What's wrong with you.

[CHUBAKAH]

This just in

[Shakermaker897]

one thing to consider is that we can't control refs, and sure as hell can't expect flawlessness on their part. what we can control is getting the ball down the field and into the end zone, although even that seems arguable. sure the call had huge impact, but you just gotta know that happens. i'd rather have our offense playing well along with a buncha bad calls.

[f_dallas]

Thrash made the same exact motion and guess what, the refs didnt call nothing. Why they called him in the fourth quarter is still beyond me.

I don't know. Sounds like when an umpire changes the strike zone in the 6th inning.

One guess, and keep in mind this is complete speculation, is maybe the Packers saw what Thrash was doing and realized it was a penalty, though not called very often. Perhaps they were in the ear of the ref the whole game to watch the forward motion and at some point the ref saw it and tossed the flag.

This happens a lot in games (watch number XX for hands to the face....etc.), but I am only speculating.

[Skins11]

f_dallas, you should probably actually watch the play before you speculate on it. Just a suggestion.

[f_dallas]

f_dallas, you should probably actually watch the play before you speculate on it. Just a suggestion.

Re-read all of my posts- none of them require me to watch the play

I'm talking about my belief that penalties don't win or lose games and how inconsistent calls sometimes happen- not whether or not it was even a penalty.

By the way, do you even know all the rules for illegal formation and forward motion? I don't think I do. I don't think any of us do.

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz

Actually, instead of attemping to be Art, how about you learn to read and then interpret what I stated. I disagree with the sentiment that most teams don't experience some sort of call like the Redskins did this past weekend. Hell, White's crew made a equally terrible gaffe against the Eagles. My point is, people don't realize it as much when it happens to other, good teams, because those teams still find a way to persevere and win the game. Dullard.

That roughing the passer gave the Browns a first down on the 17. The illegal motion on the Skins took away a touchdown. That's the main difference. One was a touchdown. The other was a first down. Yes, it was a big first down, but it wasn't a touchdown.

Not only that, but the Browns' touchdown didn't win the game. A first down that led to the score that tied the game is just not the same as a touchdown that potentially could have won the game.

A first down is not a touchdown, and a tying the game is not the same as being behind.

[Morning Wood]

F-D

The Redskins aren't the first, and won't be the last team to launch a comeback in the final minutes of a game after appearing below mediocre for three previous quarters. It happens all the time, and it is part of what makes the games exiting to watch. To have a potential comeback destroyed on a COMPLETE B*LLSH*T call is unacceptable. To have another obvious call ignored on the VERY NEXT PLAY is grounds for insanity.

I'm not saying that the Skins would have ultimately won the game, but I have to believe that had the TD stood, the D would have taken the field on the next posession with a renewed spirit to defend that lead at all costs knowing that all their previous hard work was showing dividends. Instead, they looked as though the life had been sucked out of them.

You're entitled to believe what you like, and I understand your stance. Personally, I believe what I saw, and no one can convince me otherwise.

[Om]

Originally posted by f_dallas

Re-read all of my posts- none of them require me to watch the play

I'm talking about my belief that penalties don't win or lose games and how inconsistent calls sometimes happen- not whether or not it was even a penalty.

By the way, do you even know all the rules for illegal formation and forward motion? I don't think I do. I don't think any of us do.

Actually, some of us do.

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/positionofplayers

Digest of Rules

Position of Players at Snap

1. Offensive team must have at least seven players on line.

2. Offensive players, not on line, must be at least one yard back at snap.

(Exception: player who takes snap.)

3. No interior lineman may move abruptly after taking or simulating a three-point stance.

4. No player of either team may enter neutral zone before snap.

5. No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started. No player of the defensive team within one yard of the line of scrimmage may make an abrupt movement in an attempt to cause the offense to false start.

6. If a player changes his eligibility, the Referee must alert the defensive captain after player has reported to him.

7. All players of offensive team must be stationary at snap, except one back who may be in motion parallel to scrimmage line or backward (not forward).

8. After a shift or huddle all players on offensive team must come to an absolute stop for at least one second with no movement of hands, feet, head, or swaying of body.

9. Quarterbacks can be called for a false start penalty (five yards) if their actions are judged to be an obvious attempt to draw an opponent offside.

10. Offensive linemen are permitted to interlock legs.

[Skins11]

Originally posted by f_dallas

Re-read all of my posts- none of them require me to watch the play

What about this post?

Originally posted by f_dallas

"I don't know. Sounds like when an umpire changes the strike zone in the 6th inning.

One guess, and keep in mind this is complete speculation, is maybe the Packers saw what Thrash was doing and realized it was a penalty, though not called very often. Perhaps they were in the ear of the ref the whole game to watch the forward motion and at some point the ref saw it and tossed the flag.

This happens a lot in games (watch number XX for hands to the face....etc.), but I am only speculating."

You're commenting on the penalty, hence you really need to see the play to understand the true nature of the penalty. A couple things you'd see in the play:

- an improper call: the refs first called the penalty on the wrong player

- followed by a ridiculous call that seems like it was made to justify the flag being thrown in the first place. This point was accentuated by the previous one.

[f_dallas]

That roughing the passer gave the Browns a first down on the 17. The illegal motion on the Skins took away a touchdown. That's the main difference. One was a touchdown. The other was a first down. Yes, it was a big first down, but it wasn't a touchdown.

You're right, but the Skins had the penalty with over 2 minutes left and still retained the ball.

On the Eagles penalty, the game would have been over because the Eagles would have had the ball back and were in a position to kneel out.

[f_dallas]

Actually, some of us do.

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/positionofplayers

I didn't know you wrote for NFL.com

I wasn't implying the rules were some great mystery that couldn't be solved :laugh:

Thanks for help using the "Internet" though...

[f_dallas]

You're commenting on the penalty, hence you really need to see the play to understand the true nature of the penalty. A couple things you'd see in the play:

- an improper call: the refs first called the penalty on the wrong player

- followed by a ridiculous call that seems like it was made to justify the flag being thrown in the first place. This point was accentuated by the previous one.

Right- you're missing my point.

I'm not even getting into whether or not it was a penalty. From everything I've been told, it was probably a penalty, but not the kind of thing that EVER gets called.

I'm not even commenting on that, though- that's neither here nor there for me to say "I don't think penalties win or lose games".

I just don't.

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by f_dallas

You're right, but the Skins had the penalty with over 2 minutes left and still retained the ball.

On the Eagles penalty, the game would have been over because the Eagles would have had the ball back and were in a position to kneel out.

The Skins could have still scored a TD, but the Eagles could have still stopped the Browns from scoring a TD. The penalties are the same in that regard.

[twist]

It looked to me like Thrash was still not set at the snap of the ball when they showed it on sports center... I'm not completely sure of the rule though.

If the ref saw it he should call it, just like any other play. He called this BEFORE the TD, so It would have been the penalty regardless of whether this is a TD or an incomplete pass. I don't see that as "game deciding". A peanalty is a penalty regardless of the effect, and the same rules should apply no matter the circumbstances. Quite frankly its silly to say that game desideing plays should be immune to having penaltys called on them. That would make it ok to hold onto your defender so long as your quarterback is throwing a TD pass. It would be ok to grab the face mask so long as you need to bring the runner down before he gets a first down on 4 and 15 with 36 seconds to go.

The only reason the Redskins seem to have more of these plays go against them than do other teams is because they have lost a lot of close games. The closer the game you play the more likely bad good, or otherwise officiating will play a part. The closer the game the more likely the officiating is blamed for the loss.

This self riotous indignation on the part of some Redskins fans is both unbecoming and pitiful. This is almost always the case when teams fans blame the refs.

[f_dallas]

The Skins could have still scored a TD, but the Eagles could have still stopped the Browns from scoring a TD. The penalties are the same in that regard.

I know and agree 100%.

That was just what I was trying to explain, though. These types of penalties happen, teams still have the chance to execute and make the meaningless, and they also tend to get washed over when a team ends up on top.

If this happened to the Eagles, I'm not saying I would be happy about it- not at all.

[jimster]

Originally posted by DieselPwr44

How many teams have winning seasons when the offense is productive for only 5-7 minutes each game?

You can't have one unit take off for 3/4 of the game and expect to be competitive in this league.

The defense did make adjustments at halftime and for the most part,controlled GB the second half.

Tell me, just what adjustments were made by the offense?

Some of you people are really reaching here...............

So I guess the 2000 Ravens Superbowl year doesn't count? ...Remember that's the year they didn't score a TD in 4 games, but won 3 of them.

The game is 60 minutes long, the team came back, you can argue about what if the team did this, etc, well what if we didn't find a way to come back? .. then we'd be an even worse team, but we did come back.

The finer points are these:

- the same play was run all season, it isn't until a game winning play is it called.

- the very nexy play Rod Gardner was held on the interception - no call - another potentially game changing play.

- The Dallas game, 1 TD set up by a bad call against us, and one that took a TD away from us. - both calls even Dallas fans admit were bad.

- Last year vs. New England, the Coles catch ruled out of bounds that came very close to costing a game.

- the fact that all of the above was at the hands of the same official Mr. Tom White.

Why is it so unheard of that a referee may dislike a team, or say maybe reads the same media-bashing articles the past few years that everyone else does and dislikes Snyder? Maybe he really likes Norv Turner? Maybe he's a big fan of Lenny P.?

The awkward spot is if Gibbs or the Redskins complain too much, then more refs could begon to have a bias too.

The refs making these calls will get the benifit of the doubt and the league office will write it off as "Oh the Redskins are just pissed because they lost", and at tthe very most, will be told they made a mistake, and that's it.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Mister Happy

That roughing the passer gave the Browns a first down on the 17. The illegal motion on the Skins took away a touchdown. That's the main difference. One was a touchdown. The other was a first down. Yes, it was a big first down, but it wasn't a touchdown.

Not only that, but the Browns' touchdown didn't win the game. A first down that led to the score that tied the game is just not the same as a touchdown that potentially could have won the game.

A first down is not a touchdown, and a tying the game is not the same as being behind.

Actually, you could say it was worse for the Eagles. That play would have ended the game for Philadelphia. Washington still had good field position and the chance to win. Anyway, I'm not saying that the call White made in your game was a good call, simply that it DOES happen to other teams.

[TODD]

Beautiful post.

Absolutely right about this not being your "run-of-the-mill" bad call. This happened at a crucial point where the momentum, crowd, and game completely changed shape as a result of a wrong and stake-in-the-heart call.

Unacceptable.

[DieselPwr44]

So I guess the 2000 Ravens Superbowl year doesn't count?

One team out of 75+ seasons.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with the majority of the board.

It's just my opinion that instead of whining about getting ripped at the end of the game, why not put the blame where it really belongs? We played 5 minutes of decent offense on Sunday and nearly stole a game. If we had showed up for a full quarter on offense, we'd have won the game no matter what the refs called in the last 3 minutes of the game.

Ask yourself this question: Had we started any of our scoring drives from our own 20, would we even have scored Sunday?

I don't think so. Thank God we have a top ranked defense that gave us the ball on GB's side of the 50.

[Stormy]

1 Drive over 31 yards the entire day, and our only points directly off our defense spotting us the ball on the Packers 24 and 12 yardlines, respectively. Maybe if we managed even at least 1-2 legitimate drives a game, much less the 4-5 one would expect from an NFL offense with this many weapons, we wouldn't need to snivel about perceived blown calls that changed 1 play out of a 125+ Snap game. Coach Gibbs has control over one of those two options, or he can opt to chide the officials rather than focus his attention on our dysfunctional offense. Wonder which choice will make us a better yeam in the future, filing grievances with the league office about officiating, or addressing the flaws in the league's second lowest scoring offense?

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz

Actually, you could say it was worse for the Eagles. That play would have ended the game for Philadelphia. Washington still had good field position and the chance to win. Anyway, I'm not saying that the call White made in your game was a good call, simply that it DOES happen to other teams.

Actually even if the Eagles call was equally as bad, that doesn't change the argument.

Really we would have to look at how many similar bad game-altering calls were made so far this season. I just don't think these kind of things are that common. They do happen to other teams, but it is rare. Certainly it's not something that happens in most or even half of the games.

[jimster]

I agree with the part about our offense, but the subject at hand is that teams do come back and win - and we did just that.

How many games have you seen won in the 4th quarter?

That's what we did. That's what we were expecting in week 2 when Ramsey came in - to win it in the 4th quarter.

[Mister Happy]

Nobody is blaming the refs for the loss. In fact, almost everybody is blaming Brunell.

[Dirk Diggler]

Eagles

How about last season when this same crew was the officiating crew that forgot to reset the clock after a punt in the Seattle/Baltimore game?

I suppose that while Baltimore had an extra 30 seconds (40 as opposed to 10!) to go 40 yards for the tying field goal, it's Seattle's fault for not having been able to stop them?

That one gaffe, was not only the difference in the game, but the difference in Seattle playing at Green Bay in the first round vs. having the week off and a home game against Carolina in Seattle in Round 2 where the Seahawks hadn't lost all season.

But hey, it's just one mistake by a crew and the Seahawks should have been good enought to overcome it.

[f_dallas]

But hey, it's just one mistake by a crew and the Seahawks should have been good enought to overcome it.

First, that is a blatant game management mistake- not a judgement call. Kinda tough to compare the two.

Second, that still didn't "lose" the game for them- just put them behind the 8 ball.