Tin foil hat time again

[Risen Star]

All I know is if the Cowboys don't make it in, we were screwed.

 

[burmafrd]

I have to laugh at the claim that ALL officials are as clean and honest and never allow personal feelings to influence their calls.

Does he REALLY believe that?

 

[Hoofbite]

I have to laugh at the claim that ALL officials are as clean and honest and never allow personal feelings to influence their calls.

Does he REALLY believe that?

I'd imagine a player who's just a complete jerk to the officials has less leeway when it comes to certain things so perhaps their emotions come into play. I'm pretty sure Suh's reputation has resulted in him getting flagged more on questionable calls more than another player without the reputation would have been.

Here's a little setup and then a question. The average NFL referee salary for the 2013-2014 season is about $173,000. Who on here would jeopardize that sort of income just to see Dallas win? I wouldn't. Not in a heartbeat.

Taking it a step further, who on this board would jeopardize that sort of money just so they could see the Broncos, Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, or any other AFC team lose? This is the position that any official who may be a fan of an AFC team is in. What do they care if Dallas wins or loses? They play the Cowboys once every 4 years.

I don't believe there's a single person who would trade that sort of pay and for that amount of work just to see any team win or lose.

Most of the officials have been around for years which means they've likely officiated every single team dozens of times. If any official was actually on the take or had some vendetta against any single team, they'd probably have been snuffed out a long time ago. Even the weakest of review processes could pick up on differing calls from one team when compared to the rest of the league if you're looking at hundreds of calls.

Have there been officials who were likely sketchy? Probably. There's always a few idiot in every industry and if there are enough of these sort of idiots then Dallas may have been a recipient of some of their bogus calls. I would even buy into there being a couple who have escaped detection and are presently officiating.

What I won't believe is that the entire group of officials collectively conspire against Dallas and that every one of them is dumb enough to jeopardize what might be one of the best jobs on the planet just so they can see Dallas lose. But, every week on here, after every game for the last however many seasons, and regardless of the crew there are people who claim officiating bias.

 

[khiladi]

Spoken like a man who has never been an ump, official or referee. And if you have, you need to stop now.

I am an ump. I may like certain teams, but I NEVER cater my calls to the coaches or teams I like or dislike.

It's called PROFESSIONALISM and INTEGRITY.

So said Ted Donaghy...

 

[big dog cowboy]

Conspiracy or not, the reffing has become such garbage that they are literally deciding the outcomes of games. Enough of this tip toeing and acting like an issue doesn't exist. The refs stink and something needs to be done about it. We hold players and we hold coaches to a high standard, and it should be no different for the refs.

For the most part I believe the refs do a good job. But when they blow calls, they really seem to blow it. That is what I do not understand. Being wrong is just human. But completely missing calls and getting calls wrong brings everything they do into question.

 

[mugsybows]

The ending of the giants and skins game. Smh. Could the refs be any more bad this year?

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

The ending of the giants and skins game. Smh. Could the refs be any more bad this year?

Triplett's crew....not surprised

 

[Hoofbite]

For the most part I believe the refs do a good job. But when they blow calls, they really seem to blow it. That is what I do not understand. Being wrong is just human. But completely missing calls and getting calls wrong brings everything they do into question.

When they blow a call it's it's immediately shown as an instant replay in slow motion from 3 or 4 different unobstructed angles. It's easy point out their mistakes when you're zoomed in and looking from multiple different perspectives at a few hundred frames per second. Not so easy when you're 15 yards away and watching the play live with bodies flying all around.

 

[Hoofbite]

Triplett's crew....not surprised

Me either. Every game I've seen of his has some odd call that you would never think could happen.

 

[KB1122]

Hey, what do you know? The Giants and their touch-football-loving, kickoff-hating, Cowboys-fining owner benefit from mysterious officiating once again.

 

[Doomsay]

Is it even a reviewable play?

You can challenge possession but how do you challenge the ruling of actually going to the ground when the player clearly ended up on the ground?

Yes, the question was whether or not the player maintained possession regardless of how he might have been deemed to have lost possession - a reviewable call.

 

[SportsGuru80]

All Dallas needs to do is win their remaining games like "good teams" should it will not matter, BOTTOM LINE!

 

[Beast_from_East]

Triplett's crew....not surprised

How is that ref still in the league?

His crew botches more games every year than anybody else.

I hope we dont get him in one of our games down the stretch.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes, the question was whether or not the player maintained possession regardless of how he might have been deemed to have lost possession - a reviewable call.

Clearly he didn't maintain possession. The ball went rolling away at the tail end of the play.

It's not a situation like a running back (or WR who they have deemed to have completed the catch) where the player can lose control of the ball after contacting the ground. If they decide that you are in the process of going to the ground you have to maintain possession until the bitter end. He got one foot down before contact was made and that contact took him to the ground.

From their perspective, he didn't complete the entire process so there's no need to challenge anything. He didn't have the ball at the end of the play and they had ruled he was going to the ground. Challenging possession does nothing because it's clear as day that he didn't hang on until it was all over and that is the requirement for completing the process.

I think the rule is flawed because it doesn't afford any opportunity to complete the process in instances like this where the player doesn't immediately go to the ground but the way it's written the right call was made and based on their ruling of him being in the process of going to the ground there is nothing they can actually look at to reverse it unless they changed the moment at which they determined he actually started to the ground.

I'm not sure they can even review that.

 

[Ratmatt]

After the game being handed to the Eagles does anyone really feel like there is nothing fishy going on?

No!

 

[Rack]

Refs are human and therefore susceptible to making mistakes. Because they're human they're also susceptible to corruption.

 

[Sarge]

Cowboys handle their business there wont be any need for foil hats.

Exactly - if we want the NFC East - take it. We control our own destiny...... No excuses - they are lame.

 

[Fredd]

refs, smefs....just win it on your own and stop worrying about the bad calls...if you go into the game with the thought that the refs will goon up some calls, and then they don't, it's like having the 12th man on the field....if they do screw up, then it is kinda an even playing field if you plan for it....get ahead by more than one score so you don't have to worry about it when the clock is late in the 4th

 

[Doomsay]

It's not a situation like a running back (or WR who they have deemed to have completed the catch) where the player can lose control of the ball after contacting the ground. If they decide that you are in the process of going to the ground you have to maintain possession until the bitter end. He got one foot down before contact was made and that contact took him to the ground.

He took 2-3 steps with the ball before he hit the ground and maintained sufficient control prior to hitting the ground to warrant a review. The fact that he had a defender draped on him is irrelevant. The initial call by the proximate official was a catch and it was subsequently overruled by another ref - that uncertainty alone warrants a review IMO. Had it been at the 2:01 mark the ruling on the field (a non-catch) would have been challenged. I believe that Garret called a timeout in the hopes of getting a booth review. Not saying that the (2nd) call (overturning the initial call) would have been reversed, but there is no reason for it not to have been reviewed.

 

[LOBO7]

Spoken like a man who has never been an ump, official or referee. And if you have, you need to stop now.

I am an ump. I may like certain teams, but I NEVER cater my calls to the coaches or teams I like or dislike.

It's called PROFESSIONALISM and INTEGRITY.

So when its to close to call , which way do you lean? Thats the point.