NFL TOTAL ACCESS - OFFICALS RESPONSE TO 2 Pt CONVERSION (merged)

[GSF]

I think the 'ass' comes from the fact that he is politcally correct/diplomatic in how he discusses what the refs did and did not do........

The 'right thing' to say is it is the best call they could make with what they had.....

That is pretty much BS.....the elbow being down in that camera angle view from the endzone, shows that he hits his elbow 6'' before the GL.......no way it is a 2pt conversion ebcause the ball can not be past his elbow......

but because they called taht he was in on the field, in hindsight they say they need blantant evidence that he was not in......

Well maybe that is not 'blantant' but anyone with 'common sense' knows that he was not in........

Dude did you watch the piece? He basically said that he couldn't tell if Alstott was in or not, but there wasn't enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. He basically did say they did the best they could with what they had to work with. Common sense has nothing to do with it. They can only call what they see.

The piece is about to come on again. Watch it and tell me where Pierra is being an ass.

[bubba9497]

Yeah, but if he is on his back and the ball is tucked in his arm, then the ball and elbow are one and the same, so if the elbow crossed, then so did the ball.

uh no, the actual ball, not his huge arm must cross, BTW his elbow doesn't cross

[bubba9497]

Some of you guys really don't seem to understand the English language. Pierra's explanation of both calls made perfect sense. There was not enough conclusive evidence to overturn the calls on the field in either case. You could not tell if Bett's heal touched or not, and you could not see where the ball was when Alstott's elbow touched. They made the only calls they could make in both cases.

I was dissappointed that he didn't discuss the offsides on the extra point and

the push out call, b/c those calls were much more obviously wrong IMO.

I think Pieraa does a great job of explaining things on NFL network, and I don't see what he's done to warrant being called an ass and what not.

the problem is there are three seperate angles, each has a view showing the ball, the plane and where he lands. To say no visual eveidence is BS, and doesn't explain why the ref made the call... after he was clearly down.

[GSF]

the problem is there are three seperate angles, each has a view showing the ball, the plane and where he lands. To say no visual eveidence is BS, and doesn't explain why the ref made the call... after he was clearly down.

Oh come on Bubba. They showed the replays repeatedly on the piece and you could not clearly see where the ball was. I agree that they probably got the call wrong on the field, but there wasn't enough conclusive evidence in the replay to overturn the call. What are you saying, that they could clearly see in the replay that he didn't get in but chose not to correct the call?

[RavenzSuck]

I looked online to find his e-mail address. I couldn't find it. If anyone could get it, let me know. I just hated how they didn't show the end zone angle and then went right into the Betts return making it seem like the call can go either way. Periera is not going to hang his guys out to dry but it was a BS call. The line judge who signaled the touchdown couldn't even see the ball. Anthony Becht was celebrating and was in the ref's way. I believe that he gave into the home field pressure and signaled touchdown. We need to get over and move on.

[gimpy007]

This guy is a jerk. He never calls out the refs for what they don't do. He seems to praise them at every chance. I have never once seen him admit that the refs were wrong on anything. Kind of defeats the purpose of him making a weekly appearance on the show. I still cannot understand how our game was not one of the games of the week. The end result was very painful, but it was a helluva game. That Philly-Dallas game was one sided until the end, same way as our game with Dallas in Week 2, yet they decide this is the game of the week and ours is not. And who considered Miami vs NE the other game of the week?

1) I totally agree with you. The weekly appearances are crap. I think they do it to try and make people feel sorry for reffs. No joke, I really do. Why else would they defend them each week on tuff calls, but never point out the obvious ones (the Pass Interference or the center moving the ball on the extra point).

2) The NFL Network never has anything positive to say about the Redskins. So of course they won't show them on "Game of the Week".

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

I guess home-field advantage means you automatically get the calls your way? LOL

It's funny, because he says he CANNOT tell you if he was in or not. So after it is ruled a TD, you have to have clear proof to overturn the call. My question is, if HE can't see it in the numerous replays, then how could the ref on the field call it a TD automatically? Say he wasn't in, and then look at the replay. Otherwise its not fair(as we all know)

[PiLfan]

His evidence of not reversing the call relied on the fact that it appeared Allstotts elbow appeared to break the goal line plane????

it's Thursday, and Allstott's elbow still hasn't crossed the goal line...

[Dr. D]

I feel another thread on th is matter would only fan some flames but, I found this ont he web:

http://www.moldea.com/gamefixing.html

On sirius radio "john" from central fla(huge redskin fan) made reference to this(game fixing) on one of the talk shows...so I looked for myself.

September 25, 1999

More game-fixing evidence

Copyright © 1999 by Dan E. Moldea

The most controversial allegation in my 1989 book, Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football (William Morrow), is that over seventy NFL games have been fixed. Despite the evidence, league officials have long claimed that no professional football game has ever been successfully fixed since the creation of the NFL in 1920. Of course, any admission to the contrary would jeopardize the public's perception of "the integrity of the game."

The following is the untold story of how I developed the information about eight of these allegedly fixed games:

Several years ago, I received a copy of an FBI-302 report, which detailed the FBI's investigation of NFL referees and game officials. The report stated that "two or three referees" had been paid $100,000 by a New York Mafia figure for their participation in each of eight allegedly fixed games--which I list on page 308 of Interference. The referees' alleged job was to ensure that the unnamed mob figure covered the spread and, thus, won his bets. The referees' names were not mentioned in the FBI report.

As I state in my book, the FBI eventually dropped its probe, because the evidence of game-fixing was, supposedly, inconclusive. In addition, the bureau's principal informant was caught trying to sell the same information to the IRS.

During my own interview with the informant, who had passed a polygraph test, he identified the two referees.

Even though I had the FBI report, the results of the informant's polygraph examination, and the names of the two game officials, I decided not to publish this material without further corroboration. My FBI sources, who had provided a considerable amount of help to me during my research for Interference, refused to comment about this particular game-fixing investigation for my book. I never fully understood why.

Subsequently, I contacted nationally-known oddsmaker, Bobby Martin, who said that he had had similar game-fixing suspicions about at least one NFL game official, whom he named. This referee was one of the two identified by the informant. Martin told me that he had also shared this information with Las Vegas gambler Lem Banker, who confirmed to me both Martin's personal investigation of the referee, as well as his name. Both Martin and Banker told me that they could prove that unnatural money had shown up on the referee's games--but they could not prove that any of the games had been actually fixed.

I then contacted Leo Halper, who was involved in Project Layoff, which included the IRS's investigation of game-fixing in the NFL. He told me that the FBI informant, who had also sold his information to the IRS, had given him the outcomes of the eight fixed games, along with the names of the two referees, in advance of the games being played.

Halper added that the referees had made their own bets on the eight fixed games through beards in Las Vegas. The initial IRS probe included surveillance on one of the beards, who reportedly bet so much money on these games that the betting line actually moved in response to the vast amount of money wagered. According to Halper, this wagering activity occurred at the Barbary Coast's sports book on the Las Vegas Strip.

Also, during my research, I received a correspondence from one of the beards involved with the two NFL referees. He confirmed, in writing, the fixes and named the same two referees.

But the IRS probe, according to the Halper, collapsed when agency chiefs--despite the reliability of the informant's information--refused to authorize a full-scale federal investigation, even though the IRS had concluded that the games had, indeed, been fixed. (Rumors persist that agency officials--who had received the outcomes of NFL games in advance of the contests--were scoring their own betting coups.)

On the basis of the overwhelming evidence--the FBI report, my interviews with Martin and Banker, statements made to me by the IRS agent in charge of the investigation, the letter from the beard allegedly involved with the officials, and the statements made by the FBI/IRS informant, who had passed a polygraph examination--I published the material about the eight fixed games in Interference, hoping that a subsequent official investigation would answer the lingering questions about this matter.

However, upon the advice of my personal attorney, I decided not to publish the names of the two referees.

On August 23, 1989, after the publication of Interference, I was contacted by an intermediary, who told me that NFL league officials wanted to know, among other things, the names of the two referees. On August 25, I met with Warren Welsh, the director of NFL Security, in Las Vegas. I provided him with: a) the FBI report, the names of the two NFL referees, and c) the names of all but one of my confidential sources during this particular investigation. The exception was the beard, who asked that his name not be disclosed. The other sources had given me permission to reveal their names and information to Welsh.

On ABC's Nightline on September 11, which was hosted by Jeff Greenfield and focused on gambling in the NFL, I appeared on the program along with Warren Welsh and Las Vegas oddsmaker Michael Roxborough. The question of these eight allegedly fixed games was raised during the program.

According to the official Nightline transcript, the exchange between Welsh and me was precipitated after I claimed that there was evidence that no fewer than 70 NFL games had been fixed. The transcript states:

Greenfield: . . . I can't forbear from picking up on the point you [Moldea] said earlier. Are you talking about games that have been fixed within recent history, recent NFL history, last 10 years or so?

Moldea: I'm saying that the last games I have where there's allegations of fixed games were 10 years ago. There were eight games that were allegedly fixed by two referees who were paid $100,000 each for each game by a New York Mafia guy, and their job was to basically make sure that that Mafia guy covered the spread.

Greenfield: Mr. Welsh, quickly, what do you have to say about those allegations? Have you looked at Mr. Moldea's book? Can you respond to them?

Welsh: I have, and I would like to say that in contact with law enforcement sources, that the informant that Mr. Moldea refers to is term a pathological liar by the FBI.

Moldea: Well, the IRS has a different feeling about him, Warren, and basically they viewed him as being credible, and

that--the IRS believed that the investigation itself concluded that the games were indeed fixed. They had the information in advance of the games on those eight fixed games.

In 1992, Halper of the IRS sat down for a sworn deposition during a separate investigation of game-fixing in the NFL, which had developed in the midst of a civil litigation. Halper was specifically questioned about the accuracy of what I had written in my book:

Question: So you say you knew Dan. That is Dan Moldea?

Halper: Yes.

Question: Where did you know him from?

Halper: He had contacted me when he was doing research for his book. That's how I knew him. . .

Question: Did you read his book?

Halper: I have read most of it.

Question: What did you think of his book from a professional point of view?

Halper: I thought it was well done. . . .

Question: Does he mention in the book the 1979 football season, the games that were fixed?

Halper: Yes.

Question: Did you read that particular component in the book?

Halper: Yes.

Question: Is the book accurate in its detailing or referring to the events of the 1979 football season?

Answer: Yes.

and this from the same site:

http://www.moldea.com/PartFive.html

3. Game-fixing in the NFL

Copyright © 2000 by Dan E. Moldea

(Also see: "More game-fixing evidence")

In my January 1988 article about the NFL and the mob for Regardie's, I had focused on the suppressed and killed investigations of NFL corruption. But I had no evidence of game-fixing and received a considerable amount of criticism from the media for making such a fuss about corruption in the NFL without getting it. So, for my book, I concentrated most of my resources on proving that NFL games had been fixed.

The NFL and its commissioner, Pete Rozelle, had claimed that no game in its history--since the formation of the league in 1920--had ever been fixed. However, the NFL did acknowledge two unsuccessful attempts to fix NFL games: the 1946 NFL Championship Game between the New York Giants and the Chicago Bears and a 1971 NFL game between the Houston Oilers and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Nevertheless, even before the January 1983 Frontline broadcast, several people had made allegations of NFL game-fixing, and I began working to confirm or reject those charges based on my own investigation.

For instance, Bubba Smith, a defensive lineman for the Baltimore Colts, had told Playboy that the 1969 Super Bowl, featuring the heroics of New York Jets' quarterback Joe Namath, had been fixed; that Carroll Rosenbloom, then the owner of the Colts, had bet against his own team.

Not true, according to my own investigation, which included a statement from the bookmaker who had actually handled Rosenbloom's bet--which was placed on his own team.

However, my research--which included interviews with the top bookmakers, oddsmakers, and gamblers in the country--revealed that no fewer than 70 NFL games had been fixed.

In 1983, when I began my preliminary work for the NFL book in the wake of the Frontline program, I contacted Vincent Piersante, the head of the organized-crime division of the Michigan state attorney general's office. Piersante, who had been helpful to me during my research for The Hoffa Wars, told me that if I wanted to write about game-fixing in the NFL, I would have to investigate Donald Dawson, a top bookmaker from Detroit.

Piersante told me that Dawson had been involved with members of the Detroit Lions and other NFL teams during the 1950s, 1960s, an 1970s. "Professional football, we had cold," Piersante said. "It was clear to us that games had been fixed by players [who were] shaving points in cooperation with several organized-crime connected bookmakers."

Piersante added that Dawson was among those bookmakers who were financing the players' game-fixing schemes.

After speaking with Piersante, I then went to other law-enforcement officials, including a former top official with the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service. This IRS official had coordinated the agency's 1969-1970 investigation of Dawson.

During the IRS probe, several NFL players were proven to have been in regular contact with and provided inside information to Dawson, who was later convicted and sentenced to prison for his bookmaking activities.

And numerous other law-enforcement officials, whom I also interviewed, agreed with Piersante and the IRS in their assessment of Dawson's activities.

At this point in my investigation, I had enough evidence to print that, according to state and federal law enforcement officials, as well as several former NFL players whom I had also interviewed, Don Dawson had allegedly engaged in game-fixing.

But, wanting more, I went after Dawson and found him living in Las Vegas. He had never been interviewed by any reporter and, at first, tried to blow me off, but I wouldn't let him. I kept prodding him, playing to his enormous ego. When that didn't work, I started to recount what my law-enforcement sources had told me about him. That placed Dawson on the defensive, forcing him to reply to each charge in detail.

After finally getting Dawson to admit for the first time that he had been involved in NFL game-fixing, I asked him to explain the mechanics. Dawson replied, "A player, usually a quarterback, would come to me and say, 'I need some bread.' Then he'd ask me to make a bet for him and myself. If the Lions were ten-point favorites, he'd say, 'Well, we'll probably win by six or seven. We won't cover the spread.'"

Naming names and teams, Dawson continued:

Naturally, I wanted to do business with the quarterback, because he handles the ball on every play. And a lot of quarterbacks were shaving points. Sure, it happened. The players didn't make any money [from playing football], and so they bet. In those days, they were barely getting by. They were getting their brains beaten out for almost nothing.

I was involved with players in at least thirty-two NFL games that were dumped or where points were shaved. I knew a lot of players and then through them I got acquainted with other players and then did business with them.

Of course, I had taped this conversation.

In another game-fixing conspiracy, the head of Project Layoff, an IRS gambling investigation in Nevada, provided me with evidence, indicating that two referees had allegedly participated in the fixing of no fewer than eight additional NFL games.

I also wanted to find these guys for further reference:

GAmeday from the Tampa Game:

Officials

Referee: Bill Vinovich (52)

Line Judge: John Hussey (35)

Field Judge: Gary Cavaletto (60) Umpire: Chad Brown (31)

Side Judge: Laird Hayes (125)

Replay Official: Howard Slavin () Head Linesman: Derick Bowers (74)

Back Judge: Bill Schmitz (122)

Video Operator:

[bubba9497]

Oh come on Bubba. They showed the replays repeatedly on the piece and you could not clearly see where the ball was. I agree that they probably got the call wrong on the field, but there wasn't enough conclusive evidence in the replay to overturn the call. What are you saying, that they could clearly see in the replay that he didn't get in but chose not to correct the call?

exactly, hiding behind the "visual evidence" no one angle is conclusive, but the combintion of the 3 is very clear. They didn't overturn the Galloway pass he dropped, even with conclusive visual evidence of one angle.

and it isn't like the combination of views hasn't been used before, and is the only way to correct the spot of the ball review.

How can so many people say he didn't make it, but replay doesn't conclusively show it :doh:

[36HAMMER]

the refs of the nfl have become tarnished, if you can't ever admit you are wrong then your a liar. and you can't lie and be a real ref.what's most angering is the insulting of the intellegance that happens when they try to double talk themselves out of their guilt.sooner or later a call is going to come down that will soo completely enrage the fans of football that the nfl will have to do something about it.it hurts the game when they play dumb.i know maybe they'er not playing. :whippin:

[GSF]

exactly, hiding behind the "visual evidence" no one angle is conclusive, but the combintion of the 3 is very clear. They didn't overturn the Galloway pass he dropped, even with conclusive visual evidence of one angle.

and it isn't like the combination of views hasn't been used before, and is the only way to correct the spot of the ball review.

How can so many people say he didn't make it, but replay doesn't conclusively show it :doh:

They're not hiding behind the visual evidence, they are dictated by it. With all of the computer experts here on extreme, noone has posted anything that proves he wasn't in.

Just because so many people can see that it looks like he didn't get in, doesn't prove anything.

[DB44]

it's Thursday, and Allstott's elbow still hasn't crossed the goal line...

:laugh: Thats the first time I've laughed about this situation.

Sounds like Mr. Periera can add blindness to his already growing list of deficiencies.

[bubba9497]

They're not hiding behind the visual evidence, they are dictated by it. With all of the computer experts here on extreme, noone has posted anything that proves he wasn't in.

Just because so many people can see that it looks like he didn't get in, doesn't prove anything.

oh yes we have, I have shown two views of both the ball at point of contact, and showing the #67 leg was blocking the goal line and was up against the ball... preventing anyway for the ball to break the plain, then the side view showing that where the ball was in the other view, and where #67 was it was physically impossible to break the plane.

one angle no, three angles yes

it's over, but I can't accept their excuse

[MrWill]

I hope we play the Bucs in the playoffs, and take care of this BS the right way. In my eyes, we won that game.

[TODD]

To echo everyone else... very unprofessional, not an acceptable explanation for the magnitude of the call. Very upsetting, but after this, we all realize nothing will come from this... no league apology, no accountability.

We have to move on to next week...

[CHUBAKAH]

Some of you guys really don't seem to understand the English language. Pierra's explanation of both calls made perfect sense. There was not enough conclusive evidence to overturn the calls on the field in either case. You could not tell if Bett's heal touched or not, and you could not see where the ball was when Alstott's elbow touched. They made the only calls they could make in both cases.

I was dissappointed that he didn't discuss the offsides on the extra point and

the push out call, b/c those calls were much more obviously wrong IMO.

I think Pieraa does a great job of explaining things on NFL network, and I don't see what he's done to warrant being called an ass and what not.

Glad to see someone tell it like it is.

They called it the way they did, and there was not enough evidence to overturn either play.

If the shoe had been on the other foot, there would be no one complaining.

Anyway, I hear the Raiders are coming to town. How bout we beat them the way we did the Niners, as they are just as bad in every aspect of the game.

I'm tired of sitting on the edge of my couch every stinking week. Let's roll over someone for a damn change, and stop playing not to lose....

:2cents:

[Drunken Master III]

I have been wanting to say something about this. I watched it and to me it seemed like the film of the 2 pt conversion was doctored. It seems like they cast a little shadow where Alstott's elbow was. When they showed it on there it was really inconclusive. If you watch the highlight video here then you would see that it was clear. I think that this is BS. Did anyone else notice that? :mad:

[GSF]

I have been wanting to say something about this. I watched it and to me it seemed like the film of the 2 pt conversion was doctored. It seems like they cast a little shadow where Alstott's elbow was. When they showed it on there it was really inconclusive. If you watch the highlight video here then you would see that it was clear. I think that this is BS. Did anyone else notice that? :mad:

You think they doctored the tape? :doh:

[GSF]

oh yes we have, I have shown two views of both the ball at point of contact, and showing the #67 leg was blocking the goal line and was up against the ball... preventing anyway for the ball to break the plain, then the side view showing that where the ball was in the other view, and where #67 was it was physically impossible to break the plane.

one angle no, three angles yes

it's over, but I can't accept their excuse

You can't extrapolate in review. Saying it would have been physically impossible to cross the plane because another player's leg was in the way doesn't cut it. Please post the footage or a link to the footage where it shows Alstott down with the ball outside of the endzone and I'll gladly change my view.

[fpickering]

Dude did you watch the piece? He basically said that he couldn't tell if Alstott was in or not, but there wasn't enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. He basically did say they did the best they could with what they had to work with. Common sense has nothing to do with it. They can only call what they see.

The piece is about to come on again. Watch it and tell me where Pierra is being an ass.

He should have said what we all know to be obvious.

The ref should not have ruled the 2pt conversion good without conclusive visual evidence that the ball crossed the plane.

[bubba9497]

You can't extrapolate in review. Saying it would have been physically impossible to cross the plane because another player's leg was in the way doesn't cut it. Please post the footage or a link to the footage where it shows Alstott down with the ball outside of the endzone and I'll gladly change my view.

I have repeatly, and as I have explained there are 3 seperate angles 2 show the ball clearly, and you can spot it related to Alstots body (below the numbers on his jersey) Once you ave positioned the ball, the side angle shows his attempt to get in, knowing the ball rest below his number you can see that that area doesn't break the plane. Like tracking a radio signal.... and is how the determine the spot of the ball from replay. It's not complicated.

the ball

#67 leg

short of plane

[PCRoughrider]

He should have said what we all know to be obvious.

The ref should not have ruled the 2pt conversion good without conclusive visual evidence that the ball crossed the plane.

This is exactly my problem. If, watching the replay over and over, slowing it down, stopping it, blowing up the picture, and the officials still say it's inconclusive how can anyone accept the word of someone calling the play, live, with an obscured view?

And if someone says the two point conversion was good, show us the picture, showing the ball crossing the plane. I venture to say there isn't a single picture, anywhere showing the football crossing the plane.

So what we have is no picture of the ball ever crossing the plane, but lots of pictures showing that it didn't? And this is ruled a two point conversion?

In the final two minutes, on a scoring play, the replay should be forced to substantiate a score, not show that it wasn't a good score. Flip the current rule, completely on its head! If this score had to be substantiated by replay, we'd be 6-3 now.

I don't think I'll ever get over this.