Video for review.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if you call that in the NFL, you would not be there very long. Not only was Smith allowed to change direction when Wilson took another angle, he did not get taken down. Both his blocker and Smith extended their arms on each other. There was no restriction and would have been seen as very technical by the NFL and even those at the NCAA level. That would not be a hold in a varsity HS game IMO either.

MIBT. Do not match up a call that might not have even been similar earlier in the game. Not all similar rules violations are the same type of plays.

Peace

Agree 100% I'm guessing he's not an official or not one who has worked at a level where his work was correctly evaluated. I see the Alden Smith-type restriction called a lot at the HS level just because you see a grab. The concept of material restriction is something guys have to learn with experience. The more you see it the more you understand what is and is not a foul.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Lighten up Rita. The comment was to illustrate how silly this video is to those that work football. And as an official yourself, you should really know a little better as well just on its face of this accusation. Do you really think there is a conspiracy to fix the outcome of games. And would not it be a better story to have the 49ers in the Super Bowl who would be going for a record 6 Super Bowl titles (tied with the Steelers) and going against the poster boy for the NFL who think they are the best ever? No one told the 49ers QB to throw to the side of one of the best cornerbacks in the game on the final play. Even if there was a conspiracy, the 49ers did not help their cause. That would be like saying, the ball 3 in the 3rd inning that could have been called strike 3 was the reason in the 9th inning the closer gave up the home run.

Peace

Of course I know better. Which is one reason I didn't even watch it. But I respect my friend and he asked honestly. My reasoning to bring it here was to get football officials opinions.

Not to mention I would be highly biased, living in Western Washington as I do.

Rita

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Bad calls? Yes. Conspiracy? No.

49ers hit on Seahawks TE: probably a good call. I can see both sides to the argument. Mike Pereira liked it so I will defer to his judgement.

49ers touchdown reversed: good call, the ball never appeared to break the plane. The injury on the next play is unfortunate, nothing more.

Holding on Aldon Smith by Russell Okung: bad no-call. Pretty clear holding.

Shove OOB by 49ers player: probably bad call. Not enough to draw a 15 yard personal foul.

Hold on Michael Crabtree: can't see it, the video does not give a good angle. I do remember thinking during the game that the Seahawks secondary was given a lot of leeway with regards to downfield contact on receivers that I did not think was consistent with all the other NFL games I watched this season. That trend continued in the Super Bowl, where there were several plays I thought were PI that were no-called.

Block on the back on kick return: not a block in the back.

Intentional grounding not called: from the end zone camera angle it was a close play. I thought Wilson was still in the pocket, but it could go either way.

Running into the punter: one of the two major (possession) calls that the crew got wrong. Clearly roughing the punter.

Marshawn Lynch spot: the video only shows the yellow line, which can be very inaccurate. Still, looks like a generous spot to me.

Aldon Smith offside: I can't hear a whistle. The D line players all know that offside is a play-on situation and they should keep going. They do stop for a second however, which might suggest they heard a whistle.

Navarro Bowman interception/fumble recovery: the second major call missed by the officials. Bowman ripped the ball away from the receiver and was clearly down by contact. The officials held their whistles, which allow Seattle time to pounce on the injured Bowman and simultaneously possess the ball (remember all ties go to the offense).

I do not know anything about the timing issues, someone else will have to address those.

Thank you

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Thin skin is not a normal attribute for officiating.

If this were a normal game video clip, I can see giving a serous review to answer a valid question. Posing an obviously ludicrous composition contrived by an overzealous fan and expecting a measured, serious response is naive at best.

Not naive at all. I felt that the officials here would best be able to give a reasoned, knowledgeable response to what happened, by rule.

I don't know enough about the rules of football to do so.

Rita

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Of course I know better. Which is one reason I didn't even watch it. But I respect my friend and he asked honestly. My reasoning to bring it here was to get football officials opinions.

Not to mention I would be highly biased, living in Western Washington as I do.

Rita

My simple point Rita is that you as an official should realize "fanboy" content. I do not have to do a sport and know that fans almost never like to take responsiblity their team short comings. It is often someone else's fault.

Peace

Originally Posted by Rita C

Thank you

You're welcome!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

...

Given that the 49ers had an intentional grounding call earlier in the game, I would say the "when-in-doubt" thing to do is match up calls.

In what way were the 2 plays similar?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In what way were the 2 plays similar?

There were 11 players on offense. They snapped the ball to a back (AKA a quarterback). There was pressure on the QB. He threw the ball away for an incomplete pass. They are exactly the same. /sarcasm

[BIG UMP]

Rita, the best response to this is absolutely no response. You are never going to convince a biased fan that the officials were correct or made an mistake with a call or no call.

If your friend calls back tell him there was alot of discussion and there never was a definitive decision except that there is no conspiracy. This would actually be true in that there is disagreement on some plays.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My simple point Rita is that you as an official should realize "fanboy" content. I do not have to do a sport and know that fans almost never like to take responsiblity their team short comings. It is often someone else's fault.

Peace

Well of course I do. Which is PRECISELY why I came here. Being a fan of the Seahawks made me ineligible to give my friend the unbiased view of the film that he needed. I could tell him that I know better because I'm an official. In fact, I told him I would not watch it and told him I would post it here to get the unbiased look he wanted.

I wanted people who could give him the kind of answer he wanted which was a legitimate look at it. I wanted someone who could, in an unbiased fashion, say it was a fanboy's sour grapes.

Someone understood that and did just that.

Rita

[JRutledge]

OK Rita.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Well of course I do. Which is PRECISELY why I came here. Being a fan of the Seahawks made me ineligible to give my friend the unbiased view of the film that he needed.

Why? Are you an official or not? I can certainly separate the two even if a team that I'm a fan of is playing.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why? Are you an official or not? I can certainly separate the two even if a team that I'm a fan of is playing.

Meaning, that My saying there's no cheating by the official really doesn't have as much weight as YOUR saying there's no cheating by the official.

It's a matter of perception.

Rita

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Meaning, that My saying there's no cheating by the official really doesn't have as much weight as YOUR saying there's no cheating by the official.

It's a matter of perception.

Rita

It does not have to mean anything, but you can tell a person how silly their premise can be. After all if you are an official, you know how you get games. You think someone that has video tape is going to openly commit a fraud on the public (which is illegal BTW) to help a team win. And the things in that video were so silly and ridiculous, anyone with a brain can see that.

You will never change everyone's perception, but you can make them feel silly for making those claims. And this is really the case when an injury is blamed on the officials because of what happened in a previous play.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Meaning, that My saying there's no cheating by the official really doesn't have as much weight as YOUR saying there's no cheating by the official.

It's a matter of perception.

Rita

I agree but someone like this isn't going to believe any official who tells him there was no cheating involved here. He'll just say we are protecting our fellow officials.