Ricpicks wrote:
Spock wrote:
Gringotim wrote:
Incredible...the NFL should be embarrassed
The NFL head of officials has admitted that the referees made the wrong call in the last two minutes last night, when the Seattle linebacker batted the ball out of the endzone. Also, a 26-year referee, who was not working the game, stated the same thing on the ESPN post-game show. Seattle was awarded the ball on their 20-yard line. Possession should have been awarded to the last team that had possession, the Lions, with the ball placed on the 6-inch line (a penalty should have been called against the Seattle linebacker). One of the referees was looking directly at the play. It's also incredible that the league office in New York didn't overrule the call.
The Lions could have taken the lead 17-13 with about 1:30 left to play.
I thought the Lions should have been awarded the ball when the play occurred. I'm surprised that Caldwell, the Lions coach, didn't vehemently object to the call. Incredibly, Ray Lewis, Trent Dilfer and Steve Young all stated that they were not aware of the rule.
That call could have major implications on the entire season, as it could affect playoff seedings, home-field advantage, etc. That officiating crew should not be allowed to work another game for the rest of the year!
And, the NFL league office should be embarrassed.
(And no, I'm not a Lions fan).
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/10/5/9 ... in-johnsonNFL officiating has been particularly bad this year; at least in the games I've seen. The non-P.I. call on Dallas in the Giants' opening game
directly impacted the final result of the Cowboyz win over the Giants.
HOWEVER, while the Giants P.I. call directly impacted the final result, this time it did not. While the ruling was wrong, actually making/enforcing it would have violated the "spirit" of the rule as a) there was no way that ball was staying inbounds anyway, b) there was no Lion anywhere near it that could have recovered it before it went OB and c) if the Seattle LB had simply known the rule and tried(?) to GRAB it (and failed) the result would have been the same and the play would have been "legal".
So while in this case,
technically the refs blew the call, it really didn't have any effect on what
should have been the the outcome of the play.
Kinda sorta like when there's obvious P.I. but the ball is overthrown so badly they pick up the flag because it wasn't "catchable".
IMO, same thing here.
What? Are you saying if a penalty is not called, who cares? A foul is a foul, no matter what happened during the play. If a penalty decides the outcome of a game, so be it.
Strange how the some of the same teams get away with rule bending. Seattle and New England come to mind. Seattle was involved with the worst play call in all of football against the Packers a few years ago. Don't get me started on those Patriots!:x
Pura Vida! Close to living the dream.
I WILL admit the better teams seem to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to officiating. It happens in EVERY sport.
I will also admit I totally understand "a penalty is a penalty".
But THIS is what I'm actually saying (again)
"So while in this case, technically the refs blew the call, it really didn't have any effect on what should have been the the outcome of the play.
Kinda sorta like when there's obvious P.I. but the ball is overthrown so badly they pick up the flag because it wasn't "catchable".Note the word "should".
The rules of Golf provide that IF a situation is not covered under the rules the outcome should be "in equity", i.e. what is fair. While this rule is covered, "in equity" it was not a fair outcome in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. That is when rules need to be re-evaluated.
I submit this particular rule should include "provided there is no chance the opposing team can take possession in which case there is NO penalty".
As in years prior to the P.I. rule change. P.I. was P.I. Didn't matter if the ball was catchable or not. They changed THAT rule to bring in the judgement of the official and if the ball wasn't catchable, no penalty.
Same thing with certain "non-false starts". It used to be that whether the defensive lineman came into the neutral zone, even if the offensive lineman moved it was a false start. They changed the rule so that if an offnesive lineman moves while a defensive lineman comes into the neutral zone it is an offsides against the defense.
So I'm suggesting the same thing here. There was NO WAY the Lions could have maintained possession before THAT ball went out of the endzone.
P.S. To offer full disclosure - If *I* had had the Lions I would have probably been shouting "A rule is a rule,,,,,,,,,, mudderfuckers !!!"
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
