Video for review.
 

NFL RIGGED - 49ers defeat Seahawks / Refs Defeat 49ers - YouTube

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NEp4r2q9tTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A friend of mine asked me for my umpire's (baseball) opinion of this guy's theory.

I don't know enough about football to have an opinion and I don't care for conspiracy theories.

But I thought you all would be able to give him an honest opinion of the guy's thoughts

Thanks.

Rita

Honestly, they lost me completely at the injury. Then I laughed extensively at the holding call they wanted called, where the defender not only gets away, but influnces the play for the Russell Wilson to have to get away from him and juke to even make an silly pass. If someone in my area called that a hold, they will not be working much varsity, let alone any college game and certainly not any kind of sniff at the NFL.

Next thing they are going to say is the first play from scrimmage where Wilson fumbled the ball was all on the officials too.

It must all be true, it was on YouTube. :rolleyes:

Peace

Clueless fan. A couple judgement calls that after reviewing on video were probably incorrect, but most of what he showed was just wrong.

I hadn't heard about the 32 second DOG. Did the play clock start late and start from 25? You would hope a deep wing would catch that, but it only takes missing it once to have this happen.

Does your "friend" actually believe this or just inquisitive.

If he is a believer then get him his tin foil hat. If he's just inquisitve, his time is better spent playing Candy Crush instead.

The game clock stopped for the play out of bounds, but the play clock started correctly. The game clock restarted after I'm guessing 8 seconds. Not to mention the tv clock could have been doing some "catch-up"

He's an inquisitive 49er fan.

The fact that he's asking, and that he's asking an official for her opinion, means he really wants to learn. The Candy Crush comment is unwarranted.

Rita

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

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.

Right. This ain't the NBA.

Yes the NBA told the San Antonio Spurs to miss a bunch of FTs and let Miami Lebron James get a rebound and make Ray Allen hit a big time 3 as a way to generate more money for Game 7.

Peace

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.

I liked the UNR call. The defender clearly launched. It was only by luck that helmets didn't collide. Don't leave your feet and turn into a missile if you don't want to be subject to a foul. If that technically wasn't a foul it should be a foul.

There was not enough restriction on the Okung block to be a foul. Very borderline if it had been called. Make them big. I like the no-call.

I liked the PF on the push OOB. There was absolutely no reason for him to do anything at that point and the push was well after the ball had passed and out of bounds. Like the UNR, don't force the official to make a decision. You may not like his decision.

I read an article from a SF columnist who broke down this video and he said he saw a coach's video that showed Wilson likely did get outside the tackle box. Either way it was close and I would assume the "when-in-doubt" on this is to say he's out.

The DOG call is easy. The clock stopped when the runner went out of bounds. The play clock starts immediately but the game clock starts when the ball is spotted. A 6-second gap is very reasonable. The other one is odd but for some reason the officials called a timeout and reset the play clock. There are several possible reasons for it.

While it is true that if you don't want the official to throw the flag don't do anything marginal, this is fallacious reasoning. The PF was marginal and similar contact by the Seahawks defense was not called.

In my opinion, if Aldon Smith is not held he sacks Wilson. I would call that more than "borderline". This level of restriction gets called at every level of football: clearly an advantage gained as Smith has gotten past the tackle who has to hold him to prevent a significant pressure on the QB.

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.

This is correct...if it's close, then the referee is to rule the passer out of the pocket area.

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.

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

Thank you

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

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

You're welcome!

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

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.

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

OK Rita. ;)

Peace

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:cool:

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

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.