Questionable NFL officials?

[Runscott]

The call against Green Bay last year where Golden Tate was given a touchdown was the first time I wondered about this, and I was pulling for Seattle, so no bias. When the official has the advantage of multiple slow-motion views of a play, and still clearly gets it wrong, you have to ask yourself if the guy under the hood has something on his mind other than getting the call right. It's almost as if an opportunity presented itself and the official took it.

The first bad review in today's game was the Green Bay catch that clearly hit the ground, yet was upheld. Not even questionable, it could be nothing other than an intentional error - there is no other explanation other than blindness or substance abuse. After that review, I was dead-certain that Bryant's catch would be reversed, and my guess is that the official was wiping sweat off his forehead when given the opportunity by McCarthy to go under the hood and reverse the call.

We have had this sort of thing with professional boxing, with NBA referees, with FIFA officials and with Olympic judges - thinking that NFL officials are immune to it is naive in my opinion.

[HRBAKER]

Or maybe it wasn't a catch at all in Bryant's case.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not a Dallas fan so no bias, but I thought Bryant clearly had possession of the ball and was stretching out his arm towards to goal line.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a Dallas fan so no bias, but I thought Bryant clearly had possession of the ball and was stretching out his arm towards to goal line.

The reverse was based on the rule that you have to maintain possession to the ground. I thought the three steps he took after catching it, would mean that if he dropped it when he hit the ground, it would be a fumble.

I have no explanation for the first call, which was clearly incorrect, or the other call I mentioned that involved Golden Tate. I missed Jeff's succinct smart-ass explanations for those two.

[HRBAKER]

Can't comment, I didn't see them.
I'm just going on the fact that the in-house guru called exactly what was going to happen before the refs came back. And that is exactly what they did.

Didn't mean to be a smart ass.

[HRBAKER]

So you are saying that the "man under the hood" intentionally gave the Packers a catch in spite of the visual evidence and then was relieved when he got a chance to show he couldn't blow it two times in a row when the Bryant review came up?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Can't comment, I didn't see them.
I'm just going on the fact that the in-house guru called exactly what was going to happen before the refs came back. And that is exactly what they did.

Didn't mean to be a smart ass.

Okay, I'm sorry Jeff. I'm a bit over-emotional at the moment, as I really prefer to see the game played on the field, not behind a review curtain.

Also, I have to admit that I heard the in-house guy say the same thing that you mentioned. I disagreed with him, but there is some legitimacy to the call because at least he called it prior to the review. The three steps Bryant took after the catch sealed it for me. I don't think the announcers or the official considered those steps.

Regarding the first call, which most definitely was botched, the in-house guy also called that a clear catch and said that the receiver clearly had his hands under the ball. I could easily see from the first replay (the same one the in-house guru saw) that the ball was on the ground, not within his hands. I outwardly vocalized that the in-house guy was a moron. They then showed a back angle and the two in-house guys said that "maybe" it wasn't a catch. The back-view actually showed the tip of the ball bounce on the ground. At that point my thinking was that both of the in-house guys were morons.

The review official then ruled it a catch. I can let the in-house guys off, since they aren't officials and have the right to be as stupid as anyone else watching the game, but the official is paid to know the rules. No excuses for him other than intoxicants or bribery.

So even if Bryant's catch could be called "questionable", the first call was not questionable at all.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Or maybe it wasn't a catch at all in Bryant's case.

Gee, Jeff - ya think?

[Runscott]

Yes, the officials blew the pi call last week. But that wasn't a review using replays. Big difference. I was surprised the Cowboys did as well as they did this year and I fully expected Rodgers to drive the field if the Cowboys got the Bryant call. Despite all that, let the games be decided on the field.

[itjclarke]

Per the current rules, IMO the Bryant call was correct. As is, you need to maintain control through the act of the catch, which includes going to the ground if you've lost your balance while catching the ball. Bryant goes up, makes a great catch, but after the leap it was clear he was on his way down, three steps or not. Had he caught the ball, landed, been balanced and ran three steps, then it's a catch... and there'd have been no fumble since he'd have been ruled down by contact prior to the ball's coming loose.

This said, I don't like the current catch rules and I think they've made it too ambiguous.. see Calvin Johnson's potential game winner 2-3 years ago, wiped out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T19FUdG42EU.. that is maybe worst reversal ever.. or at least worst since the infamous Bert Emanuel reversal in the 1999 NFC Championship game.

IMO, NFL should simplify the rule to eliminate these debates. Possession and 2 feet down= catch, possession and an elbow, knee, butt down=catch

Adding-- the PI thing against Detroit was nuts. I didn't think it was necessarily blatant, "have to throw a flag" PI. It did look really bad on TV because the LB didn't look back, but face guarding is not PI, and both players had hands on each other. It's also not all that surprising to see a flag picked up, but what was shocking to me was they ANNOUNCED IT... then picked up the flag and reversed the call without explanation. I've never ever ever seen refs actually announce a call then change their minds... and not explaining it made it look far worse.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Per the current rules, IMO the Bryant call was correct. As is, you need to maintain control through the act of the catch, which includes going to the ground if you've lost your balance while catching the ball. Bryant goes up, makes a great catch, but after the leap it was clear he was on his way down, three steps or not. Had he caught the ball, landed, been balanced and ran three steps, then it's a catch... and there'd have been no fumble since he'd have been ruled down by contact prior to the ball's coming loose.

IMO, if Bryant has the ball in has left hand, and he's obviously stretching out his arm for the goal line, he has control. It's kind of hard to stretch out your arm for the goal line if you don't have control.

[Runscott]

I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on the first call I described (Packer catch that was upheld). If it hadn't been for that one, I would be less inclined to think the replay official is in someone's pocket.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on the first call I described (Packer catch that was upheld). If it hadn't been for that one, I would be less inclined to think the replay official is in someone's pocket.

IMO, that should have been overturned Scott, no question.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

IMO, if Bryant has the ball in has left hand, and he's obviously stretching out his arm for the goal line, he has control. It's kind of hard to stretch out your arm for the goal line if you don't have control.

Watch the video I posted.. Calvin Johnson ruling is worse.

Like I said, I don't agree with the rule, but it was called today as it's been called the past few years. I watched from a bar, no audio and thought they'd overturn it based on any number of other similar examples I've seen. It doesn't matter to them that he has control from the high point, to the point he stretches. Anything/everything through his falling, rolling, whatever, is considered part of the act of making the catch. The balls must be controlled through the finish of that act.. In this case the ball moves when it's touching the ground.