Lombardi: NFL admits call against Butler was wrong

[ActualCowboysFan]

what huddle?

the qb had not formed a huddle yet. it was a bunch of guys running around

He's talking about a different game.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

No guarantees we would have scored a TD on that drive. If some of you want to give us a TD on that drive go ahead.

I will play your little game, then would you rather be down 7-6 or 7-3? I think the choice is obvious.

 

[tyke1doe]

Reporters' number one goal should be confirming and conveying irrefutable information. Lombardi placed himself within a virtual He Said/She Said situation. Not surprising in my book.

The newspaper business has changed with the advent and growing popularity of the Internet. At my last newspaper stop, the management encouraged us to establish Facebook and Twitter accounts and engage the public. Reporters were also encouraged to comment on other reporter's stories. It got really silly, "Good story, Carol Brown (reporter). Thanks for the article."

 

[T-RO]

Are you kidding?

Context.

Read the reply I replied to.

I know the exact context and I disagree with you 100%.

The league is corrupt. Any honest and thoughtful observer sees it. It's not he said/she said. It's the league playing CYA with another in an endless string of debacles.

Lombardi is connected professionally and socially with a bunch of GM s and owners. Clearly one of those GM s or higher-ups from one of the teams wanted to get official clarification and was told, "nah...the rule was incorrectly enforced."

Then the PR people for the league roll into action w/a denial.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Why am I not surprised.

 

[KJJ]

I will play your little game, then would you rather be down 7-6 or 7-3? I think the choice is obvious.

I'm not playing a game, so you think a TD was a sure thing on that drive? We likely lost 3 points for sure on that drive but had we scored a TD, Rodgers would have answered because the Packers scored their second TD on their next drive. They scored a TD on their 3rd drive so best case, we would have been 11 points down at that point.

 

[Verdict]

That dude was as vindictive as I've ever witnessed.

He was ADAMANT that it was a 15 yarder.

He also seemed elated when Dallas took too much time and he couldn't wait to impose a delay of game penalty, even though another official had given Dallas a time out. The call was properly nullified, but that particular sequence of events is a very strong indicator that the head official had Dallas in his sights.

 

[dogunwo]

No. Vegas never loses.

Money rides on both sides.

Half of your post is not correct.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

We were healthy and it didn't pay off because we weren't playing as good as the Packers entering the game. Despite them not being healthy with their top receiver out and their top RB, they still won because they were the better team entering the playoffs. They had players falling like flies the past 2 games but they still won because winning playoffs games comes down to the teams that are peaking. Out best football of the season was between weeks 5-10.

They won because they had Aaron Rodgers lol. Its just that simple. Well, and they had the refs but you refuse to acknowledge the poor officiating hurt the Cowboys.

 

[Verdict]

I'm not playing a game, so you think a TD was a sure thing on that drive? We likely lost 3 points for sure on that drive but had we scored a TD, Rodgers would have answered because the Packers scored their second TD on their next drive. They scored a TD on their 3rd drive so best case, we would have been 11 points down at that point.

A TD was very likely on that particular drive. I think the penalty killed momentum and saved the Packer's *****. 3 points was pretty much automatic from where we were on the field.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Except he didn't completely tackle someone, so I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I'm not playing a game, so you think a TD was a sure thing on that drive? We likely lost 3 points for sure on that drive but had we scored a TD, Rodgers would have answered because the Packers scored their second TD on their next drive. They scored a TD on their 3rd drive so best case, we would have been 11 points down at that point.

You are assuming the game continues the way it did. At best, that call cost us a FG. We lost by three points (assuming rest of game plays out the same way). You do the math.

 

[Plumfool]

When you come back from a deficit to tie a game late, you overcame it. The game was left up to our D to make a stop and give our offense one last opportunity in regulation or in OT and they choked. It was going to come down to that anyway regardless of that penalty. This defense can't stop Aaron Rodgers and I said so prior to the game.

That's not true. You overcome something when it has been accomplished. When the goal is met. The penalty was not overcomed. The drive stalled. Ultimately the goal is to win. Not tie. And while the defense failed to secure the win, They should have actually at worst been in a position to prevent a tie.

 

[KJJ]

They won because they had Aaron Rodgers lol. Its just that simple. Well, and they had the refs but you refuse to acknowledge the poor officiating hurt the Cowboys.

Of course they won because they had Aaron Rodgers but they had him in weeks 6 when we beat them down with Jordy Nelson on the field and Dez Bryant not on the field because we were the better team then. The penalty hurt but what hurt us more was not being able to stop Rodgers especially late when the game was on the line.

 

[DallasEast]

I know the exact context and I disagree with you 100%.

The league is corrupt. Any honest and thoughtful observer sees it. It's not he said/she said. It's the league playing CYA with another in an endless string of debacles.

Lombardi is connected professionally and socially with a bunch of GM s and owners. Clearly one of those GM s or higher-ups from one of the teams wanted to get official clarification and was told, "nah...the rule was incorrectly enforced."

Then the PR people for the league roll into action w/a denial.

I got 'nuthin.

 

[KJJ]

A TD was very likely on that particular drive. I think the penalty killed momentum and saved the Packer's *****. 3 points was pretty much automatic from where we were on the field.

That's easy to say but we've had some redzone issues and we've had a habit of shooting ourselves in the foot with penalties this season that have killed drives. I can give us 3 points having Bailey but you can't just give us a TD on that drive. The bottom line is we had the momentum late in the game after tying it but despite that our defense couldn't step up and make a stop. We don't have the personnel to defend an Aaron Rodgers and we're going to have to draft to defend a QB like him or we'll never get past him or any elite QB in the playoffs.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

He's talking about a different game.

oops. apologies for my shortsightnedness

 

[rational1]

The NFL seems to have stepped in it this time. First, Michael Lombardi is a football lifer -- has been a front office guy, worked for NFL Network, wrote for NFL.com, worked as an NFL analyst for Fox Sports, etc. It is unlikely he is lying when he says a couple of teams told him the league indicated the call was improper. I imagine Blandino is being honest in saying he hasn't told teams that. But Blandino isn't the only employee of the NFL. Second, the rule that keeps being bandied about says the officials "may call" a penalty in such a situation. That implies judgment. Logically and from the evidence that has emerged, the judgment revolves around whether the substitution was done with an intent to deceive the opposing team. It is pretty clear in this case that it wasn't.

The league doesn't have its story straight and is relying on the defense it has -- well there is a rule that covers the situation. But most everything else points to a conclusion that the call could have been made but probably shouldn't have been made. The fact that it was is magnified by the well-known proposition that the officials tend to let teams play when they've reached the playoffs. An obscure penalty requiring judgment is most unusual in the circumstance.

The fact the penalty was called doesn't demonstrate bias, but it probably points to the Packers having noticed substitution issues in the past and -- as teams will do -- asking the officials to watch for it. Unfortunately the officials seem to have been intent enough on watching that they bypassed a critical point -- there wasn't deception in replacing a WR with a WR, nor was such a move likely to have confused the defense.

The problem for the NFL is that two things likely have happened -- it has chosen to stand by its officials because the rule, technically, allowed them to make the call they did. But they seem also to have recognized that it was a poorly administered call and thus have informed teams not to expect to see it again in a similar circumstance. That would have been fine had a couple of teams not spoken to Lombardi, told him what the league said, and had he not then reported it on his Twitter account. Now they appear to be speaking from both sides of their mouth, and that almost certainly is the case.

It has been a very, very bad couple of weeks for the NFL. There is at least the perception of unfairness in a circumstance in which Zeke Elliott is being left out to dry for a couple of months while waiting to be cleared of dubious charges of having abused a woman, while at the same time Denver hires a new head coach who was accused of something similar and the 49ers interview a head coach candidate who was as well. Of course the circumstances are different, but it looks bad.

Given the Randy Gregory decision, whether fair or not, it also looks bad when the Packers have a player on the field who has been charged with possession and caught in deeply incriminating circumstances. That doesn't mean the two events are the same, but it doesn't look good.

Neither does it look good when the officials choose not to swallow the whistle on a late hold in one divisional title game and make the opposite decision in another game. Again, maybe they simply didn't see the hold on the Packers play. But it doesn't look good.

The NFL produces a product. We consume the product as long as we choose to do so. Perception of fairness is important to the league. This isn't a court of law; it is the court of public opinion. Perhaps the NFL can defend itself quite successfully in a court of law, but it is beginning to lose credibility in the court of public opinion. And it is incumbent upon the league, not the consumer, to change any negative perception. We are not required to consume the product. The NFL has an existential need to address lost credibility, regardless whether the league or the officials "got it right."

After 50-plus years of football -- playing, coaching, watching -- I have seen myriad poor calls. I have seen inexplicably bad calls. But I don't recall having lost confidence in the fairness of the competition -- until now, when my ability to suspend disbelief has been cracked if not entirely broken.

And please don't bore me with the hackneyed "You must play well enough to overcome bad calls." Of course you'd like to do that, but you can't always achieve that goal. Sometimes the timing or circumstance of poor calls can't be overcome. I'd rather look like George Clooney, but I don't.

And of course Dallas lost in large part because it doesn't have a great defense. But Green Bay doesn't either. What does any of that have to do with whether a poor call -- or a set of poor calls -- changed the outcome of a game? It is a false choice.

The NFL has benefited from the fact that most fans deeply prefer not to be seen as whiners or as grassy knoll conspiracy nuts. As a result, the morally superior position becomes "don't complain about the refs. Just play well enough to overcome them." But we are given another false choice, and quite frankly, we are sold a bill of goods.

Which is the crazier idea -- to wonder whether the officials have become biased for whatever reason or to blindly insist that a sport of which billions of dollars are gambled is immune to an officiating scandal? Such a scandal will almost certainly occur, as it has in other sports. When it does, it won't prove that all NFL games are rigged. But the fact that it almost certainly will occur proves once more that the NFL needs to take care that its games are perceived to be fair.

Recent events have challenged that requirement.

^This x100 Must Read ... great analysis

 

[KJJ]

That's not true. You overcome something when it has been accomplished. When the goal is met. The penalty was not overcomed. The drive stalled. Ultimately the goal is to win. Not tie. And while the defense failed to secure the win, They should have actually at worst been in a position to prevent a tie.

The point is we squared the game after being 18 points down and when it was up to our defense to make a critical stop they failed once again like they always do against great QBs. Some of you will spend the entire offseason torturing yourselves over that call, like you did the Dez call. The facts are we got beat by a great QB.

 

[rational1]

When the game was on the line they made the play and we didn't. They got a possession stolen when Mo got away with a clear hold on a 3rd down play. What would have happened had that call on Butler not been made was the same thing that ended up happening, Rodgers would have gotten it done with the game on the line. He's too good and we don't have the pass rush or coverage to contain him. We couldn't stop him with over 4 minutes to play in 2014, he was able to eat up the clock and our defense didn't give our offense one last opportunity.

Maybe... but why taint it with such an obscure and controversial call? Third straight questionable call against the cowboys in three consecutive playoff games.