Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
That was their way of combatting the fact that games were getting longer.Great, thanks.
Guess I never paid much attention to it until this year.
So you want them to call the game differently in the last 5 minutes (especially if it’s close) than they do the rest of the game....?..got it....and then we will also complain about them not being “consistent “...this post is the best example of what is wrong with so many fans when it comes to understanding officiating....refs dont care and you need them not to care about how much time is left, what the score is or “who has momentum”.....attitudes and posts like this are so uneducated and lazy....”questionable” calls are why we need referees....
For me it’s not so much calling the game differently in the last 5 min but rather letting the players deciding some of these outcomes, not the officials.
I'm with you. I don't like the idea of a holding call that would have been a penalty in the first quarter now being "okay" in the last 5 minutes of a close game.
When team A has the ball 3rd and 13 at mid field with 27 seconds left and a holding call on the other side of the field from where the play is allows them to continue their drive for a FG, that in my mind is the “official deciding the outcome”.
so the official is supposed to see the foul/penalty.....but then wait and see if the play ends up coming to that side of the field before throwing the flag....?.....
Common sense is all I ask for. Don’t butt in and affect the outcome of the game when it’s on the line. These penalties hold wayyy too much weight in deciding these games so give it some thought before trying to be a hero reaching for the flag.Stinkin Ref said:
Yeah, they did that in the Saints/Rams game in the playoffs a couple of years ago. All was not good.
There is not defensive holding on every play. And it's ridiculous to ignore rules late in games.
highlighted is the core of basically everybody that says the refs sucks and think a ref actually wants to make it all about them....without realizing that a ref's goal is for you to actually not even notice they are there.....(from Pop warner to the pros)....why do you have to say stuff like "trying to be a hero".....?....thats just ridiculous and uneducated.....did some ref make you bitter back in your hey day cause you thought he cost you a touchdown or something on a Saturday morning at the local park?...they have a responsibility to call a fair game within the rules regardless of the score or how much time is left on the clock or who is winning or what the players name is on the back of the jersey......these guys get so heavily critiqued and evaluated by their superiors that the last thing they want to do is make a bad call or act like a hero....your attitude and others that the refs are the enemies is so tired and worn out....just like the "let the players decide it" at the end of the game crap...
no nerve...just like much of the general public.....you just don't seem to have the first clue about officiating and easily fall into the uneducated flock of sheep that follow the same old worn out narrative.....
What are your thoughts on the reffing in the Chiefs/Bengals game?
IMO....thought the horse collar/unnecessary roughness call on Snead was really awful.....actually thought they might get together and overturn that one....it wasn't a horse collar...sorry he "aggressively" finished the tackle by throwing him down
I was going to like this post....but then I was trying to figure out the difference between the last two.....and the one bolded word is kind of tripping me up.....if it's "likely" uncatchable....does that mean that it could be catchable...?...if so then there are really only the two options which I am ok with actually and how you suggest penalizing them....unfortunately that bolded word is kinda of why we have refs and why they get paid the big bucks....it kind of has to be one or the other....that second option screws everything up...and you didn't mention if accompanied by first downs or not....but I like the general line of thinking....
Yep, but shhhhh we don’t want to ruffle Stinkin Ref’s feathers for exposing it.First half of the first playoff game, and a touchdown was allowed even though one of the officials blew his whistle before the ball was caught in the end zone by the receiver.
Now, Burrow wasn't out of bounds, so the whistle never should have been blown, and inadvertent whistles do happen, but just another shining example of NFL officiating at its best.
And to think, the guys reffing now are the ones that had the high grades for the season. So this is the best they have to offer.
Scary, ain't it?
Huh? Presumably the ref would admit that they blew the whistle, right?
The refs would need to confirm that only they blew the whistle and that it did not come from the stands at the moment it would affect a play. Refs on the field would need video proof that there whistle was the one that changed the outcome of the play so they we'd be back to refs on the field going to a sideline booth but now they would need to be able to isolate audio so it would need to be sound proofed to some extent and they'd need to be in frame to know it was their whistle. A nightmare for everyone.
I agree on the Chase push-off. It was egregious, and I expect calls like that to be made.
I thought about this for awhile and agree with you to a point. The problem is the Raiders stopped playing when they heard the whistle which likely allowed Boyd to get more open in the end zone. Should the Raiders have continued playing through the whistle, probably.
Hey, have you every watched a thunderstorm? Ever wonder why when you see the lightning you don’t hear the thunder right away? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. That whistle you thought you heard simultaneously as Boyd was catching the ball actually happened 1to 2 seconds earlier for the players than yourself that due to travelling through the audio equipment.
The whistle blew before the ball was caught, but literally an instant. There is no way a defensive player stopped playing that quickly to where it made a difference in the result of the play.
its a personal foul....you have to add it on to the "result of the play"....or else in many cases it would be "free game" to commit a personal foul.....there's a reason some of them a labeled personal fouls....if you can commit a personal foul on a play and not have a "consequence" there would be a lot more of them....
I can't speak specifically to the NFL.....but I'm sure there are rules addressing "inadvertent whistles" .....application may be different from level to level, but at all levels there are usually procedures that are outlined.....cause they happen at all levels....been reffing hoops and football since the early 90's....have reffed more games than I can remember and have probably had 10 or so in that time.....which may not sound like a lot to the normal person, but to officials thats 10 too many....its one of the biggest no no's we have.....the general rule usually ends up trying to go back to the "point of interruption"....and thats where a little gray area starts creeping in.....do you give the Bengals the ball where Joe was at on the sidelines....what down do you make it if you do...?.....do you just do a "total do over" (this usually doesn't happen)....these are part of the reason inadvertent whistles are such a big no no and one of the things we hate to have the most.....it causes a lot of issues.....and in the end somebody isn't going to be happy...
Raider fans hate the guy. I don’t believe the raiders hAve ever won a game, with him as the head ref.
