Chargers complaining about officiating

[Michael]

I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer. I agree with them
that the officials did a bad job.

What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
or that the Chargers "beat themselves"

The Jets were more productive then they were in the first half.
Sanchez is the one that gave it away. If anything, the Jets were the
ones that "beat themselves" in the first half.

In the second half, the PI call on Jammer if not called would not have
made much of a differance. The Jets defense had their number at that
point.

More on the officiating... I saw a clip of the ruffing call that was
made against Clay Jr. in the Packers game... How on earth was that
ruffing ???

Two things about the pro game now are a real downer for me. Lack of
quality from the officials and game rules that are overwhelmingly in
favor of promoting a pure passing league. Why not just take off the
equipment and play catch ???

[Hammer]

The reason why the PI was called on Jammer was because his back and
head were turned away from the ball the entire time. It was a good
call in my opinion.

[John C TX]

I saw two blatant holds by Chargers one on their run TD on Mauga & one
on a long play on Smith. On Smith he had his jersey stretched at the
collar.

You should only bitch about refs when you win.

[graybeard]

Absolutely the right call. It's called face guarding and will be called
every time if the defender doesn't even bother to look for the ball.
--
graybeard

[MZ]

On Oct 24, 10:45 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I heard a few sound bites from Rivers and Jammer.  I agree with them
> that the officials did a bad job.
>
> What I dont agree with is that the officials won the game for the Jets
> or that the Chargers "beat themselves"

I think you can rarely say that the officials win a game for a team.
The officials are a random component (sorry conspiracy theorists...)
that you have to overcome, just like any number of other things
(injuries, field condition, etc). The only time I remember ever
saying in here that an official DIRECTLY cost a team the game was a
few years ago when Baker got hosed vs. Cleveland. You remember that
one. This is because it was the end of the game and so the
opportunity wasn't there for them to overcome.

But that final Jets drive yesterday... damn. There were two bad
calls on that drive that likely helped win that game for the Jets (the
PI that wasn't, and Sanchez's spot).

That doesn't absolve the Chargers at all. Clock management on their
final drive was Norv-esque, Rivers' check-downs were stupid, and the
playcalls on 3rd and 4th downs were baffling. But I can see why the
fans are upset. It really ruins the game for the rest of us.

[MZ]

This is an old rule that, to my knowledge, has not been reinstated.
Your post prompted me to look it up again, and I found this
description in the Tribune from a few years ago:

"Q: Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned
toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but
doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and
hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he
doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn
Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.

"A: Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face
guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty
under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical
contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play
would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the
direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended
receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not
playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not
be a foul."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerrymarkbreit,0,67115.story

[MZ]

FWIW, this is no longer a penalty when contact isn't made. This only
really applies when a route is diverted (this is why Revis wasn't
called on the previous drive, where he cut off the route of the
receiver who tried to turn back for the ball -- it was because Revis
was looking).

[Hammer]

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
at least some incidental contact to me.

[Michael]

mark... the chargers would not have won even if the jets did not get a
fg on that last drive.. the chargers offense was taken out of the game
the entire second half. the jets beat them. there were also a few
questionable calls that went against the jets. the jets won on the
scoreboard and the jets won on both sides of the ball. if sancez was
a sharp QB, the Jets would have won by 17 points.

on a new note...

i am REALLY wondering what the pats offense and jets defense will do
come nov 13th. the pats had a smart offensive game plan the last time
out. a ballanced offense is the thing to do vs. the jets. if the
pats run their modified shotgun run and shoot i dont think they will
have much luck with it.

[eric]

On Oct 24, 11:09 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Face guarding was removed from the rules as a penalty in 2003. There
is no such penalty any more.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerrymarkbreit,0,67115.story

[eric]

> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> at least some incidental contact to me.

Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.

[John C TX]

> > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.

That flag came instantly. There is a chance that was a bad decision
but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
better view than you?

[MZ]

> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> at least some incidental contact to me.

Yeah, incidental. That doesn't count. It didn't change the
receiver's progress, he didn't bar his arm, etc. Just because his
skin touched the other guy's skin doesn't mean there was contact. It
was just about a perfect play by the DB. It couldn't have been
coached any better.

[MZ]

> > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...text -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> > Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
>
> That flag came instantly.  There is a chance that was a bad decision
> but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
> better view than you?

We were 5 yards away for the replay too. And we had millisecond
resolution. :)

[John C TX]

> > > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...-

>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > > > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> > > Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
>
> > That flag came instantly.  There is a chance that was a bad decision
> > but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
> > better view than you?
>
> We were 5 yards away for the replay too.  And we had millisecond
> resolution.  :)

Good one

I didn't pay attention to the replay. I was probably peeing. Did the
sideline view show no contact?

[Hammer]

> > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061212askjerry...quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was definitely
> > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> Yeah, incidental.  That doesn't count.  It didn't change the
> receiver's progress, he didn't bar his arm, etc.  Just because his
> skin touched the other guy's skin doesn't mean there was contact.  It
> was just about a perfect play by the DB.  It couldn't have been

> coached any better.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

But the fact that there was contact, and his head was turned, and
Holmes fell over, made it look like a penalty. I guess what I'm saying
is that it may have been the wrong call but was not a bad call. The
referee can't always tell exactly what is going on. Jammer should have
been playing the ball and not just running a foot race and then he
wouldn't have drawn the flag.

[graybeard]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:29:37 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
wrote:

I'm aware that face guarding is not an official penalty, and I didn't
say that it was. In fact, the defender can legally obstruct the
receiver's view with any part of his body. It is one of the few rules
that has been changed to benefit the defense rather than the offense. I
said that it would be called, because it almost always is. If you
haven't seen it called, then you are not watching many NFL games. And I
doubt that incidental contact would be a consideration when the defender
is running straight at the receiver.
--
graybeard

[Ray O'Hara]

"Hammer" <stuart.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d720d81-173f-47e8...@v15g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

====================================================================

Jammer made zero contact. so now just facing away from the QB is a penalty?

[Ray O'Hara]

"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a4031f1-2565-4c25...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

sideline view show no contact?\

=======================================================================

the replays showed no contact.
the thing with that call was it was the decisive play of the game, no call
and SD gets the ball back with time.
instead the Jets got a free first down and a lot of yardage.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Hammer" <stuart.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:35cefc87-ca54-4aef...@w9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

===============================================================

it was a bad wrong call, rationalize it anyway you want but it was a misten
call and the decisive call of the game.


all that can be said for the ref was they called it tight all game.

[graybeard]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
wrote:

>But that final Jets drive yesterday... damn. There were two bad
>calls on that drive that likely helped win that game for the Jets (the
>PI that wasn't, and Sanchez's spot).

Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
--
graybeard

[John C TX]

On Oct 24, 3:28 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4a4031f1-2565-4c25...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Are you sure there was no contact? It looked like there was
> > > > > definitely
> > > > > at least some incidental contact to me.
>
> > > > Incidental contact is not a penalty either. This was just a bad call.
>
> > > That flag came instantly. There is a chance that was a bad decision
> > > but will you accept the fact the side judge was 5 yards away & had a
> > > better view than you?
>
> > We were 5 yards away for the replay too. And we had millisecond
> > resolution. :)
>
> Good one
>
> I didn't pay attention to the replay.  I was probably peeing.  Did the
> sideline view show no contact?\
>
> =======================================================================
>
> the replays showed no contact.
> the thing with that call was it was the decisive play of the game, no call
> and SD gets the ball back with time.
> instead the Jets got a free first down and a lot of yardage.

Ray, I am not sure which Ray is talking, good Ray, or crazy Ray, so I
will wait for another answer.

[John C TX]

>
> >But that final Jets drive yesterday...   damn.  There were two bad
> >calls on that drive that likely helped win that game for the Jets (the
> >PI that wasn't, and Sanchez's spot).
>
> Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
> the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
> erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
> wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
> crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
> teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
> --
> graybeard

or the hold on Mauga on Tolbert's TD, or the hold on Eric Smith on a
long run...two different games Gray

:)

[MZ]

I agree with Ray here. There was no contact, and this typically isn't
called. I think it was just a bad call, and precisely what all of us
have been saying is ruining the game.

I didn't see the holding call that you're referring to (I only watched
the 2nd half), and I can see why you're upset about the Jammer non-PI
(although I feel it was the correct call yesterday, it's definitely
called other times). But I think it's unfair to complain about non-
calls unless they're tremendously blatant (think wrestling...steel
chair).

I'm surprised that you don't think the Mangold call was correct. He
looked like he was several yards ahead of the LOS. 3 at least. I
could be wrong on this.

I'm also surprised nobody is bringing up Sanchez's first down spot. I
thought it was obviously short. This is on Norv for not challenging.
Even if he had lost the challenge, he would have stopped the clock.

Either way, I think the Jets received two gifts on that final drive,
and I absolutely think it had an impact on the game. But dem's the
breaks. All we can do as fans is demand a better product, which means
more consistent officiating and transparency.

[graybeard]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:58:19 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>

Mark, I almost never complain about calls or non-calls, but I do react
when others do. Oh, I scream and moan about them when I am watching a
game, because I am emotionally involved at the time, but I don't use
them as an excuse for winning or losing later. For one thing, I think
they tend to even out over the course of a season, but most people who
bitch about them usually have an agenda which favors one side or the
other. For another, rules in all sports are not set in concrete like
most fans think they are. The games are in the hands of the officials.
If a baseball umpire calls a strike when the ball is clearly outside and
high, it is still a strike, regardless of the rules about the strike
zone. It is a strike because the umpire called it a strike, and he has
the authority to do that. Same in football. There is a reason they are
called judgment plays, and only the official's judgment counts.
--
graybeard

[Harlan Lachman]

In article
<0ef27aa1-5db8-41a6...@g1g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 4:37 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >But that final Jets drive yesterday...   damn.  There were two bad
> > >calls on that drive that likely helped win that game for the Jets (the
> > >PI that wasn't, and Sanchez's spot).
> >
> > Of course, we won't mention the chippy holding call that cost the Jets
> > the Holmes TD. or the ludicrous illegal man down field on Mangold that
> > erased the Kerley first down catch. And then there was the PI that
> > wasn't called on Jammer when he was draped over Holmes shoulders on a
> > crossing route. The officiating was pretty bad yesterday - for both
> > teams - but I doubt it actually affected the final outcome.
> > --
> > graybeard
>
>
> I agree with Ray here. There was no contact, and this typically isn't
> called. I think it was just a bad call, and precisely what all of us
> have been saying is ruining the game.
>
> I didn't see the holding call that you're referring to (I only watched
> the 2nd half), and I can see why you're upset about the Jammer non-PI
> (although I feel it was the correct call yesterday, it's definitely
> called other times). But I think it's unfair to complain about non-
> calls unless they're tremendously blatant (think wrestling...steel
> chair).

Mark, the holding call on Mangold was legit. His arms were fully
extended, to catch the defender and he must be strong as an ox because
he stopped the defender who eventually fell.

>
> I'm surprised that you don't think the Mangold call was correct. He
> looked like he was several yards ahead of the LOS. 3 at least. I
> could be wrong on this.

OTOH, the down field call on Mangold was completely bogus. He took one
step and turned around.

>
> I'm also surprised nobody is bringing up Sanchez's first down spot. I
> thought it was obviously short. This is on Norv for not challenging.
> Even if he had lost the challenge, he would have stopped the clock.

It sure looked that way to me too. Spots are hard to challenge though.

>
> Either way, I think the Jets received two gifts on that final drive,
> and I absolutely think it had an impact on the game. But dem's the
> breaks. All we can do as fans is demand a better product, which means
> more consistent officiating and transparency.

Again, since all points count the same, I think you are unreasonable to
single out the calls on the last drive, one of which you admit is often
called similarly.

And, that ignores the ludicrousness of a Pat or Steeler fan ever
complaining about officials and both teams have Lombardis to show for it.

h

[John C TX]

MZ, that is the second time this year we have been hit with that. In
the previous game the announcer thought it ticky tack. I am not sure
if the LOS is a hard line.If it is then it was a penalty if it isn't
then he barely passed it. If it isn't hard line it was BS as it
didn't affect play at all.

> I'm also surprised nobody is bringing up Sanchez's first down spot.  I
> thought it was obviously short.  This is on Norv for not challenging.
> Even if he had lost the challenge, he would have stopped the clock.

The Ryan comments are probably being played again this week in SD.

[Michael]

On Oct 24, 11:12 pm, Harlan Lachman <har...@eeivt.com> wrote:

> And, that ignores the ludicrousness of a Pat or Steeler fan ever
> complaining about officials and both teams have Lombardis to show for it.

Yep… I was thinking exactly just that. MZ is in here biting the hand
that feeds his team. Bad calls are made week in and week out. The
Jets are not, nor have they ever been known as a team that brings
their own officials. When Shula was with Miami, they got all the calls
and everyone saw it and knew it. For some time now, it has been the
Steelers and Pats that get all the calls. Everyone sees it and knows
it. The Pats would be short at least one Lombardi without some “help”
and the Steelers would be short five of them… May be six. BTW…. The
Pats would be short all of them without “a little help” picking up the
blitz and calling the right coverage.

[MZ]

On Oct 25, 10:44 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:12 pm, Harlan Lachman <har...@eeivt.com> wrote:
>
> > And, that ignores the ludicrousness of a Pat or Steeler fan ever
> > complaining about officials and both teams have Lombardis to show for it.
>
> Yep… I was thinking exactly just that.  MZ is in here biting the hand
> that feeds his team.  Bad calls are made week in and week out.  The
> Jets are not, nor have they ever been known as a team that brings
> their own officials.

That's your impression. It's also everybody's impression that Brady
gets more roughing calls than other QBs, but that argument is easily
defeated. It serves a purpose though -- it tells us about how
impressions are often far removed from reality. We all have something
to learn from this.

I think this thread serves as a good demonstration that the Jets are
the lucky recipients of these calls. I can't remember the last time
the Pats got away with such a ludicrous PI as what the Jets got in
this game (on a crucial drive). That's got "C'Mon Man" highlight reel
written all over it. If it was the Pats, there would be a hell of a
lot more people talking about it than the four people in a thread on
usenet. This is where bias and false impressions are born!

But I do agree with Harlan and the others that the officials generally
looked like they had no idea what was going on throughout the whole
damned thing (or at least the 2nd half, which is the one I saw).
Their ineptitude just happened to favor the Jets a lot more than the
opposition this time. Next time maybe it goes the other way, and you
and Tutor will start screaming about grassy knoll stuff.

> When Shula was with Miami, they got all the calls
> and everyone saw it and knew it.  For some time now, it has been the
> Steelers and Pats that get all the calls. Everyone sees it and knows
> it.  The Pats would be short at least one Lombardi without some “help”
> and the Steelers would be short five of them… May be six.   BTW…. The
> Pats would be short all of them without “a little help” picking up the
> blitz and calling the right coverage.

Oh, right, spygate. I forgot. Here's an exercise for you, Michael.

5 : 2 RUN
4 : 2 PASS
5 : 1 RUN
3 : 2 PASS
6 : 1 PASS
7 : 4 PASS

If you look closely at the simple "code" above, you can figure out
that one of the trends is that an odd number represents "RUN" and an
even number represents "PASS". So, if you know which of the two
numbers to look at, you can easily decode run or pass. This is a
simplified example, but it mimics how teams use decoys to convey
defensive signals. So, now that you know the code... tell me...

2 : 5 RUN or PASS?

You can't, because the whole point of a decoy system is to make the
coding system itself ambiguous. Put another way, not only is the
encoder "encrypted", but so is the decoder. This is actually how lots
of systems (like Netflix, for example) do things. This is why teams
don't generally devote a lot of resources towards attempting to decode
signals. It's only fruitful when teams are lazy and don't use a
decoy. According to Mike Tomlin, everybody knew which teams attempted
to decode signals, and which team videotaped them. Therefore, they
used decoys.

Anyone who understands anything about football also understands that
"spygate" had no impact on games, relative to other decoding methods
that teams use (legally). At best, it may have meant that Bob Kraft
saved a few thousand bucks on employee salaries, since the job of
several people could be condensed to the job of one with a video
camera. Spygate was the most overblown news story in the history of
the NFL because it meant nothing. Goodell exacerbated the problem by
handling it stupidly because, as he's proven on several occasions
since then, he's a stupid man.

If you want to talk about how cheating may have impacted football
games, let's talk about the accusation that nobody is talking about
(because people tend towards drama instead of intelligence): that the
Patriots may have interrupted QB communication during games. Unlike
spygate, this could have had a real impact on (home) games. I don't
know that there was ever any evidence provided in support for this.
But who would know? The media never covered it! They were too
focused on a non-issue. 0-0-7 stories sell more newspapers.

[John C TX]

> > > And, that ignores the ludicrousness of a Pat or Steeler fan ever
> > > complaining about officials and both teams have Lombardis to show for it.
>
> > Yep… I was thinking exactly just that.  MZ is in here biting the hand
> > that feeds his team.  Bad calls are made week in and week out.  The
> > Jets are not, nor have they ever been known as a team that brings
> > their own officials.
>
> That's your impression.  It's also everybody's impression that Brady
> gets more roughing calls than other QBs, but that argument is easily
> defeated.  It serves a purpose though -- it tells us about how
> impressions are often far removed from reality.  We all have something
> to learn from this.

So Johnny, buRf, & Papa aren't Republicans? That was my impression.

[MZ]

Burf is a nihilist, Papa is a communist, and Johnny is a southern
baptist.

[Tutor]

LOL. That is very good.

Re: Officiating- I have not yet watched the game other than scattered
news highlight reel (was at a family function) but reading all this
re: officiating makes me sad that the officiating is pretty bad in the
NFL. And for some, bias and "false" impressions were born from rarely
enforced "tuck" rules. :)

[graybeard]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:49:14 -0700 (PDT), Tutor <dcat...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>...reading all this

>re: officiating makes me sad that the officiating is pretty bad in the
>NFL.

What's also sad is that it has become so bad that the topic of
officiating dominates discussion here and in the media. I for one would
much rather focus on other aspects of the games.
--
graybeard

[Michael]

Mark... Once in a while, the Jets get a gift just like the rest of the
NFL teams. The one that sticks out in my mind is the Vinny T. phantom
td vs. the Seahawks. Vinny T. was a clearly a yard short of the goal
line. That loss impacted the Seahawks' season as well as the Jets...
I'm not talking grassy knoll stuff with the Steelers and Pats... The
issue here is not Patriots, Brady or Steelers. It is not even
football... The issue here is *media*. The NFL is not a sports or a
football phenomenon. It is a media phenomenon. That is where all the
money and power comes from. When NFL "brand names" do well, more
money is made. Think of Brady as a bottle of expensive designer
perfume on the shelf marketed to high income women shopping on 5th
Ave... Think of Pittsburg and Rapistburger as a can of beer in the
fridge at the corner liquor store all ready to be purchased by an
extensive market of inarticulate, uneducated coal/steel/blue collar
workers that beat their wives when the Steelers lose. When officials
respond to marketing pressures that most certainly exist and
subsequently make their way down to the field, it is a media
phenomenon. Brand names are promoted and protected for the sake of
market appeal and maximizing profits. That would now also include the
"fukin Jets". Four prime time Jets games this season and non stop
headlines. They are attractive to the media now. Now let’s go eat a
g*ddam snack !!!

BTW... Goddell was protecting profits when he spared the league a
major media tar and feathering by torching the Eagles walk through
that the Pats had taped.

[MZ]

Michael, I understand. But according to many (evidently Tutor among
them), the gifts started long before the Patriots and Tom Brady became
a "brand".

[Michael]

> a "brand".- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd say the first Pats "gift" was the tuck rule. Late that season,
the Pats brand name along with Brady was taking shape. A team of
destiny... Red, white and blue "Patriots" flying our glorious colors
in the midst of a national crisis. Later on it morphed into Tom
Terrific GQ model and so on... The Steelers have been a national
brand name with specific market appeal for much longer. Not saying
that the officials make stuff up... Not at all... With each game comes
strage plays, unpredictable bounces of the oddly shaped ball,
questions regarding the rules... All that stuff happens fortuitously.
When in doubt, or when given an oppetunity, the officials side with
the brand name. An NFL game is very fragile. It takes very little to
influence the outcome. A single call can do the trick and there are
oppertunities to do so on every single play. The Steelers vs.
Seahawks Superbowl is a clinic. Same with Steelers vs. Cardinals
Superbowl.

An interesting bit to consiser... There are two ways to establish an
NFL brand name. You can do it with market identity or you can do it
with "star power". The Pats dont really have a market identity. They
have star power with Brady being their handsome product label. Same
deal with the Jets when they had Sonny Werblin building the "Broadway
Joe" star power. The Raiders, Cowboys, and Steelers all have very
specific marketing identities appart from the roster. IMHO, those
three teams got a lot of "help" along the way. It was all related to
marketing and money. It had nothing to do with who was who's pal or
who was friends with the commish at the time.

[MuahMan]

On Oct 25, 1:18 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:49:14 -0700 (PDT), Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >...reading all this
> >re: officiating makes me sad that the officiating is pretty bad in the
> >NFL.
>
> What's also sad is that it has become so bad that the topic of
> officiating dominates discussion here and in the media. I for one would
> much rather focus on other aspects of the games.
> --
> graybeard

You can focus on the games when the officials change the results of
all of them. Had the officials been confident the Jets would have lost
to the Dolphins. The 14 point swing on the Revis PI return for a TD
changed the entire outcome of the game.

[MZ]

Ummm...that was much later. After Brady won his first super bowl,
there was a 50/50 debate over whether he should be traded. Nobody
thought he was any good. The phrase "system QB" was the most
frequently used phrase to describe him, and he drew comparisons to
Trent Dilfer among all the talking heads. Nobody, including Pats
fans, ever had any idea he would become what he did. And nobody gave
them a chance against the "greatest show on turf", a label for the
Rams that the media ran with. The notion that they were media
darlings back then is totally revisionist history, Michael.

So the "tuck" rule came from 9/11? But nothing else did? It also
came against the Raiders, who you say get calls in their favor because
of their marketing appeal.

[Michael]

i dont see it that way... they were instant media darlings because
they were the little red while and blue underdogs.

> So the "tuck" rule came from 9/11?  But nothing else did?  It also
> came against the Raiders, who you say get calls in their favor because

> of their marketing appeal.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

the patriots appeal at that moment trumped the raiders "thug" brand
name appeal. the reffs stepped in and gave them the ball back with
the tuck rule so they could fullfill their patriotic duty

[Tutor]

Poor Brian

[MZ]

That doesn't make sense to me. On the one hand, you say there are
favored teams (Pats, Steelers). Now you're saying that being an
underdog makes you a media darling. These seem like opposite ends of
the spectrum.

[Papa Carl]

"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:620c9e00-bb7a-4723...@n18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Interesting Michael...never thought of it that way. I'm referring to your
second paragraph.

[Michael]

> the spectrum.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

it makes perfect sense... brand names have great and lasting appeal,
but the mob can be fickle and the winds of public sentiment can blow
in different directions. a single great human interest story about an
appealing individual or "underdog" of the moment can supplant a long
standing brand name... but only for the moment :-) the pats had their
moment with the tuck rule... later they became a brand name courtesy
of handsome tommy terrific and the insufferable dark horse coach that
no one liked until he won something.

[MZ]

Possible. Or, like every other profession, incompetence is all too
common an occurrence, and the NFL officials just F up sometimes. Add
to the fact that they're part of a good ol' boys club, where they only
get fired when they molest a farm animal, and face zero consequences
for being sucky at their (part time!) jobs, and you have the sorry
state of officiating that you have today. It's what you get when you
supplant "skill" with "connections".

This is directly in contrast with your hypothesis, which actually
assumes competence. I'm not willing to give them that much credit.

[Michael]

both play a role... there are blown calls due to human fallibility and
inaptitude as you have pointed out and there are calls that are made
in favor of the brand names.

[Papa Carl]

"MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:ac24bb3e-0c3d-4bc2...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

Mark, I think you got it here...the good old boys club...that imcompetence
covers it all because it also breeds bias at times. But they are just that,
part timers doing a job they trained for coaching high school games and then
come college. Nowhere were they really held accountable.