Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ColtStrong

Refs were horrendous

25 posts in this topic

I don't remember seeing that many horse manure calls since the replacement refs were in there. Ticked me off til no end. I wanted to reach through the TV and strangle someone.

They definitely did their best to keep the titans in the game. I understand there will always be a couple bad/questionable calls every game, but today was a pathetic attempt at officiating. I hope they all get reamed new ones.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said my peace on them in another thread but at least the replacement refs had the excuse of being replacements. This is why I didn't really care about the regular refs back yes some of them are really good but honestly the only difference between some of them (like the ones today) and the replacement refs is the spotlight that was shined on the replacement refs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the game.... Had family commitments all day.

All I know is, We WON. :cheer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the refs do get rated/evaluated each game and the least missed calls are used in the playoffs and they get the extra paychecks, so there is incentive to get the calls right, but I saw 4 terrible calls go Titans way, I thought also they wanted to keep the Titans in the game...not like days of old, replays are in HD and super slow motion and stopped pics you can see everything, even the huge stadium screens so there is no excuse to get turnovers and scores wrong...No excuses!!!!!

Anybody here watch Nascar? Even when the cars are running 100 to 200 mph depending on the tracks they can show the wheels barely moving around corners and clear as in normal speed, HD and flat screens have changed sport to like unbelievable!!!!! So with the technology all calls should be gotten right in review, everybody sees it. In 08 I bought a 32" samsung 720 LCD flat screen "was and emergency and was 900 bucks and that's all I had" I can get a 60 inch now for what I paid back then for a 32 :}LOL and went from a 27" RCA tube TV that burt out and it was like going from the 50's to 2008 :}LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but don't forget McAfee's punt inside the one yd line that led to C. Vaughn's pick 6. There was a false start on us that wasn't called that play. Lots of bad calls, majority (but not all) against us.

We overcame them, like a team is supposed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refs will make mistakes and dumb calls. No excuse, the better teams find ways to overcome "circumstances"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refs will make mistakes and dumb calls. No excuse, the better teams find ways to overcome "circumstances"

This is true, but how many refs make on the order of 6 or 7 really bad calls in a game? This game was rank with terrible calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but don't forget McAfee's punt inside the one yd line that led to C. Vaughn's pick 6. There was a false start on us that wasn't called that play. Lots of bad calls, majority (but not all) against us.

We overcame them, like a team is supposed to do.

also dont forget the penaltie on bethea which was ridiculous, the penalty on Foukou which was agian ridiculous...on 3rd down both of them.

I though while the first Arians challenge was premature, it was a drop IMO. Also wasnt TY knee down before the feet touch out of bounds?

the only call that went our way was the false start on special teams i think

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refs will make mistakes and dumb calls. No excuse, the better teams find ways to overcome "circumstances"

But this has to be addressed..

Bad calls all over the league..

The refs must make correct calls.........they are sub par

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And these are the "real" refs ... LOL! As I said from the start of the season the media created and fueled a story about "replacemen" refs ... least they had a valid excuse for missing a call or two - those guys out there right now are pathetic and without an excuse, yet the media is mummmmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also dont forget the penaltie on bethea which was ridiculous, the penalty on Foukou which was agian ridiculous...on 3rd down both of them.

I though while the first Arians challenge was premature, it was a drop IMO. Also wasnt TY knee down before the feet touch out of bounds?

the only call that went our way was the false start on special teams i think

I was screaming at the TV about that catch by TY. He had the ball secured with a knee down before he went out of bounds. I can't be too upset about Arians throwing the flag on Wrights reception but unless it could be a turnover or something like that you HAVE to hold on to that challenge especially that early in the game. That lead to TY's reception being not being challenge-able nor Chris Johnson's fumble. Those are possession changing plays, Wrights was not as I'm pretty sure that play was on 2nd down. Arians baffles me at times with his management "calls".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that yesterday's game was as badly officiated as I have seen in awhile, remember that Seattle is in the hunt for the playoffs and could even get a first round bye because of the replacement refs. Even if we had lost as a result of the bad calls yesterday, we still could control our own destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Mortinsen on ESPN just took up for the refs. He said they were never shown the repay shot that clearly showed Luck's knee down. While I agree the refs were bad , the producers (CBS) get to decide what replays to show the refs. This should be changed. It has cost us for years. CBS has an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calls that could have killed us yesterday.

1. Wright dropped it and they reviewed still missed it

2. TY's catch they missed. Caught it in bounds

3. CJ's obvious Fumble

4. Luck's pick 6

5. 41's PI that was great D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Mortinsen on ESPN just took up for the refs. He said they were never shown the repay shot that clearly showed Luck's knee down. While I agree the refs were bad , the producers (CBS) get to decide what replays to show the refs. This should be changed. It has cost us for years. CBS has an agenda.

So CBS has it out for the Colts? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CBS has it out for the Colts? Please.

Not CBS per se, but I can tell you from my time of watching the Colts (every game) the producers have not shown the correct replay many many times. coincidence? Does not happen on other networks. Just an observation. My main point was TV producers should not be handling this. why not an official?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not CBS per se, but I can tell you from my time of watching the Colts (every game) the producers have not shown the correct replay many many times. coincidence? Does not happen on other networks. Just an observation. My main point was TV producers should not be handling this. why not an official?

The point about a producer handling the replay, I can appreciate. The rest is absolute nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The REFS must have had a lot of TITANS on there FANTASY team that was one of the worst called Colt games i have ever seen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For whatever reason, my last few films have been controversial ones. I didn't plan it that way. It just sort of happened, but I will admit that I have always been drawn to provocative subjects ever since I can remember. My latest review called "Confirmation" a 2016 political drama directed by Rick Famuyiwa slides right into that hot button territory as well. I promise to behave myself here & only establish broad brush strokes that the director portrays in this 1 hour & 50 minute piece of cinema, but it will be extremely difficult to restrain my true feelings since I graduated from high school in 1991 & remember very well the US Senate Hearings on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on TV & the sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill, a former subordinate under Thomas's supervision at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.]   In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna be honest with my audience & say that I believed Miss Hill's testimony back then & I never thought Mr. Thomas should have been confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall either & the director has this same slant or bias in this production too. Watching this flick took me right back to 1991 during the George H.W. Bush Administration who submitted Thomas's name for consideration to the highest judicial office in the land. It was almost bizarre to see younger versions of anchormen Tom Brokaw & Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, & footage of Peter Jennings & Tim Russert, former host of "Meet The Press" both deceased now. The picture does a nice job of blending fictional testimony scenes from Hill & Thomas with archival news footage from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN. It's odd to see the primitive nature of TVs & computers back then long before iPhones & iMacs were present in every office in America.    In a nutshell, the movie is divided between 2 sides: Those who believed that Clarence Thomas is being railroaded by groups like NOW [Natl. Organization Of Women] simply because he leans toward the Conservative side on issues & Those on the Progressive side who believed that Anita Hill was sexually harassed by her boss who made several unwanted advances & lewd sexual references toward her based solely on her appearance & physical attractiveness as he saw it refusing to change his behavior after numerous requests to do so.    Plotline: The year is 1991 & Clarence Thomas [Wendell Pierce] has been nominated to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The chairmen of these Senate Hearing is Joe Biden [Greg Kinnear] from Delaware. The process appears to going along smoothly for Thomas until a current professor of law at The University of Oklahoma named Anita Hill [Kerry Washington] decides to reluctantly testify before Congress in the Senate. I won't bore my audience with Congressional names or the staffers who work on their behalf on both sides of the DC aisle other then to say this: The bulk of this film focuses on the testimony of Hill & how Thomas reacts to the allegations leveled against him.    Clarence Thomas's supporters somehow convince Biden to deliver his testimony first & while giving his opening remarks Thomas claims that these sexual harassment allegations are false, unfounded, & that he treated all his female employees with respect. When Anita Hill is allowed to testify before the Senate, she tells the body assembled there in a long, prepared, typed statement that Mr. Thomas constantly tried to ask her out socially, bragged about the size of his organ, talked about several adult films he had seen despite making her feel very uneasy, & that on 1 occasion he made a deplorable joke about hair from a private region of his body being found on the aluminum can itself. As you listen to Hill say these words out loud, it dawns on you that all the members in these judiciary hearings are men with zero women in elected office at this point. Think about that reality for a second.    Despite the fact that Anita Hill is well educated, well read, articulate, a credible witness, & very bright; the following doubts & allegations are brought against her testimony: Why did it take her so long to bring these sexual harassment charges forward? Why did she continue to have contact with Thomas? Why didn't she just talk about misconduct sooner & bring formal charges against him? Is she just looking for simple fame, fortune, & publicity? Was she secretly attracted to him & Thomas declined her advances so therefore she wants revenge now? Did she get some of her crazy harassment allegations from books like "The Exorcist?" Did she develop a secret, sexual crush on Thomas known as erotomania like she's some sort of mental deviant?    As you watch the absurd theories cast against Miss Hill by senators who believe this is an unfair witch hunt against Clarence Thomas, it makes you upset or it made me furious rather than none of these male Congressmen ever considered the possibility that men in positions of authority could use their stature & influence to manipulate the situation to their advantage thru unwanted advances or even intercourse because they write evaluations on their subordinates that they oversee, they determine a women's future thru promotions or recommendations; they can blackball or prevent females from working at other law firms or any law firm rather ever again. Could a women studying law really saw no to her boss's advances back in 1991 with the 'boys will be boys' mentality? Sadly no, not really. Not if you wanna advance or climb up the legal ladder anyway. In addition, this really ticked me off. Anita Hill's claims of harassment weren't taken seriously in the Senate chamber because she was a black woman instead of a white woman stating these allegations against Thomas. What?!! That's absurd! Why should the color of the woman's skin even matter. That's freaking ridiculous & very insulting.    You wanna know how Clarence Thomas refutes these unsettlingly serious allegations? He calls the whole backlash situation against him a "high tech lynching." Excuse me? You have got to be joking. So let me get this straight, a former employee under your supervision who happen to be black just like you has committed a vile act of racist cruelty against Thomas simply because he was asked several times to stop engaging in lewd conversations about her appearance & Clarence claims that what Anita did to him by testifying is the equivalent to a hate crime? I'm about ready to smack you sir. And the worst part is that nobody in the Senate challenges Thomas on such ludicrous remarks at all. Unbelievable.    Hill even agrees to take a lie detector test to prove that she is telling the truth. However, many who oppose her assertions claim that the results are meaningless because testers can make anybody pass polygraphs if they want. Ah no, first you establish a base line with false responses & then you monitor a person's heart rate & breathing patterns for erratic fluctuations. The only individuals who can pass a polygraph are psychopaths & serial killers with no appreciation for right or wrong & no impulse control. Lie detector tests are almost impossible to fake as long as the professional examiner knows what the hades they are doing.    The picture ends with Miss Hill returning back to Oklahoma. She is tired of fighting against unfounded innuendo about her reputation & character assassination tactics. Once back teaching, she takes comfort & solace in all the letters she receives from women who thank her for opening their eyes against sexual harassment. Clarence Thomas becomes a Supreme Court Justice as we all know.    This film does make think twice about what you say to your female colleagues in the workplace as it should. Can you say some looks nice today without it coming across as inappropriate? I guess it depends on a person's tone, sincerity, & maintaining eye contact without visually wondering to other sections of a co-workers anatomy I guess. Lets roll with a B- on "Confirmation" because Hill & Thomas's performances were quite good & we never see Clarence believe he ever did anything wrong, even though he claims that he can't look his son in the eye anymore while undergoing the confirmation process anyway.    If I ever said anything that made a woman feel uncomfortable about her appearance or attractiveness, I'm sorry.        "Who's to say what's for me to say...be...do
      Cause a big nothing it'll be for me
      The land of opportunity
      The golden chance for me
      My future looks so bright
      Now I think I've seen the light"  
    • He has enough money if he has that big of a problem with this country he can fund a ticket to any country of his choice that he cares enough to stand up for. I am sure he has a passport so it's just a matter of taking care of his finances and get on a jet and fly the hades out of here.
    • You pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. It's hard for me to comprehend why he chose this way to made his voice be heard.
    • I believe they have amended the rules to 'touching the passer'......
  • Welcome New Members

    • Hi And Welcome! You can create a thread after you have 10 approved posts.  When you first join, you can post 5 replies per 24 hours so, it takes 48 hours at minimum before you can post.   Apologies for the inconvenience but it keeps our drive by trouble making to a minimum.
    • Hello Colts Nation   I am a long time reader of this forum but never really participated in comments but hope to join in this season.   Been a Colts fan since the 'move' when i lived in Carmel.  Actually liked the Colts before that when i was younger but it was the uniform that appealed to me.    I am wondering how do I start a topic in a forum?  Do I have to have so many replies before approved?  I tried to find the rules topic on this but no luck.   Thanks   Edit: I finally found the section on the rules to posting.  :-)
  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.