More bad officiating.....

[Mania]

The NFL network was showing the head of all refs and how they are on top of all of the calls that are being made around the league. Did you notice they didn't show any Redskins games or the most recent Dallas Seahawk game where the call was so obvious that Stevie Wonder could've made a better call.

[Art]

Originally posted by denverdan

Art

Its a game, rules are in place, they are applied to both teams as fairly as humanly possible. The Redskins lost because of the INT in the endzone, a mistake. I hate it and I know you hate it but thats what happened. I'm not looking for a fight here, but you've been watching football long enough to realize there is an ebb and flow to everything and its not always going to go our way. If The refs are horrible is goes beyond the Redskins.

DD,

The point you continue to miss is that when you say there's an ebb and flow to everything and it's not always going to go our way the question in return would be when is it going to go our way for the first time?

Think on this season and tell me a play that was clearly or pretty clearly a poor call by the officials that directly put us in scoring position or directly removed points from the opposition. All you have to do is name one. You can't, so, there's no ebb and flow. It's CONSTANTLY against us. Each time. All the time. Every time. It's so bad people who have watched JUST TWO games at my house who are Vikings fans have asked me, "Hey, do the officials just not like the Redskins or what."

We've had officials blow plays dead when we've recovered fumbles. We've had one-second holding penalties (which are almost impossible) take away positive plays. Every conceivable positive spot goes to the other team. It's NEVER close. Marcus Washington now has two penalties for illegal contact called on him and on one he didn't actually touch the receiver and on the other the receiver was within five yards.

These are not close calls. These aren't even "human" nature calls. That the refs are horrible is true and that it goes beyond the Redskins is equally true. But, it's just as true that they are uniformly horrible AGAINST us and we have not gotten things our way with them yet this season.

[Art]

Originally posted by Westbrook36

Is this thread a joke? This happens on EVERY passing play where a QB throws the ball away or out of bounds.

IT'S NOT PASS INTERFERENCE.

The saddest thing is you all still argue it after Om posts the rule that specifically states it's not PI. Art goes out of his way to undress Om and make him sound like the biggest moron who has ever lived yet doesn't address the rule that Om posted which clearly shows it wasn't PI.

Just another routine thread.

WB,

A day or so ago you had a sig pic that showed the Springs play on Owens and claimed, somehow, a lone voice in the wind, that it proved pass interference. Yet, I see that picture is no longer there likely because after reading what Om put down you recognize point D negated your argument.

In any case, the shot here is a clear penalty. If you can't even get yourself to admit that simple, small concession, really, what good are you?

[bubba9497]

Geez, I just thought, how many flags will we see Saturday, both teams have losing records.

How will they know which team to screw over?? :doh:

[Om]

Originally posted by Westbrook36

Is this thread a joke? This happens on EVERY passing play where a QB throws the ball away or out of bounds.

IT'S NOT PASS INTERFERENCE.

The saddest thing is you all still argue it after Om posts the rule that specifically states it's not PI. Art goes out of his way to undress Om and make him sound like the biggest moron who has ever lived yet doesn't address the rule that Om posted which clearly shows it wasn't PI.

Just another routine thread.

For the record, Art has never undressed me. He doesn't have the patience (or manual dexterity, sadly) to deal with zippers and trusses and all , so I usually just show up au naturel. Saves time.

It's important that there is no misunderstanding about that.

I also dispute that he made me look like the biggest moron who ever lived. Last stats I saw said there have been well over 100 billion "modern" homo sapiens born since our species showed up over 50,000 years ago. Surely ONE of them has done something dumber than post the PI rule clearly showing that---even while the Redskins do seem to get the proverbial zebra meat sock inserted deep in the south cavity an inordinately high percentage of the time---there is still at least ONE possible loose "interpretation" of the actual rule that said non-heterosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that) zebras could perhaps opt fall back upon in attempting to justify said conspiratorial nefariousness.

Thank you.

[Saragoth]

Originally posted by Dave Carlson

Actually, I believe Trotter was flagged for Illegal contact over the middle.

Not on that play he wasnt

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

This is all very fascinating, Flow, save for the fact that without the official benefit given teams we've played, we might well have won at least three more games. Take the Eagles game, as an example, where the weaker opponent -- based on the play on the field that night -- was the Eagles.

When a team can be said to lose a game directly due to the interference of the official it sharply calls into question which team the weaker was at any given time. In the case of the Redskins, the officials have intervened in such a way as to pile up points against, take points or opportunities away, and assure little chance of victory.

It might actually be somewhat more fascinating if the point was better understood. The idea is not that officials are predisposed to giving the benefit of the doubt to the stronger team based on play that given day. The theory is that this predisposition is based on who the stronger team is overall before the ball is even kicked off.

So, you see, it makes no difference how tough the Skins held up to the Eagles on Sunday when an official contemplates reaching for the flag. What does matter is that the Eagles were 11-1 heading into the game and the Skins were 4-8.

Now, you may wish to further lament the belief that poor calls have cost the Skins games, thus perpetuating a cycle where they're perceived as a weaker team than they may be relative to competition, and in turn, unfairly struggle to overcome the ref's predisposition to penalize them. I'm not sure I'd agree with this idea. But at least it would be a response that logically flowed from this discussion.

[Skins11]

"Eh oh well, it doesn't matter anyway that we got that call too, because officials don't have any outcome on the game. "

- Standard fecal fan response

[Flowtrain]

Oh, I forgot to discuss the call.

1. It is not PI since the ball was uncatchable.

2. It is not illegal contact since the contact occured after the ball was thrown.

3. It is not defensive holding since the ball was not being thrown in the player's direction.

This is a legal play.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=gettoknowtherulebook&prov=tsn&type=lgns

[denverdan]

Ok Art, Your right, I know you love to hear that, I can't name "one poor call by the officials that directly put us in scoring position or directly removed points from the opposition" and yes I can name, at the very least, 3 horrible calls by the refs that had the opposite effect, but that doesn't mean without those calls we win those games. We lost the Dallas game because everyone got fooled on the halfback option, we lost the Green Bay game because Brunell threw an INT. Yes these bad calls alter the course of the came, they change everything about the strategy

and down distances but to to think if you erased those calls, we win the game is wrong. TD stands in the GreenBay game, farve drives down the field and adds to his legacy. Good teams overcome these adversities bad teams don't and I don't think you can argue that our offense has been anything but bad, at least up to the giants game. Erase all of the holding penaltys, 14 INT's and a few fumbles and we win every game. We have had bad calls go our way, we've gotten first downs on questionable calls and we've gotten away with holding and face mask penalties, the fact that no points we're involved doesn't

change anything either, on those calls we were not in scoring postion and we don't thrown the ball deep so we don't get 40 yard pass interference calls.

I say your right to a point, but on some of your agruments your nitpicking: On the Ramsey INT, the ref said two feet instead of one knee, big deal, he got the call right, it was an INT in the endzone, On the springs hit: the league has had time to review it, no fine, I still feel it was a legal hit.

I know this is a message board and these are the kind of things we debate but to focus on this going on a week

now, makes us poor losers. Remember when you disagree with me, that I always agree with you.

Pass Interference beyond 15 yards: I think this subjective call by one official is the biggest flaw in the game, there is no way to change the call right or wrong and too much is at stake to let it rest on one split second call by one individual.

[Art]

DD,

The hit on Springs WAS legal. It won't be fined. The penalty was for an illegal block downfield. That doesn't mean the hit wasn't legal. The league fined Arrington for brushing his fingernail across the facemask of Tiki Barber. Please don't start going by league fines as a determination as to what's good and what's bad.

The fact that the play was an illegal block is clear. Recievers IN routes can't block downfield before the pass is thrown. That's always a penalty. In every single game in the history of football, EXCEPT against us.

The official made a call on the field on the game-ending INT that the defender had two feet down. The play was reviewed. It was clear the defender did not have two feet down because the ball clearly moved. While no one seriously doubts the play was a good INT, the fact that the ACTUAL INT only came due to having one knee down with possession and the officials reviewed the play yet told you something else, is a bad call.

For you to say a Brunell INT cost us the Green Bay game is simply laughable. The INT came AFTER a touchdown that was called back incorrectly. And, worse, the INT came on a play the defender clearly held our receiver. Do you remember the play? Two consecutive game-changing and game-ending calls.

As I've said, I can't tell you we would have WON that game. I just know we were NEVER given a chance. The officials took the game out of the hands of the players and GAVE it to the Packers. We were ahead on merit. We were behind on official intervention.

Same thing in the Cowboy game. While we can't say for certain we'd even have thrown the Gardner bomb that the officials blew and didn't call interference on to put us down close had the officials not earlier blown a call that gave the Cowboys a drive-continuing touchdown, we do know those two calls were most likely worth 14 points in favor of the Cowboys.

The entire game changed because of it. The first game against Philly saw Pinkston stopped short of a first down, only to have the officials allow it to continue. Then a bad PI call on Smoot gave them more points in what proved to be a killer drive and game. This game against Philly, with ALL the momentum on our side and a jacked up crowd, the officials gave the Eagles an IMMEDIATE 67 yards of penalty yards on their first drive.

Watching the game again, they called a personal foul on Sellers to start that drive, though, Sellers was no where near the play and we don't actually know if it existed because we never got to see it. We were then called for a neutral zone infraction on a big play by the defense that would have created third and 11 or so. Yet, a review of the game shows that to be an odd call as our end was behind the ball and IF he was in the zone, it was with his pinky. A call simply not made in this league on any regular basis, yet, somehow was against us when it mattered and when it helped the Eagles.

The Eagles then threw long. Pierce was held by Westbrook, twisted completely around, and it wasn't called. Meanwhile Owens was given a PI call that didn't exist to put the Eagles down close.

That you have chosen to decide that no, the immediate and game-changing calls by the officials don't matter, it's plays we might make AFTER that do, is simply not a point you're getting very fear with.

Again, I've not said this is an organized thing. But, it's clearly a thing.

In this last Philly game, ONE official in particular made a majority of the calls against us. Go back and watch. Same thing against Green Bay. Same thing against Dallas. It's generally ONE guy who's changing games. Whether he's a line judge or a back judge or the head guy himself is not relevant. It's generally ONE guy though.

[denverdan]

Art,

Despite my laughable points, you have agreed with me somewhat. And your trying to persuade somebody who has agreed with you on most of your points, where we differ is our reactions. These are judgement calls that are non-reviewable and untill the rules change, we have to accept it. If its as big a problem as you think than surely it will be address this off season, and if its the same officials making these bad calls surely tne NFL has some sort of preformance evaluation process that weeds out bad officials. We agree 100% on the pass interference calls, but holding calls away from the ball are easily missed and I think thats acceptable unless your God and see all or you review every single play which ain't gonna happen. You keep saying the Ramsey INT was a bad call, it was the right call, ruled on the field INT, reviewed, no evidence otherwise, play stands, off a bit on the explanation but right call. I never said that bad calls don't matter, I'm yelling and screaming about every one of them, I said they change the game and change momentum....ok enough, we are just going back and forth here.

You want to hint at conspiracy.

I say its an unfortune aspect of the game judged by imperfect humans.

I promise I got nothing else to say on this subject, you win.

Onto the 49ers and fairly called game.

dd

[Art]

DD,

The Ramsey INT was a bad call. That's what I keep saying. I also keep saying it was an actual INT. But, that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad call. You can't make a call on the field that the defender had two feet down and see on replay he did not have two feet down and then tell us he did.

It was a bad call on the field, because the defender didn't have two feet down. It was a bad call on replay because the defender didn't have two feet down. Had they explained what we all saw, that the defender had ONE knee down which makes it a legal intercetpion, all is well. But, that's not what they said.

That's what makes it a bad call.

It's the same thing if an announcer were to say Ramsey drops back and connects with Coles on a 90-yard TD and the receiver he threw the ball to was Thrash. Yeah, it was a touchdown, but it was a bad call. Saying the officials made a bad call doesn't mean the play itself was invalid. It means the rationale the officials gave for making the call was invalid.

The play here was reviewed. There was clear, unquestionable evidence that showed the defender didn't possess the ball and have two feet down. That's a fact. Yet, the official told us he possessed the ball and had two feet down. That's a bad call. He did, however, have one knee down and legally made a good INT. That's just not what we were told.

We're also not going back and forth here.

When you say we lost the Green Bay game because Brunell threw an interception, there is no forth you've offered. When you say a play that happened AFTER we were robbed of points and a play that ONLY happened because the refs allowed an illegal hold to occur, you're just not doing anything to make much headway.

Brunell shouldn't even have been throwing the ball at that point. We were ahead. Our next play should have been an extra point. We lost because we had points removed on a blatantly bad call. The Packers may have driven down and scored on us. We just don't know it because we were never allowed to play the game out.

So, no, I don't give a whole lot of merit to your position that the mistakes that follow 7-point gifts the officials give the opposition are the real reason we're losing when we're not losing by more than 7 all that often.

Also, I do not want to hint at conspiracy. In fact, I've said in each of these threads there's no actual conspiracy in my view. What there is, though, without any question, is a scary consistency that goes against us in each opportunity in every game all season. If that consistency isn't dramatically broken soon, it may well become a conspiracy.

[bubba9497]

he never had clear possession aftr he bobbled the ball until he hit out of bounds.

[Art]

Originally posted by bubba9497

he never had clear possession aftr he bobbled the ball until he hit out of bounds.

I believe you're crazy .

I think he absolutely did have clear possession after his knee hit. The ball did move but the movement was IN his hands and caused by his hands moving. The ball was not loose. But, dammit man, show the capture will ya .

[denverdan]

Art,

I said I was finished I guess Im not

the Ramsey INT, you can't convince me on that one. wrong call/bad call whatever, the result was an INT.

Green bay game: robbed of points or not, the nail in the coffin was the Brunell INT, we still had a chance to win it was 2nd down, if there is a bad call do we forfiet? no we try to win despite the bad call. My argument about this is exactly what the team did, they tried to win despite the penalty Brunell threw an INT, we lost. I'm not disputing that the holding penalty was incorrect. We still lost.

Finally, you said "there is a scary consistency that goes against us in each opportunity in every game all season."

I totally disagree. We have had more than our share of BS penalties, but do you really believe this has happened in every single game? or just the ones we didn't win? I will be generous and give you the 4 you already mentioned.

I always find thurdays kind of strange on this board, i think its the mods fault, although it could be brunell:)

[denverdan]

Originally posted by Art

I believe you're crazy .

.

yippee we agree:point2sky

[Lurman]

Looks like he was hit before Ramsey released the ball, isn't that a penalty outside 5 yards? I can't quite get a feel for the distance from the LOS.

Playing devil's advocate, I think we got away with holding Kearse on Portis` first TD.

http://extremeskins.com/CrazyZeb/Week14vsPHI02_2PortisTDs.mpg

[denverdan]

Originally posted by bubba9497

he never had clear possession aftr he bobbled the ball until he hit out of bounds.

the key word is definitive, there was no definitive evidence to change the ruling on the field. I don't think there was a bobble, a little shift maybe, but nothing definitive.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by denverdan

the key word is definitive, there was no definitive evidence to change the ruling on the field. I don't think there was a bobble, a little shift maybe, but nothing definitive.

Originally posted by Art

I believe you're crazy .

I think he absolutely did have clear possession after his knee hit. The ball did move but the movement was IN his hands and caused by his hands moving. The ball was not loose. But, dammit man, show the capture will ya .

[denverdan]

no seperation between him and the ball at any point, knee in.

[denverdan]

I've really got to limit my arguments to opposing fans.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by denverdan

no seperation between him and the ball at any point

first off that's wrng the ball is off his arm when his knee hits, second that's not the rule.... juggling the ball is not Clear possesion

first the defenition of a catch

23. Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

*****

7. Any forward pass becomes incomplete and ball is dead if:

(a) Pass hits the ground or goes out of bounds.

( Pass hits the goal post or the crossbar of either team.

8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

Now Dawkins had control of the ball briefly before shephard caused him to bobble it. When he had control he did NOT have both feet down. Once he lost control he has to re-establish control of the ball. He DID NOT until his body hit out of bounds.

The pic above shows he did not have Clear possesion of the ball... in the other thread there are more in sequence, and you can see clearly in Zebs video

[denverdan]

ball is off the arm, but still in the hand, He never lost control, I just watched it for the fortieth time, its a INT because it was ruled an INT and there was nothing definitive to say otherwise.

[Art]

Originally posted by denverdan

ball is off the arm, but still in the hand, He never lost control, I just watched it for the fortieth time, its a INT because it was ruled an INT and there was nothing definitive to say otherwise.

It was an INT, but it was ruled he had two feet down, which he did not. That was definitive.