That should not have been a pass interference!

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Boller put it on Heap's numbers and he didn't hang on. . . They had seven chances from within the ten yards in the last four minutes and couldn't score. Pathetic. And I have both Heap and McGahee on my fantasy team too. Baltimore deserved to lose.
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: Daverino
Boller put it on Heap's numbers and he didn't hang on. . . They had seven chances from within the ten yards in the last four minutes and couldn't score. Pathetic. And I have both Heap and McGahee on my fantasy team too. Baltimore deserved to lose.
Did you miss the thread eariler? :laugh:
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Damn it, that was a f*cking TD.

And why the f*ck were they passing it??!!!


:|
I agree Krunchy - it sucks when the refs change the outcome of the game. That was clearly a TD and that was clearly a wrong call.

What also sucks is the selective use of video replay - either you use it or you don't. The fact that the Ravens couldn't review the play is ridiculous.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: Daverino
Boller put it on Heap's numbers and he didn't hang on. . . They had seven chances from within the ten yards in the last four minutes and couldn't score. Pathetic. And I have both Heap and McGahee on my fantasy team too. Baltimore deserved to lose.
That wasn't the play - it was the play where Heap caught it and was called for offensive pass interference.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,118
7,277
126
Heap got a second chance and he failed to convert. It's not like Baltimore was totally left hung out to dry. They had a fresh set of downs and didn't do anything with it.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Heap got a second chance and he failed to convert. It's not like Baltimore was totally left hung out to dry. They had a fresh set of downs and didn't do anything with it.
No doubt - they screwed up the second time around, but it doesn't change the fact that the refs took away a TD.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Heap got a second chance and he failed to convert. It's not like Baltimore was totally left hung out to dry. They had a fresh set of downs and didn't do anything with it.
Yup, and it should have even been in Baltimore's favor. Had they tried to run the ball or go with more conservative plays (heck, they had to go less than 5 yards on 4 downs) they could have eaten up enough clock to prevent Cincinnati from marching down the field and kick an OT preventing field goal.

The Bengals defense had allowed 18 TDs in a row the last 18 times the other team had it inside the 5, and the Ravens couldn't punch it in on their second try (they did on their first try, I'll agree it was a bad call). But I think you should be more angry at the Ravens' pathetic offense and coaching than the refs.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
0
If it all comes down to one bad call then the truth is the team probably didn't deserve to win anyway.

Blame the ref all you want, but if they didn't have, what, 6 turnovers, the other plays in that drive... then you'd probably be saying "Hah, screw it. We're about to win anyway." Both teams should have played so much better. The Bengals were just fortunate they didn't make as many stupid mistakes.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Not disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
311
126
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Bot disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
I disagree. Reply is NOT to challenge the penalties. That's never been what it has been used for.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Bot disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
I disagree. Reply is NOT to challenge the penalties. That's never been what it has been used for.
That's my point, it should be used to ensure all calls are correct or it should be excluded to make sure all human error is left in the game. It shouldn't be both ways.
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
311
126
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Bot disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
I disagree. Reply is NOT to challenge the penalties. That's never been what it has been used for.
That's my point, it should be used to ensure all calls are correct or it should be excluded to make sure all human error is left in the game. It shouldn't be both ways.
So you want 4 hour games then huh? The games take long enough as it is (most of them). Adding more things in to challenge would be ridiculous. You'd have coaches challenging every little thing...cause there's no way they would be able to keep the 2 limit they have now if they included reviewing ref calls.

The system works now...and like i said in the other thread about this, human error is part of every game. Imagine the calls that took place when there was NO video replay available at all or video in the first place. It would ruin the game. What next, video reply to determine if the ball should have been place 2 inches further up field? 2 centimeters? Where does it end?
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Bot disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
I disagree. Reply is NOT to challenge the penalties. That's never been what it has been used for.
That's my point, it should be used to ensure all calls are correct or it should be excluded to make sure all human error is left in the game. It shouldn't be both ways.
So you want 4 hour games then huh? The games take long enough as it is (most of them). Adding more things in to challenge would be ridiculous. You'd have coaches challenging every little thing...cause there's no way they would be able to keep the 2 limit they have now if they included reviewing ref calls.

The system works now...and like i said in the other thread about this, human error is part of every game. Imagine the calls that took place when there was NO video replay available at all or video in the first place. It would ruin the game. What next, video reply to determine if the ball should have been place 2 inches further up field? 2 centimeters? Where does it end?
I didn't say challenges - I said video replay. There should be a group of people who review every play immediately after it happens (whether or not a challenge takes place). If there is question (which can be deduced very quickly), then they put a call into the head referee who does a full review.

{EDIT}That or nothing.
{EDIT}How can you say the system works - the refs fundamentally changed the outcome of the game even though their goal is never to do that. It's like saying the legal system works since so few innocent people are wrongfully found guilty.
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
311
126
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Bot disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
I disagree. Reply is NOT to challenge the penalties. That's never been what it has been used for.
That's my point, it should be used to ensure all calls are correct or it should be excluded to make sure all human error is left in the game. It shouldn't be both ways.
So you want 4 hour games then huh? The games take long enough as it is (most of them). Adding more things in to challenge would be ridiculous. You'd have coaches challenging every little thing...cause there's no way they would be able to keep the 2 limit they have now if they included reviewing ref calls.

The system works now...and like i said in the other thread about this, human error is part of every game. Imagine the calls that took place when there was NO video replay available at all or video in the first place. It would ruin the game. What next, video reply to determine if the ball should have been place 2 inches further up field? 2 centimeters? Where does it end?
I didn't say challenges - I said video replay. There should be a group of people who review every play immediately after it happens (whether or not a challenge takes place). If there is question (which can be deduced very quickly), then they put a call into the head referee who does a full review.

{EDIT}That or nothing.
{EDIT}How can you say the system works - the refs fundamentally changed the outcome of the game even though their goal is never to do that. It's like saying the legal system works since so few people are wrongfully found guilty.
Don't change the subject, we are talking about a GAME, not the legal system. Apples and oranges.

The system works well enough is what i'm saying. It's worked like this for years, and it'll continue as is despite this incident. The refs are a part of the game, always have been, always will be. It's just a game. So Baltimore lost because of a shitty call...that's the way it works. Every team can say that. It's part of the game. Their goal is never to change the outcome, but like it or not, it happens. And that's sports. It wouldn't be fun to watch if every single call and play was exactly right.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: JujuFish
8 tries at goal to go and they don't score, they deserved to lose.
Bot disputing that - Baltimore has had an anemic offense for as long as I've been here.

I'm not debating that - I'm saying that the call should never have been allowed to stand - they can review so many other things, but not this.

Either have video replay on everything or nothing. Either accept the refs as humans that make mistakes or point out their mistakes for the world to see, but you can't have it half way.
I disagree. Reply is NOT to challenge the penalties. That's never been what it has been used for.
That's my point, it should be used to ensure all calls are correct or it should be excluded to make sure all human error is left in the game. It shouldn't be both ways.
So you want 4 hour games then huh? The games take long enough as it is (most of them). Adding more things in to challenge would be ridiculous. You'd have coaches challenging every little thing...cause there's no way they would be able to keep the 2 limit they have now if they included reviewing ref calls.

The system works now...and like i said in the other thread about this, human error is part of every game. Imagine the calls that took place when there was NO video replay available at all or video in the first place. It would ruin the game. What next, video reply to determine if the ball should have been place 2 inches further up field? 2 centimeters? Where does it end?
I didn't say challenges - I said video replay. There should be a group of people who review every play immediately after it happens (whether or not a challenge takes place). If there is question (which can be deduced very quickly), then they put a call into the head referee who does a full review.

{EDIT}That or nothing.
{EDIT}How can you say the system works - the refs fundamentally changed the outcome of the game even though their goal is never to do that. It's like saying the legal system works since so few people are wrongfully found guilty.
Don't change the subject, we are talking about a GAME, not the legal system. Apples and oranges.

The system works well enough is what i'm saying. It's worked like this for years, and it'll continue as is despite this incident. The refs are a part of the game, always have been, always will be. It's just a game. So Baltimore lost because of a shitty call...that's the way it works. Every team can say that. It's part of the game. Their goal is never to change the outcome, but like it or not, it happens. And that's sports. It wouldn't be fun to watch if every single call and play was exactly right.
I didn't change the subject - I just used an illustration to show how ridiculous the statement "the system works now" is. The system doesn't work - games should never be decided by a referee's bad call - especially since the technology and the sport allow for better.

Not all sports would support full time video replay (hockey and basketball are probably too fluid), but football is stop and go enough to allow for it. It should be used and then game changing bad calls would not happen.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,118
7,277
126
There isn't another sport out there that allows for review of penalties. As pyonir said - a game would take twice as long if you reviewed what happened on every call. Or it'd never finish if they reviewed every play looking for a call. There isn't a perfect system.

Baltimore got a fresh set of downs after it was all said and done and failed to score a TD in 8 attempts against a team that gave up 18 our of 18 goal line stands last year. They blew it even though they were given a second chance.

IMHO the only reason they had the holding penalty called was because they knew they screwed up the call on Heap the first time.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,216
651
126
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: Daverino
Boller put it on Heap's numbers and he didn't hang on. . . They had seven chances from within the ten yards in the last four minutes and couldn't score. Pathetic. And I have both Heap and McGahee on my fantasy team too. Baltimore deserved to lose.
Did you miss the thread eariler? :laugh:
You mean Syringer's tear fest?
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: vi_edit
There isn't another sport out there that allows for review of penalties. As pyonir said - a game would take twice as long if you reviewed what happened on every call.
That's just not true - they have a mandatory review policy in the last 2 minutes of each half and the game happens faster then because of hurry up offenses. If they can do it then, they can do it during the rest of the game. Besides - during the whole game there were only a few questionable calls that would have needed a mandatory review.

I don't disagree that Baltimore's offense sucks - I never questioned that. This is precisely why that call was so important. Baltimore could not score on 8 attempts against a red-zone revolving door (anyone gets through) defense.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,118
7,277
126
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: vi_edit
There isn't another sport out there that allows for review of penalties. As pyonir said - a game would take twice as long if you reviewed what happened on every call.
That's just not true - they have a mandatory review policy in the last 2 minutes of each half and the game happens faster then because of hurry up offenses. If they can do it then, they can do it during the rest of the game. Besides - during the whole game there were only a few questionable calls that would have needed a mandatory review.

I don't disagree that Baltimore's offense sucks - I never questioned that. This is precisely why that call was so important. Baltimore could not score on 8 attempts against a red-zone revolving door (anyone gets through) defense.
The booth review is for the same type of calls that can be challenged during normal play. It's used for possession, in/out of bounds calls, down by contact, forward pass, ect.

It's not for the review and judgment of player-on-player penalties.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: vi_edit
There isn't another sport out there that allows for review of penalties. As pyonir said - a game would take twice as long if you reviewed what happened on every call.
That's just not true - they have a mandatory review policy in the last 2 minutes of each half and the game happens faster then because of hurry up offenses. If they can do it then, they can do it during the rest of the game. Besides - during the whole game there were only a few questionable calls that would have needed a mandatory review.

I don't disagree that Baltimore's offense sucks - I never questioned that. This is precisely why that call was so important. Baltimore could not score on 8 attempts against a red-zone revolving door (anyone gets through) defense.
The booth review is for the same type of calls that can be challenged during normal play. It's used for possession, in/out of bounds calls, down by contact, forward pass, ect.

It's not for the review and judgment of player-on-player penalties.
Oh no - instead of 8 things, they have to check 9 - it will take way too long. They have to look at the video replays anyways - why make the big distinction between all the things they do check and the few things they don't check.

Again - they don't need to decide on a resolution, they just need to see if the call was questionable.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,118
7,277
126
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: vi_edit
There isn't another sport out there that allows for review of penalties. As pyonir said - a game would take twice as long if you reviewed what happened on every call.
That's just not true - they have a mandatory review policy in the last 2 minutes of each half and the game happens faster then because of hurry up offenses. If they can do it then, they can do it during the rest of the game. Besides - during the whole game there were only a few questionable calls that would have needed a mandatory review.

I don't disagree that Baltimore's offense sucks - I never questioned that. This is precisely why that call was so important. Baltimore could not score on 8 attempts against a red-zone revolving door (anyone gets through) defense.
The booth review is for the same type of calls that can be challenged during normal play. It's used for possession, in/out of bounds calls, down by contact, forward pass, ect.

It's not for the review and judgment of player-on-player penalties.
Oh no - instead of 8 things, they have to check 9 - it will take way too long. They have to look at the video replays anyways - why make the big distinction between all the things they do check and the few things they don't check.

Again - they don't need to decide on a resolution, they just need to see if the call was questionable.
You aren't grasping the concept of objective and subjective calls. A players foot on the line or if a QB's hand was going forward at the time or if a ball hits the ground before being caught is a much more objective/black or white call than if a player pushed off or was holding.

Those types of calls could be made on every single down. A player stepping in our out of bounds or the other types of re viewable plays just aren't as common or as hard to determine properly.

Any sport that uses an umpire/referree that is trying to cover more than one thing happening at a time is going to make mistakes. It's just how sports work.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: vi_edit
You aren't grasping the concept of objective and subjective calls. A players foot on the line or if a QB's hand was going forward at the time or if a ball hits the ground before being caught is a much more objective/black or white call than if a player pushed off or was holding.

Those types of calls could be made on every single down. A player stepping in our out of bounds or the other types of re viewable plays just aren't as common or as hard to determine properly.

Any sport that uses an umpire/referree that is trying to cover more than one thing happening at a time is going to make mistakes. It's just how sports work.
I fully grasp the distinction. While it may be more difficult to determine if a subjective rule was broken, it is not impossible. Just like forming an opinion on something objective isn't always possible based on available angles and footage.

If there is something definitive (as there was tonight in the Todd Heap call), then the penalty should be reversed. There is still human error involved - since a human will ultimately be making the decision, but the technology is available and the sport allows for the margin to be shrunk.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
0
For the record, pushing a defensive player away right before you catch a ball is pretty much the exact definition of Offensive Pass Interference, which is exactly what he did. Not a BS call.

As I said before, nobody would be calling BS if they were winning or if it wasn't a touchdown pass if the penalty hadn't occurred.

Reviewing penalties is ridiculous... on any given play there are probably 5 penalties and most go unnoticed... reviewing the penalties that are called would not only double the time of the game, but show those 5 penalties every play. Nobody would move the damn ball.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY