Refs Admit Mistake(s)... Found on ESPNDallas and not ESPN

[fanfromvirginia]

Full time refs doesn't really solve anything.

Full time refs mean more pay. And you're going to get the same refs and the same lack of reprecussions for poor refereeing.

The NFL needs to develop more and better referees. Do a better job of training and scrutinizing the refereeing and then get the best refs out there every Sunday. If one ref has a bad game or two, sit him down and put a new referee in there.



YAKUZA

I like this idea but making them full-time would, at least in theory and I don't know why not in practice, get you a better applicant pool.

 

[Doomsday101]

But Wade's post game remarks made me think he wasn't clear on the rule and likely didn't make the case to the refs.

The original post was right--I was shouting the same thing. That's Wade's job to either know that or have someone who does who can quickly get in Wade's ear.

Believe it or not none of the coaches know all of the exact rules they argue about it with the refs every week and do not get them over turned even Jeff Fisher who is part of the committee who puts in these rules. Wade did question it and mentioned it during the post game but in a way as to not draw the fine from the league which coaches have recently been warned about. I'm sure Dallas will be in touch with the league office for some clarifications of these calls this week even though it changes nothing

 

[8FOR!3]

Football's fake guys. I only watch real stuff now, like pro wrestling. The refs actually call it down the line. =D

 

[links18]

But Wade's post game remarks made me think he wasn't clear on the rule and likely didn't make the case to the refs.

The original post was right--I was shouting the same thing. That's Wade's job to either know that or have someone who does who can quickly get in Wade's ear.

I wonder if Wade knows that you can take a free kick after a fair catch even if there is no time on the clock?

 

[TwentyOne]

The first mistake, and even reviewed was the McBriar forced fumble!

Correct. That drove me nuts.

 

[links18]

Correct. Numerous times we have seen the referee go under the hood and actually spot the ball somewhere else despite going under to review a fumble, or a catch, etc.

Yes, but you actually have to challenge something that is challengeable to get them under the hood.

When the refs came back with their BS, Wade should have just said fine, I challenge whether or not Romo fumbled it. In fact, originally, Triplette announced that Wade was challenging the ruling of a fumble. Did he mean Romo's fumble or a possible fumble by Felix? Bizarre chain of events, which passed, BTW, with only minimal protest from Buck and Aikman.

 

[AbeBeta]

You have to challenge something that is reviewable otherwise they are not supposed to go under the hood.

got under the hood and discussed it with the replay experts... nothing wrong with that. I'd far rather the ref go over and have that discussion than potentially get it wrong on the field. That part shouldn't be anything to complain about.

 

[postal]

No, it wasn't. The runner went to the ground on his own. This is not college. His knee was not on the ground when Mcbriar poked it out and thus IS a fumble. If his knee was on the ground the referes call would have been correct assuming McBriar touched the player BEFORE the ball which was not even conclusive.

What was conclusive is that when McBriar hit him his Knee WAS NOT on the ground

FUMBLE!

Bingo, this is exactly what I saw as well and did not think they would overturn it.

 

[links18]

Bingo, this is exactly what I saw as well and did not think they would overturn it.

That's what I saw too, but I knew they would overturn it, because it was evident they did not know the rules......

 

[links18]

got under the hood and discussed it with the replay experts... nothing wrong with that. I'd far rather the ref go over and have that discussion than potentially get it wrong on the field. That part shouldn't be anything to complain about.

That's fine, but they can't review the entire play, unless the aspect of the play the team wants to challenge is actually challengable. Of course, that raises the question of if they are reviewing the entire play, once the challenging team asks them to review something challengable than all a team has to do to get around the fact that the particular thing they want to challenge is not challengable is to challenge something that is challengable, i.e. challenge ROMO's fumble, not the recovery of the fumble. It they must review the entire play, than they can overturn their call on the field on the recovery based on what they see on the replay or can't they?

Did that make any sense? In any event, I bet half the coaches and half the refs do not know how to make sense out of it, and that in a nutshell is the modern NFL, an over officiated, rule laden, flag fest with no consistency and a ton of confusion that detracts from the game.

 

[AbeBeta]

That's fine, but they can't review the entire play, unless the aspect of the play the team wants to challenge is actually challengable. Of course, that raises the question of if they are reviewing the entire play, once the challenging team asks them to review something challengable than all a team has to do to get around the fact that the particular thing they want to challenge is not challengable is to challenge something that is challengable, i.e. challenge ROMO's fumble, not the recovery of the fumble. It they must review the entire play, than they can overturn their call on the field on the recovery based on what they see on the replay or can't they?

Did that make any sense? In any event, I bet half the coaches and half the refs do not know how to make sense out of it, and that in a nutshell is the modern NFL, an over officiated, rule laden, flag fest with no consistency and a ton of confusion that detracts from the game.

I expect the refs came back to Wade and told him his options - they WANT to get it right so if there was some way they could address the challenge they likely would have told him so. They aren't saying simply "you can't do that" - they are likely saying "you can't do that ... but this is what you can do" whenever possible. I doubt very much the league employs refs who play dumb *** semantic games with coaches ..."oh, you didn't say how to review it right... so no review!"

I don't believe the "entire" play part is correct. If they challenged whether or not Romo fumbled that review would end the second they established that yes, he did fumble. When you see reviews that change the spot of the ball based on a challenge of some other sort (i.e., was it a catch), it is all pretty much part of the same act that is being reviewed.

I do expect this rule exists so that you don't have replay being used to review scrums where the ball changes hands several times. We got hosed but the flip side is that we don't have to see a review of every damn fumble scrum late in a game resulting in a review.

 

[links18]

You are probably right, although I have heard announcers say multiple times that once they go under the hood the entire play is being reviewed. What does it say about the NFL that educated fans on this board have no idea what the rule is exactly?

 

[links18]

One more thing on this. Many people on this board are complaining left right and center that they did not penalize McCarthy for challenging a play when he had no challenges left. That's fine, but on that same score, shouldn't Wade be penalized for challenging a play that is not reviewable? That slows down the game just as much as challenging with no challenges. Shouldn't teams be held accountable to know the rules on challenges? Then again, the refs didn't even know them.

 

[AbeBeta]

You are probably right, although I have heard announcers say multiple times that once they go under the hood the entire play is being reviewed. What does it say about the NFL that educated fans on this board have no idea what the rule is exactly?

i think it just says the game is complex. if you've ever watched with someone new to the game you know it is really hard to explain even the basics.

 

[peplaw06]

You are probably right, although I have heard announcers say multiple times that once they go under the hood the entire play is being reviewed. What does it say about the NFL that educated fans on this board have no idea what the rule is exactly?

They can review all reviewable aspects of the entire play. But if it's not a reviewable part of the play, then no matter what the original challenge is, that part cannot be overturned.

For example, let's say they challenged that Romo didn't fumble, and it was a forward pass. Clearly a reviewable part of the play. They can't review whether there was illegal contact or pass interference down the field, because those aren't reviewable. They can't review the recovery of this fumble, because of the same reason. Reviewing one thing wouldn't open the door to reviewing the whole play when certain things aren't reviewable.

But they do review other reviewable aspects all the time. When there's a question on a fumble, they will go in there and make sure they got the spot of the ball right and the time on the clock right, because those are also reviewable parts of the play.

 

[links18]

They can review all reviewable aspects of the entire play. But if it's not a reviewable part of the play, then no matter what the original challenge is, that part cannot be overturned.

For example, let's say they challenged that Romo didn't fumble, and it was a forward pass. Clearly a reviewable part of the play. They can't review whether there was illegal contact or pass interference down the field, because those aren't reviewable. They can't review the recovery of this fumble, because of the same reason. Reviewing one thing wouldn't open the door to reviewing the whole play when certain things aren't reviewable.

But they do review other reviewable aspects all the time. When there's a question on a fumble, they will go in there and make sure they got the spot of the ball right and the time on the clock right, because those are also reviewable parts of the play.

OK, well then the rule is bogus. If the call on the field is clearly wrong and replay shows it, it should be reversed. Right?

 

[Biggems]

The first mistake, and even reviewed was the McBriar forced fumble!

He was down, it wasn't a fumble....it was the correct call by the officials. please get over it sheesh.

the game is over, yes the refs goofed on the felix recovery and not penalizing the Pack for trying to challenge when they had none, as well as missing a few obvious holding calls on plays where the Packers made first downs.....but nothing any of us can do about it.

if Dallas would have come out and played better in all 3 facets of the game, they would have won. instead, this is collectively the worst game the team has played all season.

 

[peplaw06]

OK, well then the rule is bogus. If the call on the field is clearly wrong and replay shows it, it should be reversed. Right?

Yeah I think the rule is bogus. But apparently it's a rule

 

[jimmy40]

The first mistake, and even reviewed was the McBriar forced fumble!

that was a good call and was easy to see.

 

[jimmy40]

One more thing on this. Many people on this board are complaining left right and center that they did not penalize McCarthy for challenging a play when he had no challenges left. That's fine, but on that same score, shouldn't Wade be penalized for challenging a play that is not reviewable? That slows down the game just as much as challenging with no challenges. Shouldn't teams be held accountable to know the rules on challenges? Then again, the refs didn't even know them.

good point.