of unnecessary roughness. Pereira said, "he's not coming off a block"... I suppose running unstopped in the direction and running over the holder was enough to count as 'roughing'. He said he's not seen the foul called before!

I'm not sure about NFL rules, but under NFHS the foul at the end of the half would not have been "tacked onto the end of the run." The foul occurred before the change of possession, in order to keep the ball Pittsburgh would have to decline the penalty. If the penalty was accepted Arizona would have had an untimed down after the penalty was administered.

The barometer for roughing the holder would be the same as the kicker. Meaning if he was displaced it would be roughing as opposed to running into.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by daggo66

... If the penalty was accepted Arizona would have had an untimed down after the penalty was administered.

If the penalty was before change of possession then that means it was on the offense. An accepted offensive penalty does not require an untimed down, the half would have ended.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the penalty was before change of possession then that means it was on the offense. An accepted offensive penalty does not require an untimed down, the half would have ended.

Not true. An accepted live ball penalty would require an untimed down unless it was a loss of down or a dead ball penalty 3.3.4b. There would be no reason for the defense to allow another play so it would naturally be declined. 3.3.3.