More bad officiating.....

[skns4life]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

"Thanks to Zeb, we have further evidence of the types of calls not made against the other teams that ARE made against us.

http://extremeskins.com/CrazyZeb/We...OverHisHead.mpg

Look at Betts at the top of the screen. He's more than five yards downfield. Yet, he gets laid out. Earlier in the game, Marcus Washington was called for the SAME thing, though that receiver was within the five-yard zone.

More and more, it just makes you angry seeing how much everyone gets away with against us."

So now you are saying that they only reason they flagged Trotter was because they new it would be declined so as to give a fake semblance of objectivity?

I don't know how you can claim that the refs are biased because they missed that play (which i already admitted was an bad call, but there were some both ways anyways...) and called a similar one on Washington, but try to ignore that Trotter was flagged for a similar play.

the redskins are always flagged or not given a call on critical parts of the game...on that play in particular, it was 3rd down and we were on your side of the field...dont even try to act like refs pick on your team the way that they pick on us...

[xanathos19]

Originally posted by Om

Is the play legal if the hit comes after the ball is thrown? If so, you can almost make a case the hit was okay ...

That said, I get first dibs at smacking that smug-ass Eagles fan yucking it up after the play in the mouth.

Om, it doesn't matter when the ball is thrown. Look at many PI calls, and the "interference" call against Springs on TO. The ball was out of McNabb's hands by a long shot and 50 yards downfield by that time.

Any time you get to the reciever early and bump/tackle/impede/etc him before the ball arrives you get the flag...doesn't matter when it leaves the QB's hands.

[jimster]

so what about Owens running down the field with his hand inside Springs' facemask?

....I guess Springs shouldn't have had his face there.

[Art]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

"Thanks to Zeb, we have further evidence of the types of calls not made against the other teams that ARE made against us.

http://extremeskins.com/CrazyZeb/We...OverHisHead.mpg

Look at Betts at the top of the screen. He's more than five yards downfield. Yet, he gets laid out. Earlier in the game, Marcus Washington was called for the SAME thing, though that receiver was within the five-yard zone.

More and more, it just makes you angry seeing how much everyone gets away with against us."

So now you are saying that they only reason they flagged Trotter was because they new it would be declined so as to give a fake semblance of objectivity?

I don't know how you can claim that the refs are biased because they missed that play (which i already admitted was an bad call, but there were some both ways anyways...) and called a similar one on Washington, but try to ignore that Trotter was flagged for a similar play.

Dave,

I think you'd do well to simply follow the thread.

The Redskins were penalized for a play EXACTLY like the one pictured above. The difference, of course, was the hit by Washington on your receiver was legal because your receiver was within five yards and the hit shown here was illegal because the receiver was beyond the five-yard mark.

My comment to you in clarification of the Trotter play was to explain that, no, officially Trotter was not called for a penalty as it was not accepted and therefore is not in the books. While that, TOO, was a penalty against the Eagles when Trotter pushed Thrash on that play, the fact that it was called doesn't remove the fact that there were numerous bad calls on the Skins and no calls on the Eagles throughout the contest.

Trotter was not, however, flagged on a similar play. The play Trotter was flagged on was entirely different than the play pictured. Do you recall the play in question and how it differed?

[Dave Carlson]

Originally posted by xanathos19

Om, it doesn't matter when the ball is thrown. Look at many PI calls, and the "interference" call against Springs on TO. The ball was out of McNabb's hands by a long shot and 50 yards downfield by that time.

Any time you get to the reciever early and bump/tackle/impede/etc him before the ball arrives you get the flag...doesn't matter when it leaves the QB's hands.

This is not to merely argue, but I am also unsure as to whether it is illegal contact after the throw if the ball is not being thrown to that player.

He does get hit after the throw, but its almost at the same time so its really a moot point. It is also borderline 5 yards.

[Art]

Originally posted by Om

Is the play legal if the hit comes after the ball is thrown? If so, you can almost make a case the hit was okay ...

That said, I get first dibs at smacking that smug-ass Eagles fan yucking it up after the play in the mouth.

Om,

Sometimes it's just easier to stay quiet or simply agree. It doesn't matter if the ball was thrown or not. It was either illegal contact OR pass interference (probably illegal contact or "holding" more than a PI) as a defender can not engage a receiver until the ball is in possession of a receiver (once the receiver is beyond the five-yard mark).

How about there simply be ONE thread where everyone agrees with the obvious on this board instead of constant shades of grey looking. You know the answer. Don't ask the question.

[Om]

Originally posted by xanathos19

Om, it doesn't matter when the ball is thrown. Look at many PI calls, and the "interference" call against Springs on TO. The ball was out of McNabb's hands by a long shot and 50 yards downfield by that time.

Any time you get to the reciever early and bump/tackle/impede/etc him before the ball arrives you get the flag...doesn't matter when it leaves the QB's hands.

I'm just sayin' ...

If you're an NFL official predisposed to screw the Redskins, this is what you might be thinking in that case:

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

"Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

( Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

© Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

*

For the record, I have NO doubt that had the uniforms been reversed on this play, the call would have been made. Seems to be the way of our karma these days.

It will change again.

[Dave Carlson]

Originally posted by Art

Dave,

I think you'd do well to simply follow the thread.

The Redskins were penalized for a play EXACTLY like the one pictured above. The difference, of course, was the hit by Washington on your receiver was legal because your receiver was within five yards and the hit shown here was illegal because the receiver was beyond the five-yard mark.

My comment to you in clarification of the Trotter play was to explain that, no, officially Trotter was not called for a penalty as it was not accepted and therefore is not in the books. While that, TOO, was a penalty against the Eagles when Trotter pushed Thrash on that play, the fact that it was called doesn't remove the fact that there were numerous bad calls on the Skins and no calls on the Eagles throughout the contest.

Trotter was not, however, flagged on a similar play. The play Trotter was flagged on was entirely different than the play pictured. Do you recall the play in question and how it differed?

So you are merely complaining that because they were both borderline and the Redskins were the ones to get flagged than it shows a bias?

The Trotter play i know was entirely differnt because it was so obviously a penalty.

I admittedly don't remember the Washington one.

My point is that you can't use one play where the Eagles didn't get called as evidence that there was a bias. There were similar plays (Trotter) in which the Eagles DID get flagged. There were similar borderline plays where the Redskins DIDN'T get flagged (Taylor's hit out of bounds).

I also really like all the cheap shots that people like to either start or end their posts with here.

[Om]

Originally posted by Art

Om,

Sometimes it's just easier to stay quiet or simply agree. It doesn't matter if the ball was thrown or not. It was either illegal contact OR pass interference as a defender can not engage a receiver until the ball is in possession of a receiver (once the receiver is beyond the five-yard mark).

How about there simply be ONE thread where everyone agrees with the obvious on this board instead of constant shades of grey looking. You know the answer. Don't ask the question.

Hey, Art ... and I say this with all due respect and affection ... how about you go on Knowing Everything, and I'll go on Questioning It.

Deal?

[Dave Carlson]

Originally posted by Art

Om,

Sometimes it's just easier to stay quiet or simply agree. It doesn't matter if the ball was thrown or not. It was either illegal contact OR pass interference (probably illegal contact or "holding" more than a PI) as a defender can not engage a receiver until the ball is in possession of a receiver (once the receiver is beyond the five-yard mark).

How about there simply be ONE thread where everyone agrees with the obvious on this board instead of constant shades of grey looking. You know the answer. Don't ask the question.

Alright, I'm done posting on this thread because you already finished the conversation with this post. Nothing I say matters, despite any evidence otherwise.

[denverdan]

Originally posted by Art

Thanks to Zeb, we have further evidence of the types of calls not made against the other teams that ARE made against us.

The replay shows it and it is blatant, see cheerleader play, no penalty.

We get screwed more than our share, but it goes both way.

[xanathos19]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

I also really like all the cheap shots that people like to either start or end their posts with here.

Then don't come onto a Redskins message board.

[Art]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

So you are merely complaining that because they were both borderline and the Redskins were the ones to get flagged than it shows a bias?

The Trotter play i know was entirely differnt because it was so obviously a penalty.

I admittedly don't remember the Washington one.

My point is that you can't use one play where the Eagles didn't get called as evidence that there was a bias. There were similar plays (Trotter) in which the Eagles DID get flagged. There were similar borderline plays where the Redskins DIDN'T get flagged (Taylor's hit out of bounds).

I also really like all the cheap shots that people like to either start or end their posts with here.

Dave,

My point is I don't have to use one play where the Eagles didn't get called as evidence of bias. I have a dozen or more plays to use. As an example, on the bogus call on Springs for PI, there was a HOLD that wasn't called on Westbrook against Pierce.

We can speak of the terrible spot given Cooley and the most negative possible spot given Gardner when Westbrook was given an additional yard in a terrible spot. Let's just put it this way, if the calls in this game were reversed, Washington would have won by 20.

The point is, no, it wasn't a game where some calls were missed both ways.

[Art]

Originally posted by Om

Hey, Art ... and I say this with all due respect and affection ... how about you go on Knowing Everything, and I'll go on Questioning It.

Deal?

Nah, Om, I don't like that and you know it.

Questioning the dubious is a fine thing to do. Questioning the obvious and "breathtaking" nature of this and other blown calls is just boring.

But, if I'm not mistaken, you were among those who attempted to say the Thrash call against Green Bay was somehow legitimate. Again. Don't question the obvious. Simply look, and you'll know, I'm betting.

[denverdan]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

Alright, I'm done posting on this thread

come on dave don't pull a pinkston

[Art]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

Alright, I'm done posting on this thread because you already finished the conversation with this post. Nothing I say matters, despite any evidence otherwise.

While it may be true nothing you say matters, it is false to think it doesn't matter because of all the evidence you have working for you. That's precisely the point. While you are probably correct the Taylor play could have been called an out of bounds hit on Owens, and you are correct Trotter was called for a penalty that didn't count, the evidence is substantially weighted on the other end of the ledger.

So, suffice it to say, as you are ignoring that evidence, perhaps I should complain that you do not feel anything anyone else says in presenting that evidence matters to you. Why not?

[Om]

Originally posted by Art

Nah, Om, I don't like that and you know it.

Questioning the dubious is a fine thing to do. Questioning the obvious and "breathtaking" nature of this and other blown calls is just boring.

But, if I'm not mistaken, you were among those who attempted to say the Thrash call against Green Bay was somehow legitimate. Again. Don't question the obvious. Simply look, and you'll know, I'm betting.

Imagine ... someone having the nerve to throw something into the debate just for the sake OF debate.

I feel so dirty.

I am "among those" who enjoys looking at things from more than one angle, my solemn brother. I know nuance and shades of meaning and the like go against your very nature, but they happen to be an integral part of mine, so I think I'll continue to provide that service from time to time, if you dont' mind. Sorry if I bore you in the process.

Yes, I talked about the Thrash penalty. Must have been another instance of my silly (and boring---don't forget boring) tendency to try to attempt to see things from as many possible perspectives as I can, and maybe even raise them in the face of a patented Artesian "What Is" Juggernaut thread.

Still, for the record, I stand properly chastised.

By the way ... you may or may not have noticed, but I also made it pretty clear how I think the Skins are being treated by the zebras of late. Maybe there's hope for me?

[Henry]

Originally posted by Om

Imagine ... someone having the nerve to throw something into the debate just for the sake OF debate.

I feel so dirty.

I am "among those" who enjoys looking at things from more than one angle, my solemn brother. I know nuance and shades of meaning and the like go against your very nature, but they happen to be an integral part of mine, so I think I'll continue to provide that service from time to time, if you dont' mind. Sorry if I bore you in the process.

Yes, I talked about the Thrash penalty. Must have been another instance of my silly (and boring---don't forget boring) tendency to try to attempt to see things from as many possible perspectives as I can, and maybe even raise them in the face of a patented Artesian "What Is" Juggernaut thread.

I stand chastised.

Commie ****.

[TobiasEagle77]

Should have been a flag, for some reason neither ref seems to be looking in that direction.

Who's the WR wide open on the right side of the field?

[Art]

Originally posted by Om

Imagine ... someone having the nerve to throw something into the debate just for the sake OF debate.

I feel so dirty.

I am "among those" who enjoys looking at things from more than one angle, my solemn brother. I know nuance and shades of meaning and the like go against your very nature, but they happen to be an integral part of mine, so I think I'll continue to provide that service from time to time, if you dont' mind. Sorry if I bore you in the process.

Yes, I talked about the Thrash penalty. Must have been another instance of my silly (and boring---don't forget boring) tendency to try to attempt to see things from as many possible perspectives as I can, and maybe even raise them in the face of a patented Artesian "What Is" Juggernaut thread.

Still, for the record, I stand properly chastised.

By the way ... you may or may not have noticed, but I also made it pretty clear how I think the Skins are being treated by the zebras of late. Maybe there's hope for me?

You feel dirty.

You stand chastised.

GOOD.

I'm ignoring the rest .

[Om]

Hmm ... must have been too nuanced.

[Art]

Originally posted by TobiasEagle77

Should have been a flag, for some reason neither ref seems to be looking in that direction.

Who's the WR wide open on the right side of the field?

I saw that too. That happens to be Cooley. Who'd have thought with Ramsey's two favorite receivers standing wide open on both sides of the field and plenty of time to throw that he'd pick THAT instance to throw it away .

Dammit to hell. As pretty as Ramsey is from time to time, it is plays like this that drive you batty.

[phanatic]

I use to get really upset, in the late eighties and early nineties, at the calls that wouldn't go the birds way. If you play at a top level then you will have the ref's a bit on your side. I can recall Michael Irvin pushing off on almost every timing pattern and never being called. The Eagles were a marked team back then.

Bottom line, play better. When a team is sitting 4-8 in only appears to be a ***** fest when complaining about the officiating. BTW. Take a very good look at the left tackle pull Kearse to the right (left hand pulling on right shoulder) on CP's first TD. No foul on Taylor's hit OB on Owens?

You can split hairs on almost any game. Owens fumbled on the 5. Akers hit the bottom of the bar on the 48 yrd attempt. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

Hell, I did absolutely ZERO ****ing when the birds lost to the Panthers in the NFCCG. I had TWELVE good reasons to do so. That's why the rules are NOW ENFORCED on contact past five yards on the receivers. The spear on McNabb when he was on the ground? No call? Eleven plays defensive holding and pass interference plays that the NFL officiating committee said SHOULD HAVE been called? :violin:

Yup, it's a conspiracy.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by phanatic

I use to get really upset, in the late eighties and early nineties, at the calls that wouldn't go the birds way. If you play at a top level then you will have the ref's a bit on your side. I can recall Michael Irvin pushing off on almost every timing pattern and never being called. The Eagles were a marked team back then.

Bottom line, play better. When a team is sitting 4-8 in only appears to be a ***** fest when complaining about the officiating. BTW. Take a very good look at the left tackle pull Kearse to the right (left hand pulling on right shoulder) on CP's first TD. No foul on Taylor's hit OB on Owens?

You can split hairs on almost any game. Owens fumbled on the 5. Akers hit the bottom of the bar on the 48 yrd attempt. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

Hell, I did absolutely ZERO ****ing when the birds lost to the Panthers in the NFCCG. I had TWELVE good reasons to do so. That's why the rules are NOW ENFORCED on contact past five yards on the receivers. The spear on McNabb when he was on the ground? No call? Eleven plays defensive holding and pass interference plays that the NFL officiating committee said SHOULD HAVE been called? :violin:

Yup, it's a conspiracy.

:halo: Salts of the earth these eagle fans

:jerk:

by the way it was the Colts / Pats game why the rules are NOW ENFORCED on contact past five yards on the receivers. The only ones who complained about the Panthers.... were those humble salt of the earth eagle fans

[phanatic]

Originally posted by bubba9497

:halo: Salts of the earth these eagle fans

:jerk:

Thanks, Bubba. If you want a circle jerk, just say so and I won't participate in those threads. Perhaps you could suggest a special icon to denote those threads where "kool-aid drinking only" is allowed? This board has been littered with "the refs are against us" threads. That's what happens when you root for a team that is UNDERACHIEVING!!! Therin is the answer. Nevermind the poor clock management, pathetic playcalling and an ineptitude to pull players like Brunnell from the lineup. Instead, you digress into these "feel-good" threads.

What good comes from these eight and nine page posts on officiating? There are literally DOZENS of questionable calls and non-calls in EVERY NFL game. If you so choose, you can spin two of those into a different outcome. What's the point, especially when the play is extremely marginal? It only lends itself into the arguments of what if? What if Westbrook played in the NFCCG? What if they had those five DL for that game? What if McNabb didn't have his ribs fractured on an illegal spear when he was on the ground?

WHAT IS THE POINT?