NFL Officiating: Zebras gone wild

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
My question is how does New York not let them know how obvious it was on the TV feed? Isn't that what they are for?

I do think the totally unnecessary holding calls on Leatherwood in the 3rd quarter were much higher impact on the final result.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Per the pool report after the CIN/LV game.
Officials said The whistle came "after the receiver caught the ball." View: https://twitter.com/PGutierrezESPN/status/1482532694911242240/photo/1


which. Uh. Would mean the officials think we did not see the players react to the whistle on tv.
There is something that is really weird about this whistle.

During the play, I thought I heard the whistle just as Burrow released the ball towards the end zone. On the replay, it seemed as if the whistle happened just as the ball was about to be caught. Makes me wonder if the audio/video synch got messed up on the replay.

Still, it was a terrible whistle; Burrow wasn't close to being out of bounds until well after he released the ball.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,697
Bow, NH
There is something that is really weird about this whistle.

During the play, I thought I heard the whistle just as Burrow released the ball towards the end zone. On the replay, it seemed as if the whistle happened just as the ball was about to be caught. Makes me wonder if the audio/video synch got messed up on the replay.

Still, it was a terrible whistle; Burrow wasn't close to being out of bounds until well after he released the ball.
I heard the whistle at the same point you did, just as Burrow released the ball.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
They’re trying to cover their asses here, it’s obvious the whistle happened when the official thought the QB stepped out.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
It’s absurd, everyone knows it’s bullshit. Better to acknowledge it was a fuckup, IMO, otherwise you’re hurting your credibility.
i agree, and the league should be proactive on that: if the refs truly want to lie postgame they should be fired for that (it’s either rank incompetence or dishonest, each fireable). And if they want to say it was a mistake, the league should say that the crew does the best it can, warn the coaches not to comment, and move on. Of course that’s not the culture of nfl refs, or of the league office.

Obviously dishonest answers like that undermine public credibility and perpetuate the idea the refs can’t admit error. That mindset remains a problem—among refs and league office
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
The refs are lying, but who cares? The whistle was completely inconsequential. I'd have been more upset if they reversed the TD because of a mistaken whistle.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
i agree, and the league should be proactive on that: if the refs truly want to lie postgame they should be fired for that (it’s either rank incompetence or dishonest, each fireable). And if they want to say it was a mistake, the league should say that the crew does the best it can, warn the coaches not to comment, and move on. Of course that’s not the culture of nfl refs, or of the league office.

Obviously dishonest answers like that undermine public credibility and perpetuate the idea the refs can’t admit error. That mindset remains a problem—among refs and league office
On the field they obviously knew that the whistle happened first. But they felt that the TD would have happened regardless, and thought the fairest thing to do would be to allow the TD. The NFL has a history of this, I can think of three other inadvertent whistle plays right off the top of my head where the officials did this (one involving the Pats on Monday Night).

And they probably aren’t wrong! But the problem is that IWs are explicitly covered by rule, and the rules explicitly do NOT allow them to do this. So in order to do “what is best for the game”, they make some shit up that everyone knows is BS.

The genie is already out of the bottle now in terms of allowing action that occurs after the whistle to count. We allow fumbles recovered “in the immediate continuing action” to count even if officials ruled it dead. If you are already going to do it, just let officials do the same thing for inadvertent whistles.
 
The genie is already out of the bottle now in terms of allowing action that occurs after the whistle to count. We allow fumbles recovered “in the immediate continuing action” to count even if officials ruled it dead. If you are already going to do it, just let officials do the same thing for inadvertent whistles.
This seems like one of those better-to-leave-it-unwritten rules that makes the most sense for everyone involved, even if you don't go strictly by the book. I mean, New York stepping in to overrule on-field decisions generally seems like a good thing even though it's kinda fundamentally unfair that some coaches are forced to use challenges and others aren't depending on how quickly the next play is likely to get underway (e.g., depending on whether the aggrieved team is on offense or defense and can or can't control the play clock), right? That's basically an unwriten rule at this point, but in general most people would vote for accuracy over this sort of fairness, I think.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,767
Hartford, CT
This seems like one of those better-to-leave-it-unwritten rules that makes the most sense for everyone involved, even if you don't go strictly by the book. I mean, New York stepping in to overrule on-field decisions generally seems like a good thing even though it's kinda fundamentally unfair that some coaches are forced to use challenges and others aren't depending on how quickly the next play is likely to get underway (e.g., depending on whether the aggrieved team is on offense or defense and can or can't control the play clock), right? That's basically an unwriten rule at this point, but in general most people would vote for accuracy over this sort of fairness, I think.
That’s not an unwritten rule, it’s Rule 15-3-9.

Anyways, if they want to afford discretion to officials to disregard whistles in virtually any game scenario they should put it in the rulebook. Good luck figuring out how to enforce it outside the context of a close quarters fumble.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,483
The refs are lying, but who cares? The whistle was completely inconsequential. I'd have been more upset if they reversed the TD because of a mistaken whistle.
Really? So "stop playing when you hear the whistle but understand that, sometimes, we'll decide stuff that happened after whistle counts..." I couldn't disagree more.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The refs are lying, but who cares? The whistle was completely inconsequential. I'd have been more upset if they reversed the TD because of a mistaken whistle.
This is where I’m at, assuming the audio/video synch isn’t messed up. No one on the Raiders was going to make a play; maybe #25 could’ve hit the receiver, but he had already committed to what was sure to be a failed attempt to make a play on the ball.

An egregious error was made on the field. I fail to see how fudging a bit to reach the outcome that would have happened absent that error is worse than following the letter of the law and letting the error have a potentially outcome-determinative impact on the game.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
Really? So "stop playing when you hear the whistle but understand that, sometimes, we'll decide stuff that happened after whistle counts..." I couldn't disagree more.
It didn't matter with that play. There was nobody close enough for the whistle to matter. Every play and situation is different. In this case, the whistle would have fucked the Bengals out of a surefire TD. Glad it was ignored.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
They’re trying to cover their asses here, it’s obvious the whistle happened when the official thought the QB stepped out.
The “covering their asses” issue is what grinds my gears, because they are simply gaslighting us.

I’ve seen a bunch of calls in the past few weeks where the officials clearly call it one way on the field and the booth overrules them. (Which is fine.) But when they announce the call, they say (as they did last night) “the ruling on the field is a completed pass.” When we all saw very clearly the ruling in the field was an incomplete pass.

We see this for fumbles, out of bounds rulings, pass rulings and more. They never admit that they corrected themselves. They just gaslight us.

The NFL either doesn’t know or (more likely) doesn’t care that this kind of outright lying is what feeds bullshit conspiracy nonsense.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
979
Upper Valley
It didn't matter with that play. There was nobody close enough for the whistle to matter. Every play and situation is different. In this case, the whistle would have fucked the Bengals out of a surefire TD. Glad it was ignored.
100% agree, it was a clear TD with no defender “slowing up” that could have made a play on the ball or the receiver.

It would have been an absolute disaster for the NFL if that play was reversed and that somehow allowed Vegas the victory. The fact Dungy was railing on it and making the whole half time show about that made it even more laughable. If they even once showed a full view from behind at half time as we saw 1 brief time in the telecast it would have destroyed his story line.

That is what is most frustrating, they have a camera view that shows all from behind and rarely use it in these situations as it’s destructive to telecast discussions.

Luckily the team that should have advanced based on the play on the field did.

Hopefully the refs do better today.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
This is where I’m at, assuming the audio/video synch isn’t messed up. No one on the Raiders was going to make a play; maybe #25 could’ve hit the receiver, but he had already committed to what was sure to be a failed attempt to make a play on the ball.

An egregious error was made on the field. I fail to see how fudging a bit to reach the outcome that would have happened absent that error is worse than following the letter of the law and letting the error have a potentially outcome-determinative impact on the game.
The problem is the bolded - a bunch of us all heard the same thing - the whistle coming as the ball left Burrows’ hand. Then, several minutes later, they tee up a review where the whistle blows almost simultaneously with the catch.

The fact that the NFL lies so often and so blatently about the action on the field for no other reason than to cover their asses gives me no sense of confidence that then didn’t go back and mess with the audio feed to “move” the whistle closer to the catch. And while that may seem laughable, it’s precisely what their gaslighting gives rise to.

Edit: for the record, when I saw the replay, I had the exact same feeling that you are expressing here. “We’ll, it was blown so late it made no difference.” However, at the time of the play (live) I could have sworn it blew much earlier, which caused players to ease up and stop playing. And now - reading this thread - I find that a number of people heard the same thing.

I don’t know the answer. I just know that the NFL lacks any credibility.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
The problem is the bolded - a bunch of us all heard the same thing - the whistle coming as the ball left Burrows’ hand. Then, several minutes later, they tee up a review where the whistle blows almost simultaneously with the catch.

The fact that the NFL lies so often and so blatently about the action on the field for no other reason than to cover their asses gives me no sense of confidence that then didn’t go back and mess with the audio feed to “move” the whistle closer to the catch. And while that may seem laughable, it’s precisely what their gaslighting gives rise to.

Edit: for the record, when I saw the replay, I had the exact same feeling that you are expressing here. “We’ll, it was blown so late it made no difference.” However, at the time of the play (live) I could have sworn it blew much earlier, which caused players to ease up and stop playing. And now - reading this thread - I find that a number of people heard the same thing.

I don’t know the answer. I just know that the NFL lacks any credibility.
Someone must have the game on DVR. So this can be checked. And I will submit, it would be absolutely insane if they changed the actual tape because people could check that.

So I am going on the assumption that people heard it wrong because it happened so fast.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
This seems like one of those better-to-leave-it-unwritten rules that makes the most sense for everyone involved, even if you don't go strictly by the book. I mean, New York stepping in to overrule on-field decisions generally seems like a good thing even though it's kinda fundamentally unfair that some coaches are forced to use challenges and others aren't depending on how quickly the next play is likely to get underway (e.g., depending on whether the aggrieved team is on offense or defense and can or can't control the play clock), right? That's basically an unwriten rule at this point, but in general most people would vote for accuracy over this sort of fairness, I think.
They did what was best for the game, even though it violates what is written in the book. I can live with that. But there are a lot of times when officials do something that is NOT in the best interest of the game, and then shield themselves with the rule book.

You need to pick which one you want. I'm not talking about places in the rule book where there are shades of gray, this situation is very specific. If the whistle blows, replay the down. There is no actual element of confusion over timing here, the official knows he blew the whistle erroneously.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
My point earlier was that, in the multi-year view, the officials and the league office have done themselves a disservice with PRAVDA-like representations that they are getting all the calls right. I believe they’d be better off acknowledging error (such as the whistle last night) and managing around that.

Pretending that they got it right, as the crew last night did, leaves many believing that they don’t care as much about getting it right as they do about not being shown to have made a mistake. Perhaps they did ‘right’ in the larger sense as CFB Rules notes, but it is at least equally likely they truly don’t know the difference. And that uncertainty is precisely why they should be approaching this differently
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
@CFB_Rules seems like the officials being a major part of the playoffs has caused NFL HQ to consider some rule changes

Per the Wapo

The NFL will consider further tweaks to the instant replay system in the wake of this season’s officiating issues, including Saturday’s inadvertent whistle that affected the Las Vegas Raiders’ playoff loss at Cincinnati, but remains extremely wary of going to a full-fledged “sky judge” arrangement, a person familiar with the league’s thinking said Sunday.

The potential modifications to instant replay could include expanding the range of reviewable plays, according to that person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic in the immediate aftermath of Saturday’s officiating controversy.
That possibly could include making roughing-the-passer calls reviewable or giving a team the ability to challenge any on-field ruling within the structure of the current coach’s challenge setup, that person said.
One potential offseason change could include making such an inadvertent whistle reviewable. But the modifications could be more extensive than that. Individual teams have made rule proposals in the past to make roughing-the-passer rulings reviewable. New England Patriots Coach Bill Belichick is among those who have advocated to make all on-field rulings reviewable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/01/16/nfl-replay-changes-sky-judge/
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The problem is the bolded - a bunch of us all heard the same thing - the whistle coming as the ball left Burrows’ hand. Then, several minutes later, they tee up a review where the whistle blows almost simultaneously with the catch.

The fact that the NFL lies so often and so blatently about the action on the field for no other reason than to cover their asses gives me no sense of confidence that then didn’t go back and mess with the audio feed to “move” the whistle closer to the catch. And while that may seem laughable, it’s precisely what their gaslighting gives rise to.

Edit: for the record, when I saw the replay, I had the exact same feeling that you are expressing here. “We’ll, it was blown so late it made no difference.” However, at the time of the play (live) I could have sworn it blew much earlier, which caused players to ease up and stop playing. And now - reading this thread - I find that a number of people heard the same thing.

I don’t know the answer. I just know that the NFL lacks any credibility.
I had the same reaction as you to the play. But countless randos have last night’s broadcast on their DVRs, so if there was a cover-up, it’s the dumbest conspiracy ever and will be found out.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I had the same reaction as you to the play. But countless randos have last night’s broadcast on their DVRs, so if there was a cover-up, it’s the dumbest conspiracy ever and will be found out.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that my instant recollection was wrong. And it means nothing to me in any case.

The larger point is that the NFL’s utter lack of honestly comes at a cost.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I’m perfectly willing to believe that my instant recollection was wrong. And it means nothing to me in any case.

The larger point is that the NFL’s utter lack of honestly comes at a cost.
I’m kind of curious whether the way they translate sound from a zillion microphones at the stadium into what we hear on the broadcast could account for a whistle sounding like it happened a few tenths of a second earlier in live action than it did on replay.
 

Bertha

Member
SoSH Member
May 3, 2016
194
1st play from scrimmage for SF at Dallas. Defender lines up with hand on the line of scrimmage. No “unabated to QB”, as he did not jump early, and OT engaged him. Flag thrown at snap, and after a pass was thrown (before it was caught for 11-12 yard gain) whistle blows it dead. Announcers were even a saying it was a free play for SF. What is with the early and incorrect whistles, that has always been a play through, unless QB safety is in jeopardy.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
7,927
Monument, CO
1st play from scrimmage for SF at Dallas. Defender lines up with hand on the line of scrimmage. No “unabated to QB”, as he did not jump early, and OT engaged him. Flag thrown at snap, and after a pass was thrown (before it was caught for 11-12 yard gain) whistle blows it dead. Announcers were even a saying it was a free play for SF. What is with the early and incorrect whistles, that has always been a play through, unless QB safety is in jeopardy.
The OT flinched and I think that is what stopped the play.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,289
Can you elaborate?
Super high-def slow motion replay highlights more calls as obviously incorrect than ever before. The game is generally faster than previous eras. And so on.

I think they suck and have always sucked but it is just more noticeable now how often they fuck up a spot or miss a catch or what have you.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
NFL’s worse nightmare. (And its self inflicted)

Officials make a extremely bad call in a key part of the superbowl. And NFL wont be able to sweep it under the rug.

especially after Rodgers comments about officiating earlier this week
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Well he has a career to be concerned about. Can’t be criticizing the shield.

Funny but only gambling may set the course right.
Good luck with that. NFL’s MO is to act only when its forced to. See the “no more” PSA ads (which already show the NFL was really not serious in practicing what those league produced PSA’s talk about. (Watson etc)

or only taking “action” on concussions when the government came knocking.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
NFL’s worse nightmare. (And its self inflicted)

Officials make a extremely bad call in a key part of the superbowl. And NFL wont be able to sweep it under the rug.

especially after Rodgers comments about officiating earlier this week
Fox never showed the proper angle to show the hold so we all thought it was a historically bad call….I know I did. Then Bradberry admitted himself that the ref got it right and I posted the shot of an angle we never got to see on the telecast showing the clear hold that impeded separation. They got this one right.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,025
Boulder, CO
It was a hold. It’s just not usually a hold during the last two minutes of the Super Bowl. That’s why I’d be salty if I was an eagles fan. (Don’t get me started on four of the five giants linemen holding on the helmet catch. Good grief.)

But it was a hold.
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,055
Fox never showed the proper angle to show the hold so we all thought it was a historically bad call….I know I did. Then Bradberry admitted himself that the ref got it right and I posted the shot of an angle we never got to see on the telecast showing the clear hold that impeded separation. They got this one right.
The jersey grab was there on the fox replay though. I was a little surprised Olsen went on when it was pretty clear even on their shitty angle.

Lebron also crying about the call is pretty rich. A few weeks ago, anagozing on the Boston floor, he didn't like that the refs let them play.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I mean, he clearly grabbed him. But (1) it was for just a moment, (2) didn’t really impede JuJu at all, and (3) that kind of contact was something they let go all game long - including, you may all remember, on a key third down in the first half when JuJu was held much worse and they didn’t call Philly for it and it led to an incompletion. Someone said it above - it’s just consistency that fans (and players especially) are looking for. In basketball you let a certain amount of contact go all game long, and that’s how players are going to play. Then in the last few seconds you call a touch foul that you haven’t even thought about calling all game long? Of course it’s not ok. Same thing here. They literally let ALL that go all game long (I just gave an egregious example of it) and it let the players know that THIS is how they will be allowed to play, that THIS is how the game will be officiated. So that’s how they play. Then to have it called in that spot, with that minimal amount of contact (much worse ones were not called)? Yeah, they’ve got a right to be upset.

I’m just grateful that this didn’t involve the Pats either way. If it went against the Pats, I’d be SO upset. If it went for the Pats, I wouldn’t want to endure the “the Pats and Brady get ALL the calls” crap.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
I mean, he clearly grabbed him. But (1) it was for just a moment, (2) didn’t really impede JuJu at all, and (3) that kind of contact was something they let go all game long - including, you may all remember, on a key third down in the first half when JuJu was held much worse and they didn’t call Philly for it and it led to an incompletion. Someone said it above - it’s just consistency that fans (and players especially) are looking for. In basketball you let a certain amount of contact go all game long, and that’s how players are going to play. Then in the last few seconds you call a touch foul that you haven’t even thought about calling all game long? Of course it’s not ok. Same thing here. They literally let ALL that go all game long (I just gave an egregious example of it) and it let the players know that THIS is how they will be allowed to play, that THIS is how the game will be officiated. So that’s how they play. Then to have it called in that spot, with that minimal amount of contact (much worse ones were not called)? Yeah, they’ve got a right to be upset.

I’m just grateful that this didn’t involve the Pats either way. If it went against the Pats, I’d be SO upset. If it went for the Pats, I wouldn’t want to endure the “the Pats and Brady get ALL the calls” crap.
This is where I’m at. I’m not a “you need to bury the whistle in the last 2 min” or “can’t call it in this context” but want consistency. The call on Mahomes at the end of the AFC Championship was the right call and cost the Bengals the game. They’re going to call that every time. This one was let go all game and then all of a sudden on the game definitely play it was called. (There were a number of other awful calls we all saw)

I will not say it cost the Eagles the SB and that’s why they lost. they blew that second half completely. It did ruin a great SB ending and a chance for the Eagles to win the game.
And as a Pats fan, many are still upset about the Gronk PI call or the “faceguarding” call. So of course we’d be upset.