Tin foil hat time again

[Richmond Cowboy]

If corruption was to the level that some of you believe (the entire league conspiring to keep games close and conspiring against one team) someone, at some point would have gone rogue by now and exposed them. There's always a disgruntled employee or an ex-official who realizes how wrong it is that would expose the league. Not even the NSA or CIA can keep their ex-employees from talking and you think the NFL somehow has gone all these years with referees earning $25,000-$75,000/year from talking and adhering to some code of secrecy?

 

[visionary]

If corruption was to the level that some of you believe (the entire league conspiring to keep games close and conspiring against one team) someone, at some point would have gone rogue by now and exposed them. There's always a disgruntled employee or an ex-official who realizes how wrong it is that would expose the league. Not even the NSA or CIA can keep their ex-employees from talking and you think the NFL somehow has gone all these years with referees earning $25,000-$75,000/year from talking and adhering to some code of secrecy?

if you have been reading this board long enough (as you have) you should already know that:

God is against us (because we are snake bit and who creates bad luck?)
The NFL is against us
The NFL referees union is against us
the media is against us (after all who puts out those 'false' stories to 'stir things up'?)

it is not our talent acquisition and poor coaching that causes us to lose

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

You should really go read the rule.

 

[Doomsay]

You should really go read the rule.

What rule is that?

 

[gimmesix]

When Dallas gets bad calls it's purely to hold the team back.

When other teams get bad calls, rather than just admit that officiating sucks across the league we have now begun to connect dots and trace that bad call back to Dallas in order to show that the officials really hate Dallas.

You guys know that point where a conspiracy has become so big that it's almost impossible it could even be true simply because of the number of people involved would have meant that someone spilled the beans?

That's where we are at.

I don't buy into any conspiracy theories, but I do think there is some "luck of the draw" when it comes to bad calls, especially when the team you follow is almost always in tight games.

It seems to me that Dallas ends up on the bad side of that more than benefiting from it.

Again, I don't think that's because anyone's out to get Dallas, but simply because bad calls are going to happen and you have to hope they don't end up affecting your team more than any other. Dallas just seems to get affected more (again, mainly because of all the close games the Cowboys play).

 

[Doomsay]

You should really go read the rule.

COMPLTED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms p
rior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands ; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching
a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

I understand that you are focusing on the player going to the ground clause, but if "(c)" had been satisfied, then the ball has already been caught and the only question is whether the runner (having already caught the ball) lost control of the ball before he hit the ground, which is a fumble issue, not a possession issue.

So the question IMO is whether Dez made a football move while in possession of the ball therefore establishing possession in clause "(c)" prior to the act of going to the ground and whether that should have been reviewed. I've seen players establish "(c)" with less control and time then Dez had in that instance, but it might not have been sufficient. It was close enough to have the ref that was there initially call it a completion and a non-fumble.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If corruption was to the level that some of you believe (the entire league conspiring to keep games close and conspiring against one team) someone, at some point would have gone rogue by now and exposed them. There's always a disgruntled employee or an ex-official who realizes how wrong it is that would expose the league. Not even the NSA or CIA can keep their ex-employees from talking and you think the NFL somehow has gone all these years with referees earning $25,000-$75,000/year from talking and adhering to some code of secrecy?

That NBA referee came out and called out corruption. Baseball is full of umpires getting in yelling matches and other such histrionics.

I actually think that the NFL runs a pretty tight ship compared to other sport. I just don't understand why they let Demarcus Ware get held with an official looking right at it over and again.

 

[Doomsay]

You should really go read the rule.

Watch the Dez catch and fumble in the Thanksgiving game - 2 steps... (control) then fumble. Giant's game, 3 steps.... (control), and then, no fumble, because the ground caused it.

Just

 

[tyke1doe]

So said Ted Donaghy...

Yeah, one bad example out of a sea of good examples. That sure establishes a trend.

 

[tyke1doe]

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

I go with what I believe to be the right call. Situations move so fast, and you're so focused on getting the call right, you don't have time to think about bias.
I'm not saying bad calls can't be made or that no official has ever cheated. But the game is moving so fast, you are more focused trying get the call right rather than thinking, "Now how can I screw this team."
That NEVER enters my mind.
And if that enters a ref's mind, he's really not going to be officiating for long.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'll bet you don't have a real rooting interest for any of those "certain teams" the way you have a rooting interest for a professional team like, say, the Cowboys.

Sometimes dislike is more powerful than fan affiliation. There were two particular coaches I disliked as individuals. Yet, I didn't make calls against them when I could have. I was focused on making the right call.

And you're lying if you say that you'd be 100% impartial if you ever were the ump of a Cowboys game. Those 50/50 calls that could legitimately go either way would be very easy to see through blue-colored glasses. Especially if it was a very important play late in a big game.

And that's why people who are diehard fans of a particular team should recuse themselves from officiating that game. That's what professionals do. When they notice a conflict of interest, they recuse themselves from the situation so they can't be accused in any way of harboring bias.
I doubt any referee has a strong affinity or bias against a particular team. Besides, supporting one's self and one's family is a stronger motivation than team bias.
These referees want to continue being paid by the NFL. They're not going to jeopardize a good gig and one that is very difficult to obtain just to be bias against a particular team.

Take the late 4th down pass by the 49ers vs the Ravens in the Super Bowl. A play that easily could've been called either way. You're telling me that if you're the ref standing right there and you grew up as a diehard 49ers fan, you're not throwing that flag? C'mon.
The Cardinals got the raw end of 2 TERRIBLE calls late in Philly. And they just so happened to come on the 2 biggest stops of the game by the Cardinals D. An INT that would've set them up beautifully with a chance to win or at least tie the game, then a stop that would've forced the Eagles to kick a FG and allow the Cards one last chance with the ball and a minute left trailing by 6.

And this establishes bias and cheating, how?

Sorry, I'm not buying that the timing of those calls was a coincidence. You can defend them all you like, but you also would've defended Tim Donaghy's work before that whole scandal came out.

Well, if you've been following this conversation, I've been asking in other threads claiming referee bias where is the proof. In the case of Donaghy, there was proof. So, naturally, I would not side with him. But Donaghy, until proven otherwise (notice the word "proven"), is the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE.

You can't build or establish a pattern based on one example.
And, remember, correlation does not equate causation.
Just because bad calls are made that doesn't mean the cause of those bad calls are bias or cheating.

I guess you were making some point there.

 

[tyke1doe]

I too officiate and that is what is supposed to happen, but in normal cases human beings can be influenced by their surroundings. And I know every official won't make up stuff but if a player or coach has been a pain in the butt you are much less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt on any gray area call.

So are you admitting as an official you let bias influence your calls?

All I know is that everything officials in every sport strive for like consistency of type of call and if something has not been called that way all game it damn well should not be called in the final minutes is seriously lacking.

I'm sorry, you loss me.

 

[tyke1doe]

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?

Who said that? I didn't.
I gave you a general statement about umpires and officials. But I'm not claiming refs are bias. Others on this forum are. And if you are, I'm asking for proof to substantiate that claim. Otherwise, it's just an uninformed, unsubstantiated opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

 

[blindzebra]

So are you admitting as an official you let bias influence your calls?



I'm sorry, you loss me.

Your comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

I said it is human nature that a player or coach that has been a pain in the butt will not get the benefit of the doubt of a gray area or 50/50 call. And if you tell me that your strike zone never got a bit larger for a batter complaining all game about balls and strikes or smaller for a pitcher doing the same than you are lying.

And I seriously doubt you really officiate if you don't know that calls should be consistent and if it is not a foul in the first quarter it should not be a foul the final minutes of the game.

 

[Tabascocat]

Refs and umpires can be bias. Not all of them, but some. I'll give two baseball examples:

1. Glaving and Maddux - years of watching them pitch, they got more called strikes than any other pitcher I have ever seen.
2. Ike Davis - he is known for throwing fits over called balls and strikes. Now, he rarely gets the benefit of doubt on calls because he whines constantly.

Umpires do take mental notes on players and their tendencies. If it is a questionable play, you can bet it will go against them in most cases. I have lived through it all of the way through the college level.

As for football, I don't know enough to say, but it does exist in MLB and the NBA, so it is probably in the NFL to some extent. They don't go out of their way to screw someone but they will give the benefit of the doubt to certain players.

 

[tyke1doe]

Your comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

Which is why I asked a question? You do understand that people ask questions when they're not sure of what is being said or when they're lacking in understanding, right?

I said it is human nature that a player or coach that has been a pain in the butt will not get the benefit of the doubt of a gray area or 50/50 call. And if you tell me that your strike zone never got a bit larger for a batter complaining all game about balls and strikes or smaller for a pitcher doing the same than you are lying.

Or maybe I take my integrity seriously?

Again, I ask you, since you officiate, have you ever exhibited bias in the above scenario you described?

And I seriously doubt you really officiate if you don't know that calls should be consistent and if it is not a foul in the first quarter it should not be a foul the final minutes of the game.

What?
Where did I say calls shouldn't be consistent?
And if you doubt I officiate, it's no skin of my back. I really don't care. I know what I do. What you believe or don't believe does not establish truth. Only I know the truth in this case, and my knowledge is sufficient enough.

 

[Hoofbite]

Watch the Dez catch and fumble in the Thanksgiving game - 2 steps... (control) then fumble. Giant's game, 3 steps.... (control), and then, no fumble, because the ground caused it.

Just

I still don't think you understand the actual rule.

It's not that the ground caused the fumble. It's that they said he was going to the ground so the actual process of completing the catch was not complete. He was "in the process".

The rule says that you haven't completed a catch until the process is over. It's not about "steps" (or whatever you want to call getting a foot down) either. Not that anyone would call just getting a foot down an actual "step". You don't need to take "2 steps" when your pinned up against the sideline. He had completed 99% of his "step" prior to the ball arriving. He got 1 foot down after catching the ball but before contact was made.

The contact took him to the ground. Therefore he didn't satisfy B prior to them ruling that he started "going to the ground". That's where the 2 plays differ.

On Thanksgiving he caught the ball, got both feet down, and then made a move prior to the contact.

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms p
rior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands ; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Ultimately "steps" don't even matter because you can touch the ground with other parts of your body. If you're going to the ground odds are another part of your body is going to touch the ground before the ball would come out. It just doesn't matter because once you start going to the ground you have to maintain possession.

Here's an example from the 2012 casebook.

A.R. 8.10 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. The
contact by B1 sends him across the goal line and to the ground in the end zone. The ball comes out as he hits the ground.

Ruling: Second-and-10 on B25. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the
catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

Minus the goal line, the situation is almost exactly what happened with Dez. The only way he can complete the catch after the first contact appears to be by making a move common to the game. He didn't.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard
line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he
hits the ground.

Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the
process of making the catch.

He was contacted after getting 1 foot down and the contact took him to the ground.

As I said, the rule doesn't provide an opportunity to complete the process if the player is going to the ground over an extended period of time. I think the rule is flawed but it is what it is.

 

[blindzebra]

Which is why I asked a question? You do understand that people ask questions when they're not sure of what is being said or when they're lacking in understanding, right?



Or maybe I take my integrity seriously?

Again, I ask you, since you officiate, have you ever exhibited bias in the above scenario you described?



What?
Where did I say calls shouldn't be consistent?
And if you doubt I officiate, it's no skin of my back. I really don't care. I know what I do. What you believe or don't believe does not establish truth. Only I know the truth in this case, and my knowledge is sufficient enough.

So early in the game a player or coach reaches the line for an ejection with your partner and gets warned.

Later in the game that same player or coach again reaches that line so you eject them.

The individual act in either case was not worthy of an ejection yet you are letting one influence the second...that is bias.

You have been giving the black all game but after countless complaints your sub-conscience will take over. You won't think about screwing them...it is not even screwing them...it is not going their way on that borderline call.

As for the NFL explain how teams like the Raiders always are near the top in penalties? Different coaches, different players, even a new owner now that Al is gone yet there they are. They have a reputation, and because of that those close calls rarely go their way.

 

[blindzebra]

I still don't think you understand the actual rule.

It's not that the ground caused the fumble. It's that they said he was going to the ground so the actual process of completing the catch was not complete. He was "in the process".

The rule says that you haven't completed a catch until the process is over. It's not about "steps" (or whatever you want to call getting a foot down) either. Not that anyone would call just getting a foot down an actual "step". You don't need to take "2 steps" when your pinned up against the sideline. He had completed 99% of his "step" prior to the ball arriving. He got 1 foot down after catching the ball but before contact was made.

The contact took him to the ground. Therefore he didn't satisfy B prior to them ruling that he started "going to the ground". That's where the 2 plays differ.

On Thanksgiving he caught the ball, got both feet down, and then made a move prior to the contact.



Ultimately "steps" don't even matter because you can touch the ground with other parts of your body. If you're going to the ground odds are another part of your body is going to touch the ground before the ball would come out. It just doesn't matter because once you start going to the ground you have to maintain possession.

Here's an example from the 2012 casebook.



Minus the goal line, the situation is almost exactly what happened with Dez. The only way he can complete the catch after the first contact appears to be by making a move common to the game. He didn't.



He was contacted after getting 1 foot down and the contact took him to the ground.

As I said, the rule doesn't provide an opportunity to complete the process if the player is going to the ground over an extended period of time. I think the rule is flawed but it is what it is.

And yet they awarded Cruz a TD in the first Giants game on exactly the same type of play.

 

[tyke1doe]

So early in the game a player or coach reaches the line for an ejection with your partner and gets warned.

Later in the game that same player or coach again reaches that line so you eject them.

The individual act in either case was not worthy of an ejection yet you are letting one influence the second...that is bias.

You have been giving the black all game but after countless complaints your sub-conscience will take over. You won't think about screwing them...it is not even screwing them...it is not going their way on that borderline call.

As for the NFL explain how teams like the Raiders always are near the top in penalties? Different coaches, different players, even a new owner now that Al is gone yet there they are. They have a reputation, and because of that those close calls rarely go their way.

You must be a great dodge ball player.

You totally ignored my question. How interesting.

Let me ask you again: You said you officiate sports contests. Then you presented scenarios which you felt would invite bias from an official. I asked you in those cases would you allow your bias to impact your officiating.

You never answered the question, and I suspect why.

1. You really don't officiate games or if you do, it's with 3 year olds.
2. You KNOW that admitting bias would rule you unfit to be an official.
3. You KNOW that as an official you are compelled to put your bias aside.
4. You like to live in the world of hypotheticals rather than the world of actuals. Everything is possible in the world of hypotheticals. In the real world, not so much.

My point is this: for the most part, refs and officials are so concentrated on the game, they don't have time for bias. For the most part, refs who favor a certain team out of professionalism and to avoid conflict of interest won't officiate those games. (I won't ump my son's games to avoid the perception of bias.) Because officials are human, they make bad calls. Sure, if a team has a reputation of dirty play, officials are going to look closely at that. But that's not bias.
However, officials generally don't have "favorite" teams or aren't diehard fans like those found on sports message boards. You really can't be a good official if you have a routing interest in a team. Being a diehard fan would render you ineffective as a referee.
Furthermore, being a professional official is a job. When people are trying to feed themselves and their families, that takes precedence over the allegiance to a particular team. And if you are suspected to have bias, you will be kicked out of the league quick, fast and a hurry.

Besides, no one has established a link between bad calls and bias. Again, correlation does not equal causation.