That may go down as the worst 1-side ref hose job as there is

[ElGatoGrande]

When Terrance Williams caught that TD pass at the pylon, look at how long it takes the ref literally standing right there to signal touchdown.
It was as if he's thinking "would it be too obvious if I make a call against the Cowboys here"

I'm fully on board with the notion that NFL officiating has some hidden forces working against a fair call of the game (intentional or otherwise) but this slow call may be chalked up to the fact that it was an amazing catch with an extremely close tip-toe tap against the sideline and the goal line. The ref probably didn't believe what he saw!

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

What kind of mindless sheeplings watch a sport they sincerely believe is rigged?

BTW, how impotent is this grand conspiracy manufactured by the league/refs when the Cowboys are 10-1. The master puppeteer apparently can't impact the outcome of the game?

Oh, but the Cowboys in all their awesomeness have overcome this nefarious agenda-driven system. Yeah, yeah, I get it...

Sounds reasonable.

 

[links18]

Not one person, other than you, has said anything close to that is happening.

Go back and read the thread.

 

[DogFace]

Go back and read the thread.

I did.

I didn't see that being said. Are you sure you did or are you putting your own dramatic interpretiaon on the thread?

 

[Idgit]

What kind of mindless sheeplings watch a sport they sincerely believe is rigged?

BTW, how impotent is this grand conspiracy manufactured by the league/refs when the Cowboys are 10-1. The master puppeteer apparently can't impact the outcome of the game?

Oh, but the Cowboys in all their awesomeness have overcome this nefarious agenda-driven system. Yeah, yeah, I get it...

Sounds reasonable.

Why so derisive? The OP made his point. Either agree with him in this case, or actually dispute him with specifics.

Instead, you go right for the mindless sheep routine as if you expect anybody to be swayed by the intensity of your reaction alone. Nobody is.

Now, I don't happen to believe most NFL games are rigged, but I've seen my share of one-sided games. And I've seen some Superbowl officiating (Steelers-Seahawks) that had me wondering. What YR is suggesting here is not exactly unheard of in the world of sports.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I did.

I didn't see that being said. Are you sure you did or are you putting your own dramatic interpretiaon on the thread?

When the title of the thread includes "one-sided job by the refs" the insinuation is clear.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Why so derisive? The OP made his point. Either agree with him in this case, or actually dispute him with specifics.

Instead, you go right for the mindless sheep routine as if you expect anybody to be swayed by the intensity of your reaction alone. Nobody is.

Now, I don't happen to believe most NFL games are rigged, but I've seen my share of one-sided games. And I've seen some Superbowl officiating (Steelers-Seahawks) that had me wondering. What YR is suggesting here is not exactly unheard of in the world of sports.

Not all claims deserve measured responses. When the starting-point is the Cowboys being "jobbed," there's no chance for rational discourse.

You're swayed apparently. Go figure.

 

[links18]

I did.

I didn't see that being said. Are you sure you did or are you putting your own dramatic interpretiaon on the thread?

"Sometimes I wonder if this has to do with Jerry suing the league way back when...."

Here is one example implying its payback for Jerry suing the league and that was just on page 1. The conspiracy lunacy is rife around here.

 

[Idgit]

Not all claims deserve measured responses.

You're swayed apparently. Go figure.

If by "swayed" you're suggesting I though his post was much, much better than your reply, then, yes. Go figure.

For a poster with a track record for getting intellectually pantsed as often as he wanders into a thread, you've got a high estimation of the weight of your own opinion.

You'd do better to tackle the topic directly with a supportable counter argument than you do standing outside the ring throwing turds because you don't like it. Just my measure response to your tactics here.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

If by "swayed" you're suggesting I though his post was much, much better than your reply, then, yes. Go figure.

For a poster with a track record for getting intellectually pantsed as often as he wanders into a thread, you've got a high estimation of the weight of your own opinion.

You'd do better to tackle the topic directly with a supportable counter argument than you do standing outside the ring throwing turds because you don't like it. Just my measure response to your tactics here.

Ah yes, the generic "you got owned" claim trotted out. Shot your wad already.

You're doing the best you can.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Not all claims deserve measured responses. When the starting-point is the Cowboys being "jobbed," there's no chance for rational discourse.

The thing is, the OP didn't "start" with that proposition. It was actually his conclusion after watching the tape. He lays out his evidence. You can dispute (or counter) that evidence but it's hard to deny he's engaged in rational discourse by presenting it.

 

[Idgit]

Ah yes, the generic "you got owned" claim trotted out. Shot your wad already.

You're doing the best you can.

Just trying to get you to actually support your argument. Clearly, your not going to. Which is all the rest of us need to know in order to dismiss it outright.

 

[Idgit]

The thing is, the OP didn't "start" with that proposition. It was actually his conclusion after watching the tape. He lays out his evidence. You can dispute (or counter) that evidence but it's hard to deny he's engaged in rational discourse by presenting it.

Exactly.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The thing is, the OP didn't "start" with that proposition. It was actually his conclusion after watching the tape. He lays out his evidence. You can dispute (or counter) that evidence but it's hard to deny he's engaged in rational discourse by presenting it.

I keep hearing about "evidence."

Do you mean the time stamps of plays where he's pointing out misses or bad calls? We can all agree those were missed or bad calls.

However, the logical conclusion based on those events IN NO WAY has to lead to league-wide conspiracy, ref bias, et cetera.

This is classic conspiracy theory rational: point to events, draw a conclusion, and work your way backwards to put together a theory.

You'd have to show specific evidence of the behind-the-scenes mechanics of how that works, paper trail, etc. Then the questions regarding the events on the field would have more credence.

Absent of that, when it's all boiled down you're left with "here's a bad play....conspiracy!"

 

[JohnsKey19]

The fact that 4 refs deemed the Mayle block a holding penalty is an embarrassment. Even the idiot 15 yards downfield threw a flag. Unless I'm mistaken on the rules, you can't execute a POA pancake block any better than that.

 

[Dale]

I'm mostly amazed by the Beasley facemask non-calls in two of the last three games. Blatant pulls like that are almost universally always called.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The fact that 4 refs deemed the Mayle block a holding penalty is an embarrassment. Even the idiot 15 yards downfield threw a flag. Unless I'm mistaken on the rules, you can't execute a POA pancake block any better than that.

Why do you interpret it that way? I hear folks complain when one ref from across the field makes a call. Why doesn't the fact four referees called the same penalty speak the the legitimacy of the call?

 

[Idgit]

I keep hearing about "evidence."

Do you mean the time stamps of plays where he's pointing out misses or bad calls? We can all agree those were missed or bad calls.

However, the logical conclusion based on those events IN NO WAY has to lead to league-wide conspiracy, ref bias, et cetera.

This is classic conspiracy theory rational: point to events, draw a conclusion, and work your way backwards to put together a theory.

You'd have to show specific evidence of the behind-the-scenes mechanics of how that works, paper trail, etc. Then the questions regarding the events on the field would have more credence.

Absent of that, when it's all boiled down you're left with "here's a bad play....conspiracy!"

This was a thread about one game, from one refereeing crew. It wasn't a thread about league-wide conspiracy.

If you're going to wander in, crying "sheeple" and condescending to the argument without even bothering to support yourself, the least you could do is read the OP for context.

 

[CATCH17]

"Sometimes I wonder if this has to do with Jerry suing the league way back when...."

Here is one example implying its payback for Jerry suing the league and that was just on page 1. The conspiracy lunacy is rife around here.

I think the league just has officials orchestrate the games the best they can so that they stay close.

I see these types of calls in every game and it usually goes against the team that is ahead.

 

[gimmesix]

I wish the referees where required by the NFL to account for every missed call or incorrect call. I wish the team had a person who put together film of all the incorrect calls and the referees had to publicly address every single one.

This would go a long way with the fans in developing trust

Having interviewed an official years ago, the league does go through a similar process other than it being publicly addressed, which I don't think the league would see as being to its benefit.

The league has a crew that puts together each missed call and sends it to the officiating crews so that they can review them. It also has a point system it uses to punish crews for missing calls. Now, this may have changed under Blandino.

That the league is more meticulous than many think about identifying missed calls is one reason I truly believe that officials have been told to be very judicious about contact between defensive backs and receivers. I believe having seen the backlash to the incessant illegal contact calls a few years back that the officials have been instructed to only call pass interference, holding, etc., when it "judges" that a there's a clear impediment. If there's a lot of handfighting between the defender and receiver, like on the noncall for Butler, I believe officials have been instructed to let it go.

Now, the only thing that bugs me about that is the inconsistency because sometimes they let it go and sometimes they don't. More often than not this year, though, they've been letting it go.