Redskins 0, Cowboys 0, Officials 7
Bryan S. Slick
Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net
"To those who serve America, in any fashion,
freedom has a flavor those who just sit by will never know."
Vijay Ramanujan
Slick <use...@slick-family.not> wrote:
> Christ, that was pathetic.
>
> Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
Let's all say it together: officials NEVER CALL OFFENSIVE PASS
INTERFERENCE.
Vijay R.
I am Jack's utter apathy
Why do we need to say it when Madden already did?
--
TO
Turn those machines back on! TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK OOONNN!!
Brian Whiting
news:MPG.1bc291988...@news.det.sbcglobal.net...
Another bad officiating costs 4 points. Brunell had the ball clearly over
the plane of the goal line.
--
Brian J. Whiting
Comp...@comcast.net
John Rogers
stands in good with the Lord and I wanna decorate him.
>Christ, that was pathetic.
>
>Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
But they were using that NFL pass interference standard for which you
have professed the greatest of love.
John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"I will choose a path thats clear.
I will choose free will."
Lee Watkins
own linemen had had a shot. not enough spring in his legs
lee
"Brian Whiting" <Comp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ebOdnX1gZP_...@comcast.com...
Brian Whiting
news:0vjhl0tkinqr55ntn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:39:57 -0400, "Brian Whiting"
> <Comp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Another bad officiating costs 4 points. Brunell had the ball clearly over
>>the plane of the goal line.
>
> He CLEARLY didn't have the ball across the plane. He was on top of the
> pile, man! What, no mention of Portis's knee touching down after
> contact with a defender on that 3rd down play? That was pretty
> obvious.
>
Well, what I saw was him on top of the pile pointing the ball in the
endzone. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. As for Portis, you didn't
read my posts. Yes, he was down and I'm not even sure it was a catch. But
Brunell was smart enough to get the ball snapped quick and got a penalty
against Dallas for it.
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:43:09 -0400]
:Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not>, get me that chaplain. He
:stands in good with the Lord and I wanna decorate him.
:
:>Christ, that was pathetic.
:>
:>Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
:
:But they were using that NFL pass interference standard for which you
:have professed the greatest of love.
Who had John Rogers in the Snark Pool?
Brian Whiting
news:eblhl05np6tbof9d7...@4ax.com...
> for offensive pass interference.
>
> Both teams have problems moving the ball, if you are going to help one
> with bad calls, help the other!
>
To be honest, John, you can't say they didn't. The officiating was the
worst I've seen in an NFL game for years. And it was bad both ways. The
Portis catch and run on 3rd down, was not a catch, and he was clearly down
by contact even if it was. Coles had a catch on 3rd down that I don't think
he had his right foot down when he had the ball, and they not only miscalled
it, Parcells challenged it, and they couldn't reverse it.
Jefferson N. Glapski
news:MPG.1bc28d098...@news-40.giganews.com...
> Christ, that was pathetic.
>
> Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
Hey to NFL PI.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com
Jefferson N. Glapski
news:hsjhl0t95fb9lmq2m...@4ax.com...
> Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not>, get me that chaplain. He
> stands in good with the Lord and I wanna decorate him.
>
> >Christ, that was pathetic.
> >
> >Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
>
> But they were using that NFL pass interference standard for which you
> have professed the greatest of love.
DYHTBQITHC ($1)
Jefferson N. Glapski
> [John Rogers (tige...@yahoo.com)]
> [Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:43:09 -0400]
>
> :Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not>, get me that chaplain. He
> :stands in good with the Lord and I wanna decorate him.
> :
> :>Christ, that was pathetic.
> :>
> :>Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
> :
> :But they were using that NFL pass interference standard for which you
> :have professed the greatest of love.
>
> Who had John Rogers in the Snark Pool?
I had him in the Consistency Pool and the Chickens Coming Home to Roost
Pool. I won.
Thomas Shepherd
"Bryan S. Slick" <use...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
> Christ, that was pathetic.
>
> Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
Yea why have a review if pass interference -calls and non-calls- can't be
reviewed. It's not like these penalties give or take a measly 10 yards. In
this game alone it was the difference of 14 points.
The only good thing is unlike college football, one loss when a penalty or
two might have made the difference, doesn't necessarily cost someone the
season.
The VA. Tech bad pass interference call on the same field back in August,
hurt a lot more.
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:13:00 GMT]
:"Bryan S. Slick" <use...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
You think you've made a point, and you have, but not the one you think
you have. Condolences, pla.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Most people who castigate football officials never called a game and
don't know just how difficult it is.
Until a ref is assigned to every player some calls will be missed.
Apparently even that would not have worked in the UT/UF game so maybe
there is no workable answer.
In the game last night both players committed pass interference - but
pass interference is the toughest foul to call right in my opinion.
Hugh
JustForFun
<tshe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Bryan S. Slick" <use...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1bc28d098...@news-40.giganews.com...
>> Christ, that was pathetic.
>>
>> Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
>
>Yea why have a review if pass interference -calls and non-calls- can't be
>reviewed.
Because it's a judgement call. If that play had been reviewable, it
would have stood as the defender clearly committed PI. There was no
call on the receiver TO review.
>It's not like these penalties give or take a measly 10 yards. In
>this game alone it was the difference of 14 points.
The league mandated PI be called more often. The offense is gonna get
the benefit of that mandate far more often since it's designed to
increase offensive production.
>The only good thing is unlike college football, one loss when a penalty or
>two might have made the difference, doesn't necessarily cost someone the
>season.
The officiating was bad, but it was equally bad on both sides.
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:04:22 -0500]
:The officiating was bad, but it was equally bad on both sides.
You could have just written, "I was rooting (for the Cowboys/against the
Redskins).", and been done with it.
Czar Christopher I
: [JustForFun (justfo...@bellsouth.net)]
: [Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:04:22 -0500]
:
: :The officiating was bad, but it was equally bad on both sides.
:
: You could have just written, "I was rooting (for the Cowboys/against the
: Redskins).", and been done with it.
I grew up a huge Cowboys fan. Loved 'em. LOVED THEM. Hated
the Redskins with a white hot heat.
Last night, I realized what great fondness I now have for the
Redskins. I love the running game. I love the band. I love
the idiot fans in the Hog paraphernalia.
And of course I despise Jerry Jones with every fiber of my
being.
So I kinda was hoping that Washington would pull out the win.
But I didn't think that the refs decided this game any more
than they decide a lot of games. The pass interference rule
in the NFL is a disaster that gets misapplied nearly every
game. So, yeah, it was a joke, but no more of a joke than
almost any other close game.
The NFL sucks anyway.
--
Czar Christopher I rec.sport.football.college
"I'm not aware of anyone in the White House who is aware of
anyone who's aware that the President ever was aware of
having made such a comment." --Scott McClellan, 7/21/2004
Jim Carr
news:N176d.4632$dt2.2640@trnddc09...
> Yea why have a review if pass interference -calls and non-calls- can't be
> reviewed. It's not like these penalties give or take a measly 10 yards.
In
> this game alone it was the difference of 14 points.
Replay is used to determine facts. It would be stupid to review judgment
calls like pass interference. You would completely undermine the refs on the
field and set yourself up for countless arguments about degree. Replays need
to demonstrate convincing evidence that a factual mistake was made. It's not
a matter of opinion.
Thomas Shepherd
"Jim Carr" <j...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:Z_g6d.14$mS1.2@fed1read05...
I understand that. Bit if the replay should Glenn grabbed harris first and
*forced* the contact, then that play could have been overturned. Ruled
incidental contact or some other such nonsense. Don't the officials often
gather in a little circle jerk when two of them have a different take on a
similar such call? What the hell is the difference if they go to the tape
to gain clarity on a call -that already has been made?
As far as the non-call on Gardner, I agree, you can't overturn that. What
a weird precedent that would be. Since there's most likely a penalty on
every play, one freakin' game would take a week to complete.
Personally, I miss what I remember of the Seventies, when the would simply
beat the hell out of each other and the better man would make the play. For
Christ sakes pretty soon they're going to have less contact in football than
they do basketball.
Jefferson N. Glapski
news:1T1kenl...@redshark.goodshow.net...
> In rec.sport.football.college Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not>
wrote:
> : [JustForFun (justfo...@bellsouth.net)]
> : [Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:04:22 -0500]
> :
> : :The officiating was bad, but it was equally bad on both sides.
> :
> : You could have just written, "I was rooting (for the Cowboys/against the
> : Redskins).", and been done with it.
>
> I grew up a huge Cowboys fan. Loved 'em. LOVED THEM. Hated
> the Redskins with a white hot heat.
>
> Last night, I realized what great fondness I now have for the
> Redskins. I love the running game. I love the band. I love
> the idiot fans in the Hog paraphernalia.
>
> And of course I despise Jerry Jones with every fiber of my
> being.
>
> So I kinda was hoping that Washington would pull out the win.
>
> But I didn't think that the refs decided this game any more
> than they decide a lot of games. The pass interference rule
> in the NFL is a disaster that gets misapplied nearly every
> game. So, yeah, it was a joke, but no more of a joke than
> almost any other close game.
>
> The NFL sucks anyway.
Wow, I agree with 95% of this. However, with LAVAR!!!!11 in the pressbox and
Richie Anderson throwing the TD pass, the result was okay.
John Rogers
that chaplain. He stands in good with the Lord and I wanna decorate
him.
>"Bryan S. Slick" <use...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1bc2a09ae...@news-40.giganews.com...
>> [John Rogers (tige...@yahoo.com)]
>> [Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:43:09 -0400]
>>
>> :Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not>, get me that chaplain. He
>> :stands in good with the Lord and I wanna decorate him.
>> :
>> :>Christ, that was pathetic.
>> :>
>> :>Maybe it's time the officials are allowed to review penalties.
>> :
>> :But they were using that NFL pass interference standard for which you
>> :have professed the greatest of love.
>>
>> Who had John Rogers in the Snark Pool?
>
>
>I had him in the Consistency Pool and the Chickens Coming Home to Roost
>Pool. I won.
WHOOPTH!!!
Jim Carr
> I understand that. Bit if the replay should Glenn grabbed harris first
and
> *forced* the contact, then that play could have been overturned. Ruled
> incidental contact or some other such nonsense. Don't the officials often
> gather in a little circle jerk when two of them have a different take on a
> similar such call? What the hell is the difference if they go to the tape
> to gain clarity on a call -that already has been made?
They discuss what each saw from their respective vantage points, which, I
agree, is a form of review. The NFL believes that if you have coaches
questioning judgment calls that you will undermine the refs on the field,
slow down the game, and open yourself up for endless arguments of degree.
Essentially the NFL is saying to refs, "We respect your judgment calls, but
we're willing to correct mistakes due to angles/speed of play on a limited
basis."
I think that's a good system.
Jim Carr
news:41596a67...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Most people who castigate football officials never called a game and
> don't know just how difficult it is.
Agreed. I have (little league) and it's tough as shit. I think the system in
place now is the best they have ever had.
Olin Murrell
First of all, the NFL refs blow calls in just about every game, and
for/against just about every team. Over the long haul, it works out.
I don't particularly like the level of officiating in the NFL, because I
think it could be significantly better, and without questioning their
judgement at every turn. A better review process at the league officiating
office would be a hell of a start, but except for occasional letters of
apology, they don't seem to be too willing to judge their part-time, albeit
pretty well paid, officials too harshly.
I've never officiated a football game, but I've sure fended off swinging
purses wielded by ticked off moms at little league baseball games, and even
spent one season as an umpire in an adult fast-pitch league. It's a tough
job... especially tough in baseball because it would appear that no two umps
have exactly the same strike zone, AND it's pretty clearly spelled out in
various rule books.
So's the PI rule. Grab the receiver before the ball gets there and you've
violated the rule. Conversely, if the receiver pushes off the defender
before the ball arrives, it's offensive PI.
Pretty simple. Trouble is, like holding, you could probably call it on far
more plays than is currently the case. Hence, the judgement of the zebra
who's actually there on the field, watching (supposedly) nothing but that
play. It's fuel for post-game arguments and little more, really.
Jim Carr
news:J7GdnazKqPT...@comcast.com...
> First of all, the NFL refs blow calls in just about every game, and
> for/against just about every team. Over the long haul, it works out.
No doubt.
> I don't particularly like the level of officiating in the NFL, because I
> think it could be significantly better, and without questioning their
> judgement at every turn. A better review process at the league officiating
> office would be a hell of a start, but except for occasional letters of
> apology, they don't seem to be too willing to judge their part-time,
albeit
> pretty well paid, officials too harshly.
I don't agree. I think they do a pretty good job. The most commonly missed
calls are those on long passes. Do you have any idea how hard that is? You
have a receiver and one or two defenders running about 20 miles per hour.
The ref is also running but at a slower pace. There may be other receivers
in his area of responsibility. He has to watch the out-of-bounds lines in
case someone steps out. He has to manuever into a position where he can
hopefully see the receiver control the ball and keep his feet in bounds. And
during that brief couple of seconds he has to decide what's incidental
contact versus interference.
It's just a tough call to make. It seems easy when you look at it on a
stationary TV while sitting on a stationary couch with a camera angle that
is from above and zoomed in on the play. And most people can't render an
opinion until they have seen the slow-motion replay.
Personally, I'm amazed at how many times my first impression of a play is
changed after seeing the replay. I find it hard to believe that get it right
so often.
Olin Murrell
> "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:J7GdnazKqPT...@comcast.com...
>
> > First of all, the NFL refs blow calls in just about every game, and
> > for/against just about every team. Over the long haul, it works out.
>
> No doubt.
>
> > I don't particularly like the level of officiating in the NFL, because I
> > think it could be significantly better, and without questioning their
> > judgement at every turn. A better review process at the league
officiating
> > office would be a hell of a start, but except for occasional letters of
> > apology, they don't seem to be too willing to judge their part-time,
> albeit
> > pretty well paid, officials too harshly.
>
> I don't agree. I think they do a pretty good job. The most commonly missed
> calls are those on long passes. Do you have any idea how hard that is? You
> have a receiver and one or two defenders running about 20 miles per hour.
> The ref is also running but at a slower pace. There may be other receivers
> in his area of responsibility. He has to watch the out-of-bounds lines in
> case someone steps out. He has to manuever into a position where he can
> hopefully see the receiver control the ball and keep his feet in bounds.
And
> during that brief couple of seconds he has to decide what's incidental
> contact versus interference.
>
The ones that truly bother me are the ones where an official in position to
see the play makes a call and is out-argued by another official from across
the field in the ensuing zebra conference.
In the main, I agree with you that they do a pretty good job overall, but I
still do think it could be better. While I do NOT feel that coaches should
be able to seriously question judgement calls, it's entirely within the
purview of the league officiating office to grade the refs on those calls.
Everybody else gets judged for their on-the-job performance, including their
judgement, and I don't really see an NFL official as being any different.
If the NFL has to send out a letter of apology for a blown call, as they
have on a few occasions, it would seem to me to be within reason that that
official's job would be in at least some jeopardy. Maybe appearances are
deceiving, but I don't recall that ever happening. We KNOW when a coach or a
player is in jeopardy but I don't think I've ever heard of a zebra being
called on the carpet.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Personally, I'm amazed at how many times my first impression of a play is
>changed after seeing the replay. I find it hard to believe that get it right
>so often.
I agree with this and I was apparently a very good official in
football, baseball and basketball. I was good enough that I chose
which games I called - they didn't choose me and I seldom accepted
assignment.
I would have welcomed replay. My purpose was to make the correct call
but, as a human, I made mistakes. Correcting any mistakes would have
been very desirable to me. I could have called a Bama/AllBarn game
honestly.
No matter how hard an official tries to be in position every play, he
is often blocked out or finds himself in the wrong place. When
officiating I never saw a high school player I couldn't out run but
that doesn't guarantee you will always be in the right spot. I've
called football with 2, 3 and 4 officials - I'd think it was child's
play with 6. But, if I called with 6 I'd think that wasn't enough.
Back when we had fewer than 10 games on Saturday which meant anything
except to alums, each game could have a great set of officials. Now
that every game is more important than life itself, the quality of
officials is diluted as their numbers increase.
And it takes a lot of courage to be an official. You used to get a lot
of challenges to fight and you had to whip a few people to discourage
challengers (fight the drunks, not the sober ones) - maybe that
doesn't happen any more except at high school football games in AL and
high school basketball games in KY. I've called games with officials
who didn't carry that gun to start the foot race. That's intimidating.
Hugh
Gaurdenman
> "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:J7GdnazKqPT...@comcast.com...
>
>
>>First of all, the NFL refs blow calls in just about every game, and
>>for/against just about every team. Over the long haul, it works out.
>
>
> No doubt.
>
>
>>I don't particularly like the level of officiating in the NFL, because I
>>think it could be significantly better, and without questioning their
>>judgement at every turn. A better review process at the league officiating
>>office would be a hell of a start, but except for occasional letters of
>>apology, they don't seem to be too willing to judge their part-time,
>
> albeit
>
>>pretty well paid, officials too harshly.
>
>
> I don't agree. I think they do a pretty good job. The most commonly missed
> calls are those on long passes. Do you have any idea how hard that is? You
> have a receiver and one or two defenders running about 20 miles per hour.
> The ref is also running but at a slower pace. There may be other receivers
> in his area of responsibility. He has to watch the out-of-bounds lines in
> case someone steps out. He has to manuever into a position where he can
> hopefully see the receiver control the ball and keep his feet in bounds. And
> during that brief couple of seconds he has to decide what's incidental
> contact versus interference.
Actually more than one person should be covering those things. But make
no mistake about. The NFL officials are some of the best officials in
the world. Anyone who says different is just proving they don't know
what they are talking about. They aren't perfect. But as someone who has
officiated football for ten years, I have to say they are awesome.
>
> It's just a tough call to make. It seems easy when you look at it on a
> stationary TV while sitting on a stationary couch with a camera angle that
> is from above and zoomed in on the play. And most people can't render an
> opinion until they have seen the slow-motion replay.
>
My first impression was it was offensive PI. The back judge threw the
flag and he was screened from the holding. If you look at the replays
again. Look at where he is standing when he makes the call. from his
angle it probably looked like defensive PI. But it wasn't. The defender
violated no rules.
Gaurdenman
You make some good points here. In fact that is exactly what the NFL
does. They grade the officals on every single play of every game.
> If the NFL has to send out a letter of apology for a blown call, as they
> have on a few occasions, it would seem to me to be within reason that that
> official's job would be in at least some jeopardy. Maybe appearances are
> deceiving, but I don't recall that ever happening. We KNOW when a coach or a
> player is in jeopardy but I don't think I've ever heard of a zebra being
> called on the carpet.
you just don't read the right magazines:)