We just got robbed!

[tahuyaman]

I can't stand these refs!!!! Bring back the replacements!!!!!

 

Today's game was possibly the most one sided officiated game I've ever seen.  I'm a completely objective viewer and  several of the call, and non calls, left me scratching my head.  It was a horribly inconsistent job today by the officiating crew.

[Dustin]

Today's game was possibly the most one sided officiated game I've ever seen.  I'm a completely objective viewer and  several of the call, and non calls, left me scratching my head.  It was a horribly inconsistent job today by the officiating crew.

 

You must not have watched much football. 

[tahuyaman]

You must not have watched much football. 

I have and I watched that game.  That was a horribly inconsistent job by that officiating crew.  Completely one sided.  It was inexplicable.  I'll bet that crew will be downgraded for that .  Still, the Colts played a better game.  I just wish the officials would be consistent.

[Dustin]

I have and I watched that game.  That was a horribly inconsistent job by that officiating crew.  Completely one sided.  It was inexplicable.  I'll bet that crew will be downgraded for that .  Still, the Colts played a better game.  I just wish the officials would be consistent.

 

What team are you a fan of? Not related. Just interested. 

[tahuyaman]

The officiating this year, from game to game, has been the worst I have ever seen.  In the past the games were called fairly consistently.  Not so any more.  I believe now, the officials get something in their head about one team or player and that's what they concentrate on. 

 

I saw an official today reaching for his flag while the QB was calling the signals.  Once the ball was snapped, he threw his flag.  The call was offensive holding.  Now, obviously he was looking to make that call seeing that he made motions to throw the flag before the ball was snapped.  If it was illegal formation, that would be understandable, but it was a call that couldn't be identified until the play was run.

[tahuyaman]

What team are you a fan of? Not related. Just interested. 

Doesn't matter.  It's not KC.

[Dustin]

Doesn't matter.  It's not KC.

 

Nope. I bet it's Seattle tho. Which reaffirms my belief you haven't watched much football.

[tahuyaman]

Nope. I bet it's Seattle tho. Which reaffirms my belief you haven't watched much football.

So, you have nothing to respond with other than useless tripe?

[Dustin]

So, you have nothing to respond with other than useless tripe?

 

Nah, you're just going around trying to stir things up so I'm just doing the same.

 

Stay bitter tho. I find it amusing. 

[tahuyaman]

So I was right.  No comment on the points I made?

[Dustin]

So I was right.  No comment on the points I made?

 

The refs took a turnover from us on an obvious fumble and had blown the whistle early on what might have been a TD by Josh McNary. We got called for holding on a big gain and Luck was credited as being sacked after a review on what was called an incomplete on the field.

 

If you can look at that and claim the officiating was "one-sided" then you're obviously trolling. 

[tahuyaman]

I can see there's no reasoning with you.

[Dustin]

I can see there's no reasoning with you.

 

>being this bitter. 

[House]

Lol. That's why we won. The refs.

Hey did that "Reggie Wayne uses stickum" thing ever work out for the Seahawks by the way?

[ricker182]

Well not according to the ref.  He basically said receiver never had possession, was juggling it. It's a challengeable call. Did we?  I thought we did. And if so, evidently the 3 steps wasn't clear to the head official either. 

Well yeah that's why it was a terrible call. I can see how they call it incomplete in real time but after watching multiple replays it's clear he is not juggling the football, takes multiple steps then the ball is jarred loose.   

It was a clear reception and fumble.  

Blown call.

We will be getting a "we're sorry" from the NFL in a few days.

[tahuyaman]

Lol. That's why we won. The refs.

Hey did that "Reggie Wayne uses stickum" thing ever work out for the Seahawks by the way?

Did I say that?  No.  In fact I said the Colts played a better game.  Don't be a dink.

 

I just noted, and rightfully so, that the game was officiated in a fairly one sided manner and that's pretty much been the case league wide this season.  No one could dispute the inconsistency and general poor quality of officiating this year.  It's undeniable.  And it's not going to get better until officiating is their only job and their career depends on how consistent and accurate they are.

[jwilli69]

Maybe the league will asign Triplett to the pats game and give us a high grade ref (boger or mike carey or even ed "guns" hochuli. Maybe a 2nd seed offering will be the payback. I'd accept that

[shecolt]

These are Pereira's tweets that I "think" related to the call that prompted this thread:

 

 

That was a bang-bang play in KC - in real time, you have to stay with the call there

 

Nothing in the rule book talks about how many steps -- it's maintaining control long enough to perform an act common to the game.

 

Replay would stay with whatever was called on the field. It's THAT close.

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira

[jwilli69]

Did I say that?  No.  In fact I said the Colts played a better game.  Don't be a dink.

 

I just noted, and rightfully so, that the game was officiated in a fairly one sided manner and that's pretty much been the case league wide this season.  No one could dispute the inconsistency and general poor quality of officiating this year.  It's undeniable.  And it's not going to get better until officiating is their only job and their career depends on how consistent and accurate they are.

Oh so they needto be fulltime to be able to see a play in a HD replay booth? Seems like they were better before replays were allowed. Why refs like Triplett have been allowed to continue being an nfl ref is beyond me but being fulltime isnt going to help his eyes and decision making. I agree with another poster, we need a separate replay guy that can review plays in slow speed on a monitor when high speed live plays may have been innacurate.

[ricker182]

These are Pereira's tweets that I "think" related to the call that prompted this thread:

 

 

That was a bang-bang play in KC - in real time, you have to stay with the call there

 

Nothing in the rule book talks about how many steps -- it's maintaining control long enough to perform an act common to the game.

 

Replay would stay with whatever was called on the field. It's THAT close.

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira

I disagree with his thinking though. It's clearly a catch in every sense of the word and a fumble.

 

I do respect his opinion though because he usually calls it like he sees and and doesn't purposely side with the refs.

[House]

Did I say that? No. In fact I said the Colts played a better game. Don't be a dink.

I just noted, and rightfully so, that the game was officiated in a fairly one sided manner and that's pretty much been the case league wide this season. No one could dispute the inconsistency and general poor quality of officiating this year. It's undeniable. And it's not going to get better until officiating is their only job and their career depends on how consistent and accurate they are.

Don't believe I referenced or even quoted you. Weird you would feel compelled to assert yourself into my post. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

If you want to diminish a win. Try harder than "Refz liked you more than them other guiyzz!"

It's sad.

[coming on strong]

I didn't think the fumble call was poor officiating. I think the receiver completed the catch, but I understand the call being made the way it was on the field. And the ref's call was allowed to stand because the replay was not conclusive. This is one of the harder calls to make, and often times it comes down to judgment. Because the play happened so fast, I understand not overturning the call on the field.

so taking 3 steps after catching securing and turning forward to run making a football move is not conclusive?  I understand it happened fast in real life but in slow motion it is conclusive..

[lollygagger8]

I didn't think the fumble call was poor officiating. I think the receiver completed the catch, but I understand the call being made the way it was on the field. And the ref's call was allowed to stand because the replay was not conclusive. This is one of the harder calls to make, and often times it comes down to judgment. Because the play happened so fast, I understand not overturning the call on the field.

Say what??! The receiver took 3 steps (football moves) and clearly fumbled the ball.

[open window]

Say what??! The receiver took 3 steps (football moves) and clearly fumbled the ball.

The "football move" was removed from the rule book a few years ago. I sure thought it was gonna be Colts ball though.

[ColtsBlueFL]

These are Pereira's tweets that I "think" related to the call that prompted this thread:

 

 

That was a bang-bang play in KC - in real time, you have to stay with the call there

 

Nothing in the rule book talks about how many steps -- it's maintaining control long enough to perform an act common to the game.

 

Replay would stay with whatever was called on the field. It's THAT close.

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira

It was bang bang, and I agreed then, and still do.  And since on field it was ruled incomplete, no TD can happen Best result would be give Colts the ball where it was picked up off the ground.  But even that was denied.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Say what??! The receiver took 3 steps (football moves) and clearly fumbled the ball.

 

It's not the steps... was the ball securely tucked in possession during the "steps"  Evidently replay didn't show that full, secure possession, or it would have been overturned.  This always rules in the end if all else fails-

 

"Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete." 

 

It has to be clearcut.  Period.

[tahuyaman]

Oh so they needto be fulltime to be able to see a play in a HD replay booth?

I'm talking about the guys on the field officiating every play. They need to have off season training sessions. They need to look at all the games they officiated and have their performance critiqued. And the NFL needs to develop a system which ensures officials are all on the same page and all crews officiate games according to a singular standard.

I don't know how anyone can take the officials seriously any more. They are becoming a joke. But the NFL is more worried about whether or not a player has his jersey tucked in or his socks pulled up. Something which impacts games is of no concern

[tahuyaman]

Look at the Dallas vs Green Bay game last week. An official is in perfect position with an unobstructed view of a Green Bay interception, yet he inexplicably makes the wrong call. What was that incompetent ref looking at? Instant replay isn't there to cover for incompetent officials. It's there to correct or verify calls that were close enough to go either way. Instant replay has become a crutch. Refs don't need to be good any more. If they make a bad call, instant replay will fix it. They have become bad at every aspect of their job now.

[jwilli69]

Look at the Dallas vs Green Bay game last week. An official is in perfect position with an unobstructed view of a Green Bay interception, yet he inexplicably makes the wrong call. What was that incompetent ref looking at? Instant replay isn't there to cover for incompetent officials. It's there to correct or verify calls that were close enough to go either way. Instant replay has become a crutch. Refs don't need to be good any more. If they make a bad call, instant replay will fix it. They have become bad at every aspect of their job now.

It needs to be sent to an independent control booth so that ego and fear of looking silly is taken out of play. Look at the play and get it right. Grade the refs from their mistakes and move on.

As for this particular play, if having the ball in your hands, turning up field and having had 3 total steps taken before getting hit isn't an act of football move I don't know how they can ever classify a catch. Secure in 2 hands and moving itbtowards the body on the way to running all in the same fluid motion is a catch, no 2 ways about it. Fulltime or partime refs get that right at any stage of football and this is the biggest stage, the NFL. You can't mess theee things up.

[open window]

Replay will all be done from a central location next season. All reviews will be looked at by replay specialists and communicated to the refs on the field. Consistancy is all that I ask for (Ben-Jarvis-Green-Ellis)! Anyway that is my prediction for when the competition comittee gets together in the off season.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I'm talking about the guys on the field officiating every play. They need to have off season training sessions. They need to look at all the games they officiated and have their performance critiqued. And the NFL needs to develop a system which ensures officials are all on the same page and all crews officiate games according to a singular standard.

I don't know how anyone can take the officials seriously any more. They are becoming a joke. But the NFL is more worried about whether or not a player has his jersey tucked in or his socks pulled up. Something which impacts games is of no concern

 

Actually,  thy are looking into changing the review process.  They pretty much have the infrastructure in their NYC central office where the get all games on multiples displays simultaneously.  Except right now officials are looking for infraction that fineable, whether flagged or not.  So they are thinking of modifying this 'war room' into a cetralized review, and they're using the NHL's model as a starting point.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24374190/nfl-studying-nhls-centralized-replay-system

 

The cry from every fan of every team regarding blatant calls not reversed has reached previously deaf ears.  Mainly the goal, consistency (hopefully better judgement too, but consistency is the goal). I hear NFL wants this fully in place by 2015.  Good chance some kind of trial version next year is possible too.

[Kyle]

 Remember the Megatron TD catch, that wasn't?  That rule still exists.

 

different type of play.  megatron's was controlling the ball through going to the ground.  they are determining incomplete or complete, a fumble is never even an option

 

in the play of topic, we are deciding incomplete or fumble while the WR.  Being down before the fumble is not being reviewed.

 

The WR clearly catches the ball, tucks it, and takes a step while turning to run.  It was a fumble.  I agree that it was quick, but I was POed it wasnt a fumble before i saw a replay.  then the replay was so obvious i knew we would get the ball (just like BGE's TD run on 4th down vs Cincy)..........  Even the announcers said we would get it and then when they said "ruling on the field stands" the announcer said "WHHHHATTTT!!!!!!!  WOOOO... I can't believe it."

[ColtsBlueFL]

Replay will all be done from a central location next season. All reviews will be looked at by replay specialists and communicated to the refs on the field. Consistancy is all that I ask for (Ben-Jarvis-Green-Ellis)! Anyway that is my prediction for when the competition comittee gets together in the off season.

 

If at least 24 owners vote yes this off season, then I'm sure the first draft of such a system could be in place next year.  But the first implementation will likelybe full of backups and workarounds and just in cases.  By 2015 they should know all they need to completely have it off site working smoothly.

[ColtsBlueFL]

different type of play.  megatron's was controlling the ball through going to the ground.  they are determining incomplete or complete, a fumble is never even an option

 

Whether player is contacted or not, lost it on his own or it's stripped out, or even the ground knocks it away, the rule is full control and possession all the way through the catch. 

 

in the play of topic, we are deciding incomplete or fumble while the WR.  Being down before the fumble is not being reviewed.

 

Correct, it was ruled not in possession on the field, thus incomplete.  Now the impetus is replay must show beyond any doubt full possession was established.  This part has changed over the last few years.  

 

The WR clearly catches the ball, tucks it, and takes a step while turning to run.  It was a fumble.  I agree that it was quick, but I was POed it wasnt a fumble before i saw a replay.  then the replay was so obvious i knew we would get the ball (just like BGE's TD run on 4th down vs Cincy)..........  Even the announcers said we would get it and then when they said "ruling on the field stands" the announcer said "WHHHHATTTT!!!!!!!  WOOOO... I can't believe it."

 

What is interesting, is over the last few years while the rules have eased for receivers and other offensive skill players, another change has seemed to secretly and quietly entered in; almost like it is a concession given back to the defenses.  That is, after the football move verbiage disappeared, the standard for refs to rule full possession have gotten ever so slightly stricter each year. Used to be you could go up for a catch, land on both feet and just slightly turn to go upfield and it was a catch and a fumble if knocked away.  No more. As recent as 2 years, ago, I blatantly saw this change to incomplete when a receiver landed on two feet and then got nearly two full strides on the turf and then a defender stripped the ball.  Ruling? incomplete. Replay? Upheld.  Really?  I said...

 

So I been watching this change, and it seems to me now to correlate to full possession occurring at about the same time a receiver would no longer be deemed to be "defenseless".  So I ask you, if the receiver was popped in a head shot, helmet to helmet (which is legal on a running back or receiver that has fully become a runner) and the ball flew out of there, would there have been a flag for unnecessary roughness on a hit to a defenseless player?  If people think no, then I feel this is where the disconnect is.  A real time bang bang play like that would be a penalty if a helmet to "Neck and Head" area was made instead of stripping the ball. I really feel the Refs don't consider a receiver in full possession until right around that transition from defenseless receiver in the process of making a catch to a runner in full control. I've just seen it too many time now to think otherwise.

 

Having realized this, and watching all teams players, and calls this seems to be fairly true.  And using this yardstick now, I am less in disagreement with many "Close, bang-bang calls" than before.  And I can easily see where fans who violently disagree with defenseless receiver penalties would also be vehemently against these incomplete rulings as well. But it seems so prevalent now. So many rule changes these last few years, and both Refs and fans are still in the process of adjusting and making the connections.  What makes it worse, is the slight inconsistencies from crew to crew.  The centralized replay should address that, and hopefully upgrade accuracy some as well.

[Kyle]

What is interesting, is over the last few years while the rules have eased for receivers and other offensive skill players, another change has seemed to secretly and quietly entered in; almost like it is a concession given back to the defenses.  That is, after the football move verbiage disappeared, the standard for refs to rule full possession have gotten ever so slightly stricter each year. Used to be you could go up for a catch, land on both feet and just slightly turn to go upfield and it was a catch and a fumble if knocked away.  No more. As recent as 2 years, ago, I blatantly saw this change to incomplete when a receiver landed on two feet and then got nearly two full strides on the turf and then a defender stripped the ball.  Ruling? incomplete. Replay? Upheld.  Really?  I said...

 

So I been watching this change, and it seems to me now to correlate to full possession occurring at about the same time a receiver would no longer be deemed to be "defenseless".  So I ask you, if the receiver was popped in a head shot, helmet to helmet (which is legal on a running back or receiver that has fully become a runner) and the ball flew out of there, would there have been a flag for unnecessary roughness on a hit to a defenseless player?  If people think no, then I feel this is where the disconnect is.  A real time bang bang play like that would be a penalty if a helmet to "Neck and Head" area was made instead of stripping the ball. I really feel the Refs don't consider a receiver in full possession until right around that transition from defenseless receiver in the process of making a catch to a runner in full control. I've just seen it too many time now to think otherwise.

 

Having realized this, and watching all teams players, and calls this seems to be fairly true.  And using this yardstick now, I am less in disagreement with many "Close, bang-bang calls" than before.  And I can easily see where fans who violently disagree with defenseless receiver penalties would also be vehemently against these incomplete rulings as well. But it seems so prevalent now. So many rule changes these last few years, and both Refs and fans are still in the process of adjusting and making the connections.  What makes it worse, is the slight inconsistencies from crew to crew.  The centralized replay should address that, and hopefully upgrade accuracy some as well.

HUH????  you are very strange.  You speak as if your opinion is fact.  On top of that, you are stating your opinion about defenseless player hits, helmet to head and neck area, and bang bang LIVE plays.  I was not talking about any of those.  The topic is a review by a ref, on a play deciding if the player caught and then fumbled or never had possession.  He was not hit helmet to helmet or any of that junk you are trying to use...  

 

The FACT (not opinion) is he had the ball in 2 hands, tucked it, took a couple steps, and turned to run and attempt to push the defender off with his hand not holding the ball.  The defender stripped the ball.  It was a fumble.  The refs watched all of this on a slow motion replay..... and said the ruling on the field stands and the call is incomplete.

 

 It was the 3rd worst review for us this year.  2nd worst was Brazil batting the fumble back in bounds and them saying it hit his foot while he was touching out of bounds.  #1 was obviously the Green-Ellis TD run that was overturned and made to be a TD.  None of those 3 calls should EVER happen.

[ColtsBlueFL]

HUH????  you are very strange.  You speak as if your opinion is fact.  On top of that, you are stating your opinion about defenseless player hits, helmet to head and neck area, and bang bang LIVE plays.  I was not talking about any of those.  The topic is a review by a ref, on a play deciding if the player caught and then fumbled or never had possession.  He was not hit helmet to helmet or any of that junk you are trying to use...  

 

The FACT (not opinion) is he had the ball in 2 hands, tucked it, took a couple steps, and turned to run and attempt to push the defender off with his hand not holding the ball.  The defender stripped the ball.  It was a fumble.  The refs watched all of this on a slow motion replay..... and said the ruling on the field stands and the call is incomplete.

 

 It was the 3rd worst review for us this year.  2nd worst was Brazil batting the fumble back in bounds and them saying it hit his foot while he was touching out of bounds.  #1 was obviously the Green-Ellis TD run that was overturned and made to be a TD.  None of those 3 calls should EVER happen.

 

I beg your pardon. Fact is, the ref didn't see or call it that way on the field, and the replay apparently wasn't definitive enough to overturn it. Even the former Vice President of NFL officiating agreed with on no overturn.  It is their job and power to determine, review, and rule accordingly, not yours, To decide what is right or what is fact as far as possession and everything above has everything to do with what is transpiring in todays NFL and ref calls. Most assuredly they have a different standard of a catch than you do.

 

FACT: You have a right to your opinion to disagree, that's all.

 

 

Quoted: You speak as if your opinion is fact.

 

Oh, BTW, what do qualifiers like this on statements imply?

 

" has seemed to ... "

" it seems to me now ..."

" then I feel this is ... "

" I really feel the ..."

" this seems to be fairly ..."

"should address ..."

"and hopefully ..."

 

All pulled from my post. These are not statements of fact, but imply opinion. Reasoned out opinion, IMO. My whole statement is opinion on why I think refs are ruling differently from many fans perspective. 

 

So, since_you_made_a_statement_of_fact: you need to bring proof of that factual assertion.  I saw it live, replayed in slo-mo off my HD-DVR, took still frame pictures on my camera phone and I uploaded a couple to this thread.  I did not see what you assert, and I even thought I saw loss of control as receiver was trying to move the ball away from potential defenders.  So you need to show it to prove your FACT. Otherwise, it is just _your_opinion.

[Superman]

so taking 3 steps after catching securing and turning forward to run making a football move is not conclusive?  I understand it happened fast in real life but in slow motion it is conclusive..

 

 

Say what??! The receiver took 3 steps (football moves) and clearly fumbled the ball.

 

"Football move" doesn't matter. It's not in the rule book.

 

As for the three steps, that only matters if you definitively state when the receiver had control of the ball. And while I think it was a fumble, I don't think the video evidence was "conclusive." 

[tahuyaman]

Changing the review process does nothing to fix the problem of horrible officiating on the field. The inexplicably inconsistent penalty calls and non calls needs to be addressed and corrected. These current refs are looking more and more like the replacements of last season. Even the ones with years and years of experience.

[tahuyaman]

Say what??! The receiver took 3 steps (football moves) and clearly fumbled the ball.

He could take a hundred steps and if the official thought he never had full control of the ball and replay failed to prove otherwise, it's not a catch.

[jvan1973]

Today's game was possibly the most one sided officiated game I've ever seen.

no, no it wasn't