End of Giants-Redskins game
 

The NFL officials are doing a fantastic job of embarrassing themselves in primetime games this year.

They moved the chains after the 2nd down play and then decided after an incomplete pass on the next play that it was now 4th down.

Ultimately I think they got it right in the end, in that they didn't have the yardage for a first down, but to do what they did is inexcusable.

Yeah that was pretty bad.

The wing official at the top of the screen (Forget which sideline it was) had a spot that looked like a first down on the 2nd and 5 play. (Or was blatantly close enough to measure it) When the Umpire went to spot it, he looked at the other wing guy at the bottom of the screen which moved the spot back about half a yard. The moved the chains and the down box at the bottom of the screen and the down box showed first down, then after the incompletion they brought the chains back and put 4th down on the box.

This was about as big of a screw up as the play earlier this year where the QB tried to center the ball and the crew let the clock run out and didn't let the offense run another play.

I have a question from the game.

After replay of the Redskins touchdown where they were looking if the knee hit the ground or not....the white hat said "the play stands" instead of "the play is confirmed". Cris Collinsworth said this word choice is because they could not find evidence to overturn the play. Is he correct or just blowing smoke?

He was correct, there was nothing convincing to overturn the play.

I'm not asking about the overturning of the play, I am asking about the word choice when delivering the decision.

Play stands=not enough evidence to overturn
Confirmed=enough evidence to confirm call on the field

Looking at the play in question, Triplette signaled 'third down' but in a way with his arm upward and diagonally that could have been interpreted as a 'first down'. Some officials 'first down' signals are different, i.e. Hochuli's is a psuedo baseball ejection symbol for a 'first down'.

Triplette basically threw the chain gang under the bus in the post game which is a problem because the head linesman clearly gave a signal to the chain gang to move the chains. I believe he did that because he saw Triplette's confusing first down signal and assumed he meant 'first down'.

I know they didn't want to give the offense a free timeout, but the clock has to be stopped in this situation to get everything right because in a game like this, it doesn't effect the rest of the season, but if this were a playoff game, well as Al Michaels would say: There would be hell to pay.

There is also a photo on the internet while Shanahan was arguing that showed the chain gang less than pleased with the officials.

While officials are averse to interrupting the flow late in the game at any level, this is the kind of screw-up that can pop up when you hurry and fail to communicate properly. It is still our job to administrate and if that means stopping and measuring then so be it.

I agree that the U spotted the ball incorrectly off the HL. It appeared The LJ foot was on the unofficial yellow line when the play ended.

I read that the chains were reset as they were getting the 3rd down play off.

They were being set as the play started. However, the linesman on that side told Shanahan verbally that it was a first down when Shanahan asked for a measurement.

They screwed up. As soon as Triplette saw the chains moving he had to know there was a problem on that sideline and stopped it. And he obviously did as he began signalling 3rd down to that linesman emphatically.

A way to solve this problem, in the future, is to use both arms to signal second or third down, why? Because 'first down' is always signaled with one arm. It is something I always saw the late Gordon McCarter do. Either that or late in a half, always have the referee signal the down with an open microphone.

People say they never saw this before. Something like this happened to Bob McElwee about a decade ago in a Bears game at the University of Illinois stadium while Soldier Field was undergoing renovations.

I don't think the problem here was the signal, as Triplette was signalling like a crazy man. The problem was that one official who had a good view thought it was a first down, and the other didn't. (The secondary problem was one official marking the ball at a point where a first down would have been gained - but the umpire taking the spot from the other official). The "fix" here is not to change mechanics ... but to measure when it's really this close - or alternately - when Triplette sees the chains moving, stopping play.

I agree completely.

If I'm remembering correctly, I think they ultimately got the spot right, and it should have been short. But it should have been measured, especially after the confusion over the down.

Triplette basically threw the chain crew under the bus when in reality he's ultimately the one responsible. That's what bothers me most about this situation. Like the Wisconsin-ASU situation early in the year, we have a clear error by an officiating crew that clearly impacts the game, potentially changing the final score. In both cases it should have been an easy fix for the officials, and in both cases, the officials failed to fix the problem.

Errors in judgment calls will happen, they're still frustrating to see, but they happen. Administrative errors like these that happen in relatively relaxed action are a lot harder to let slide.

The way Al was going nuts over it at the end of the game makes me believe he had some cash on the game! ;)

It's clear the HL signaled for the chains to move... but then it looks like he puts 3 fingers up to show 3rd down.

Needing a quick mental break, I scanned through your 100+ posts. Over 90 of them have to do with perceived errors made by professional or other high level officials.

Do you have any other purpose here? I'm sincerely curious. Do you officiate at all?

Follow your intuition...and please don't tell him there is a basketball forum.

This may shock you, but the expectation that every officials action will ALWAYS be absolutely perfect, is an illusion. Although the officials we watch on Sundays are remarkably consistent and correct, they are still pursuing perfection, just like the rest of us (albeit likely from a little closer).

When they miss something, it's still called a "mistake" and although much rarer than at other levels, mistakes, life "stuff", happen. The remedy of course is to remain composed, review what's transpired, make whatever adjustments are necessary to get the situation right and then learn from the experience and add it to the pile of other mistakes you will endeavor never to repeat.

How would that shock me? In an ideal world every call would be perfect. Obviously that's not a realistic expectation. I agree with you.

I'm hardly nitpicking. I'm discussing major errors in administration or calls where there's a difference of opinion like the Gronkowski play.

I do officiate baseball.

I can understand why Tripplette didn't stop the game to give them a free timeout, but, this whole mess could have been avoided if he would have went with the LJ. I always look to the LJ for determining if it's a first down. If he's giving me a first down, as Referee, I'm giving the signal and we are moving the chains.

To followup:

The discussions that I participate in are ones that are of interest to me. I always like to get an officials perspective on things, especially if it's a sport I don't officiate myself.

I umpire baseball over the summer and just recently started doing in-season high school ball. I spend a lot of time reading on here and on Umpire Empire, among other sites, in an effort to better myself as an official and better my understanding of the game as a whole.

I don't officiate football, and I have no plans to officiate football, but I do still have an interest in rules and an official's perspective as to why things happen the way that they do. There have been calls I've disagreed with that, when explained from an official's point of view, made sense.

I realize the the bulk of my posts are in threads about officiating controversies, but I do read the other threads. I'm not going to post if I don't have anything to add to the discussion. I don't think I've been unreasonable, with maybe an exception early on in the WI-ASU thread. I'm certainly not on here to mindlessly bash officials.

The vibe of this post...of wanting to discuss and learn does not match the vibe set forth by claiming that "NFL officials are doing a fantastic job of embarrassing themselves in primetime games this year" and other previous posts in others threads that you have made.

I don't think this was an issue of measuring vs. not measuring. The 46 was the line to gain and the ball was obviously placed well short of the 46. There was no reason to stop the clock to measure. The reason to stop the clock was to correct the H and put the chains back where they belong based on the spot. I do question the spot since the L appeared to have the 46 but ceded to the H for some reason.

Mike Pereira was on a national radio show last night and they were talking about this situation. I just caught the last couple of minutes of it. He said that in the NFL, the HL should not move the chains at all until the R signals to him that it is a first down, which didn't happen since Tripplette was signaling third down before the snap.

There was probably a better way to put it, but there have been several high-profile mistakes (or perceived mistakes) in primetime games in the last few weeks. And to be fair, it's hard to imagine a more embarrassing chain of events than Sunday night.

Most of us have learned long ago, no matter how hard you suck on a whistle, that damn "tweet" is NEVER coming back. All it takes is an instant of distraction or loss of focus to create a mistake. What matters then, is how well we deal with our mistake.

Most on-field mistakes generate a little scar tissue we carry forward FOREVER to help prevent us from repeating the mistake. Other than that memory, there's little else of value to bother carrying forward, so the smart thing to do, is reset your focus and concentration and snap the ball for the next play.

Next week you'll have another opportunity to work your FIRST perfect game.

Honestly, I'm more likely to forgive a mistake borne of action (like you describe) than one borne of inaction (like the OP).

Action can get you into trouble as well. Personal example from a playoff game a couple years ago. Near the end of the first half, A runs a play that ends in bounds around the 5 yard line. Team tries to run FG unit on the field to a last second attempt. As I step back into my U position, A/K has 12 players in formation. I made sure it had been at least 3 seconds and double check my count. Flag/whistle for illegal substitution. Clock stopped with 2 seconds left.

B/R coach upset because 5-yard penalty still kept them in close FG range, but now they have an opportunity to get organized and not have to rush as much. We enforce the penalty and wound the clock quickly and A/K did not get the ball snapped in time anyway.

The lesson I learned is I should have let the play go because there is a chance they don't get the ball snapped. If they do and there is still time on the clock kill it at the snap. Stopping it when I did gave them an advantage. It's a good example of why I like the 10-second subtraction rule.

wouldn't using a penalty in order to conserve time count as an unfair act penalty?

I'm 99% certain they weren't doing it intentionally. This does not meet any of the NFHS unfair acts. There is specific rule coverage for this. They weren't repeatedly fouling. Nobody hid the ball under their jersey. Nobody was using the tee. There was no travesty in what they did.

True, but I believe the HL believed that Triplette was signaling first down, in fact that was what I think Al saw when he said a first down was rewarded. Looking at the replay, it is awfully tough to discern that it was a third down signal unless you were standing next to Triplette. All the time you see the HL signaling the chain gang to move when the runner obviously reached the line to gain.

Bengals' BenJarvus Green-Ellis Scores Controversial TD Against Colts | Bleacher Report

Triplette's on a roll.

I watched several replays and could not tell if the NT made contact. It looks very possible he tripped on his own which means the reversal was correct. If Triplett did not look at the possible early contact then he may be in a bit of trouble. Per the pool report transcript he only looked at the goal line.

Correct.

Cincinnati Bengals vs. Indianapolis Colts Pool Report

Hey, thanks for proving my theory. You realize this isn't a forum to come and bitch about pro officials missing calls, right?

It appears to me they got this one right, despite the idiots claiming differently. This isn't NCAA rules people.

My advice: maybe start a discussion to see if people here think the call was missed rather than just diving in and, well, I'll leave it at that.

Doubt he's even a baseball umpire either. He's never once posted in the Baseball forum concerning a situation he was involved in.

The issue here is the potential contact was not at the goal line but back at the 4/5 when he was tripped. That is the contact that was ruled to have put the runner down, but Triplett didn't look at that part of the play to determine if there was contact. I don't think it's conclusive so the call on the field should have stood.

How in the world could you possibly know this.

And ... seems to me in the replay there's no chance he was tripped by the NT (I admit the one video in this thread is inconclusive). The one shown on the NFL Red Zone was pretty clear.

There was definitely a chance he was tripped, but I agree, it wasn't conclusive from the replay; even with stop-action on an HDTV.

Meaning the call on the field stands. It appears that they didn't go far enough back on the video to be able to accurately rule on the play.

Because it would be impossible to learn anything from reading about others' experiences or plays in MLB games, right [mod snip]

I disagree. The angle they showed a couple of times on tv conclusively showed space between the NT and the runner - he didn't touch him.

I haven't seen the replay, but you can't possibly know they didn't go back far enough. It's likely they had a different angle than you did.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this Referee work other NFL games, so I presume this wasn't his first opportunity, and there's been no indication the replay official(s) were volunteers selected from the crowd, and therefore most likely highly experienced as both replay officials and field officials, who were conversing with the Referee, which seems to suggest these highly experienced individuals, collectively, viewed all that needed to be viewed before making their decision.

Adam, it sounds like, from the press release, Triplett himself said the video he saw did not include any action off the goal line, and when asked specifically about the Nose tackle, he seemed unaware there was even anything about the nose tackle to be looking at.

That's what I based my statement on.

It wouldn't be the first time an official erred on an instant replay decision.

And it won't be the last.

Not exactly an embarrassment, though.

Missing something live speed will happen.

Between screwing the Redskins on the downs issue and by his own admission not reviewing the most important part of the play before overturning the call on the field, Triplette's had some pretty big, unacceptable mistakes.

It's not like I'm complaining about every little thing. Or any little thing, really. The only threads I've started have been about huge errors. I only posted that link in here because it was the same referee the very next week, making it somewhat relevant here.

I'm not here mindlessly bashing. I'm commenting on plays as I see them from a non-official's point of view, and I'm getting an official's point of view in response. That's why I post here. Obviously the people on this forum are going to have a better understanding of why things are called the way they are, or the rules that come into play in certain situations, than some idiot on a fan forum or ESPN comment page.

I'm not sure what the problem is with saying a call is wrong when it's wrong. Is there a reason I can't offer my opinion on a play when bringing it up for discussion?

Gentlemen I have not seen the Red Zone angle but this one angle looks pretty clear to me that he was tripped by the NT. The running back trips on something and the NT's hand looks close enough to make that contact.....why else would the running back start falling forward?

Seriously ... your lack of a clue is increasing. The referee can only make decisions based on what he's shown.

Yeah, the part where somebody responds with answer you don't like, so then you argue the point, even though you've never officiated the sport.

In the replays I've seen, I can't see a touch by the NT. Yet the runner starts to fall at that point. Is that conclusive evidence of a touch for down by contact? I would suggest it isn't conclusive evidence, but just evidence, and therefore not enough to base a replay ruling on.

The original call was down by contact. So you need conclusive evidence of NOT being touched to turn this into a touchdown. Triplett was only shown the action at the goal line in the review booth - which is a problem (although not TRIPLETT's problem). Triplett (rightly) overturned this play because he saw no contact by any defender whatsoever.

However, the angle that comes from the hanging camera - it was approximately from behind the left tackle, through the NT and RB with goalpost in the background - was VERY clear to anyone who saw it that the NT didn't touch RB at all. That said --- despite numerous searches, I've been unable to find that angle to post here.

Isn't discussion the point of a message board?

I know in the case of the Gronkowski play, I disagreed with the interpretation of the rule cited.

Yes, discussions based on experience and knowledge of the rules; or else, to learn and gain knowledge.

I'd have a tough time imagining the NFL failing that badly with a replay review system. The official making the decision has to have input into what he sees.

That's what I just said.

The IndyStar has a feature today showing stills of the play from the angle it sounds like Red Zone may have had. The live feed and all the feeds I saw from the press box side were inconclusive to me that Chapman tripped the runner. From angle in these stills though it does appear the contact was made.

Anatomy of a Play: Blown call costs the Colts in Cincy

Triplett never said the replays didn't show this part of the play. He just said he didn't look at it. We don't know what he did or didn't see.

"Has to" meaning you think he does? Or "has to" meaning you think he should?

I can see Hochuli in there... "OK, give me camera 6. No, zoom out. OK, thanks. Now camera 7... Can you zoom in on the goal line there. OK, thanks. How's camera 8? Oops... out of time." Yeah, that would work.

That's helpful. Although I hate how they put the big blurry yellow oval right exactly where we need to see. To my memory, the angle I saw on Red Zone was lower and/or further back, and to the right of the one we see in (2) and (3) on the link you sent. On (3), I can't tell what is leg and what is hand - and to whom what belongs to (thanks yellow oval), but you sure could in the angle we saw on TV. There was definite space between the NT's hand and the RB's leg.

The view they call the "most obvious view" doesn't appear to be contact to me - and in fact is the opposite foot from the previous view - the right foot is closer to us (the camera) than the hand.

Just thinking logically. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the referee to not be able to say "let me see that again" or "play that back from the start."

If that is indeed the case, the NFL replay system fails miserably.

True. Good thing I didn't say any of that.

The article about Game 150 talked a bit about this process. The replay official apparently picks a handful of view that may be useful and then makes them available to the referee. He then can control them.

What happens though if the replay official doesn't go back far enough to know there was a potential touch earlier in the play? Nothing the referee can do about that.

You sarcastically dismissed it.

So the system is flawed.

I just re-read all of my posts, and I see no sarcasm.

You keep telling us you're not here just to bash officials - you're here to learn and be educated as well. Yet when someone tries to explain something to you, you bash more. I tried to explain the process to you. Not my fault you've decided not to listen. I'm done trying to help.

There is no perfect system. Call it flawed if you like, but any fix you might come up with to fix the flaw you perceive will be accompanied by more flaws. The system in place has been subject to review numerous times by those to whom it matters most (that group does not include you), and is the best balance according to their needs.

Learning; deferring to those who have rules knowledge and game experience? No, I don't remember reading anything like that.

I'm just stating the obvious. The replay system failed in this instance.

I did learn something. I found out about an illogical flaw in the NFL's replay system.

Enough axe grinding.