2019 Game Ball Thread: Wk. 6 vs Giants

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
That line is hyperbole, but the point of the article is not. We're seeing stubbornness out of the officials and/or Riveron.

In my mind, it's compounded by the ludicrous flexibility of the overturn standard, as was illustrated on the White TD overturn. The consensus of the game thread was, in an objective sense, White probably didn't get there before his arm was down, but there was no camera angle that showed it conclusively - you simply had to let the call stand. Nope, overturn! If the actual de-facto standard is "we're going to try and get the call as right as we can perceive it", that's fine, but then stop making up this BS about "clear and convincing evidence". All it's been is a crutch for inconsistent rulings.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Over the top hyperbole calling that the biggest blown call of the season. I've seen at least a handful as egregious if not more in much closer games already. I think the point is if the missed call isn't at least on par with the NO/LAR game they are sticking with the call on the field when it comes to PI. At least coaches should know that now given how few have been overturned.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,926
That line is hyperbole, but the point of the article is not. We're seeing stubbornness out of the officials and/or Riveron.

In my mind, it's compounded by the ludicrous flexibility of the overturn standard, as was illustrated on the White TD overturn. The consensus of the game thread was, in an objective sense, White probably didn't get there before his arm was down, but there was no camera angle that showed it conclusively - you simply had to let the call stand. Nope, overturn! If the actual de-facto standard is "we're going to try and get the call as right as we can perceive it", that's fine, but then stop making up this BS about "clear and convincing evidence". All it's been is a crutch for inconsistent rulings.
The White overturn was ludicrous. There was no clear and compelling evidence of anything. Once I saw the side judge throw up the TD signal and saw the replays, I was super glad he went with TD on the field as it meant it was going to stand.

Way too much has to be inferred to say that White wasn't in.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Got it. Y! lists it as a defensive tackle, but they are surely wrong.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
Over the top hyperbole calling that the biggest blown call of the season. I've seen at least a handful as egregious if not more in much closer games already. I think the point is if the missed call isn't at least on par with the NO/LAR game they are sticking with the call on the field when it comes to PI. At least coaches should know that now given how few have been overturned.
Except that Jones' interference on the Tate play last night was just as blatant as the Robey-Coleman DPI, if you ask me. There's no question Tate's right arm was held, while the pass was in the air but before it arrived, and it affected Tate's ability to get his arms in a position to receive the ball. There's no question whether there was contact, there's no question as to the timing of the contact, there's no question of whether it was material to the play (as opposed to incidental), nor a question of whether the CB was trying to make a play on the ball. It's as textbook as you get. The only way it's not "on par" with the Robey-Coleman call has to do with the game context (Score, time remaining, and week 6 vs NFCCG), which shouldn't matter at all but clearly does.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
I think the Jones' interference was just as blatant, but not as egregious. That is the only thing I can think of other than just pure incompetence from the refs and reviewers.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
2,371
I don't think the refs want to slow down the game for non-game changing PI's. The best way to do that is to send the message that they're sending to the coaches. If that challenge was on a possible game winning drive I think the outcome is different. It's the same latitude that soccer referees get when calling the end of a match.

Game ball to the guys listed in the "Defense" section of this page.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
A mini-game ball to Shurmur, who punted on 4th & 2 down by 2 touchdowns with 7 minutes to go:
Especially with the new onside kick rules where it's basically impossible to recover. It'd be pretty tough at that point to punt and then expect to even have a chance to have enough time to do 2 TD drives.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Jakobi had 4 catches on 4 targets. From what I've seen in preseason and limited time in reg season he has great hands. He catches everything thrown at him. Not sure how often he's getting open, but you would think TB should be gaining confidence in him.
I loved the replay (and discussion) on one of his catches - he caught the ball and immediately brought the ball up higher (like a rebounder protecting it from a pesky point guard) so the DB couldn't go through the arms and knock it out. Heady play, I wonder if it was instinct or taught.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Is it possible that New York has a sense of situation?

I posted my thinking on this in the gamethread but I have a suspicion that if the Jones play had happened with 2:00 left in a very close playoff game, they would have reversed. New York probably should play it straight up but I can see someone there deciding that if a coach challenges a play on Thursday night that has absolutely no win-loss implications and matters pretty much only to gamblers and fantasy players, that it's just not going to fuck with the officials on the field. I really believe that was what was going on there.

There is a fine line on replay and I don't think they want it there for garden variety shit. Like a spot when a first down is not at stake. It's there to correct possible errors that might matter.

Most of the time replay is used for calls that might matter. Even in a 21-0 game in the first half, if a coach wants to use a challenge to contest a first down spot or an 8 yard catch, you respect that and you review it and you let the coach decide what rises to the level of significant enough to challenge and what doesn't. And we've seen teams come back.

But last night was a ridiculous challenge that did nothing but prolong the game for no good reason. It was a coach with one time out left making a challenge just outside the two minute period where he wouldn't have been able to do so on a play that had very little actual game implication and where the officials on the field probably saw it but decided it was time to get out of there.

None of that is good and officials and New York should call what they see but this is way overblown. If there had been 1:59 on the clock when the same play happened and the booth decided to just let it go without buzzing down, nobody would be saying a word. I think that's probably what happened here. I really think New York's view here was "call us when you need us" not when there's some bullshit that pisses you off and you just want to get in a dig at the officials on the field.

Edit: yeah, or what busraker said.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
What's hilarious is that it took yet again the Patriots doing it before anyone noticed what's been happening every game so far this regular season.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
I feel like the PI thing is a lot easier than people are making it out to be. You can't over turn normal PI. Point blank. The only ones that are overturned are ones that are so egregiously bad they would get attention. I don't think looking at last night's play was egregiously bad, and certainly not worth a challenge, even if you would be mad if it happened to your team.

It's meant really only to be a fail safe for the Saints Rams from happening again and that's about it. And that's the way it should be. If borderline / judgement calls are overturned than you're just asking for this to be scrutinized endlessly.
 

bosox188

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2008
2,916
Marlborough, MA
That may be the case, but if so, it doesn't seem as if the NFL communicated that clearly to the coaches. So far, we've seen a lot of coaches burning challenges trying to get a PI call (including some trying to get an offensive PI call) who probably wouldn't be doing so if they knew the rule was only in place for a high stakes + blatant mugging situation.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
Is it possible that New York has a sense of situation?

....

But last night was a ridiculous challenge that did nothing but prolong the game for no good reason. It was a coach with one time out left making a challenge just outside the two minute period where he wouldn't have been able to do so on a play that had very little actual game implication and where the officials on the field probably saw it but decided it was time to get out of there.
I think you’re exactly right. In fact I suspect Shurmur was using it for motivation for his team. (“Hey guys, but for a couple of really bad non-calls we might have won this game!”) and / or playing to the local media.
 
Apr 24, 2019
1,278
That may be the case, but if so, it doesn't seem as if the NFL communicated that clearly to the coaches. So far, we've seen a lot of coaches burning challenges trying to get a PI call (including some trying to get an offensive PI call) who probably wouldn't be doing so if they knew the rule was only in place for a high stakes + blatant mugging situation.
The refs couldn’t have made this more clear throughout the pre-season. It seemed almost like an unspoken point of emphasis during those games, they talked about it constantly on the various patriots.com shows and elsewhere on sports talk. The league needs a mechanism for refs to “fix” situations like the Saints and Rams and otherwise it’s unlikely non-egregious calls will be reversed.

Edit clarity
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
That may be the case, but if so, it doesn't seem as if the NFL communicated that clearly to the coaches. So far, we've seen a lot of coaches burning challenges trying to get a PI call (including some trying to get an offensive PI call) who probably wouldn't be doing so if they knew the rule was only in place for a high stakes + blatant mugging situation.
I don’t necessarily think so. I think it’s probably more like “I know they haven’t been overturning these but THIS ONE that happened to US is obvious.”
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I don’t necessarily think so. I think it’s probably more like “I know they haven’t been overturning these but THIS ONE that happened to US is obvious.”
I think this is bingo. The only PI they will change is either blatant, egregious, Saints-Rams DPI, or OPI where there is a pick clearly beyond 1 yard past the LOS - like if the Pats had been able to challenge in the AFCCG. And I don’t mean if the OPI is 1.5 or 2 yards beyond the LOS they will overturn. Has to also be blatant like the Chiefs pick.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,926
I am glad you are all so confident in the NFL to keep this consistent throughout the rest of the year.

Me? I have nightmares waiting for the NFL to change the standard at the drop of the hat. Just like they did with the catch rule in the Super Bowl with the Eagles.