Umpire was out of position

Or maybe if we take away 1/3 of the penalties in that game maybe we aren't in that position at the end of the game.

 

No disrespect intended this is complete and total BS.and I can prove it with a simple question.

Are you saying you've never seen a Major League Umpire call the same pitch in same location in the same game differently depending on the pitcher throwing it?

( And forget all the modern K-Zone stuff this has gone on forever and you could see it 30 years ago too.)

Simple yes or no will do.

 

playoff games are many times decided by moments like this. that is why there is so much frustration. People can say that well cowboys should have never been in that position to begin with and so forth but fact is, its the playoffs with 2 equally matched teams and its what happens in these moments that determines the outcome.

The ref being 25 yards away at the end of the play was inexcusable. Why was he so far behind? He should have been running forward as the play unfolded. That was my biggest beef with the ref.

But if we want to spotlight the refs mistakes on that play, we must also highlight the mistakes made by the cowboys that exacerbated the refs mistakes.

The lack of awareness by the Cowboys to make sure the ref either gets the ball or can easily touch the ball was obvious. To have assigned a "ball handler" to make sure the ball gets where it needs to be would have been helpful. To make sure everyone knows their assignments. Dak go, slide. Ball handler grab the ball and find ref. everyone else, RUN to your position.

And lastly the snap should have most definitely lead to a play, not a spike. If this run play was drawn up during the timeout, then it should have immediately been followed up by a "hail mary" play. Don't even try to spike cause there likely won't be enough time...which there wasn't.

But as the play unfolded it just seemed like the cowboys were all out of sorts. They needed to be a machine there and they weren't. Game over.

 

I already know the comeback will be” feel free to leave“, but comments like this and the hatred by some is why I am getting closer and closer to leaving this group that I used to love for its information and discussion

 

No you're right - that's out of order to post here, period. You can think whatever you like say whatever you like in the freedom - and privacy - of your home, but that's just bang out of order to say publicly, and I am someone who in the privacy of my home has said some very strong things about officials across sports. They are things I would never say publicly or even at a sports bar with good buds. The worst thing I have done outside my home is join in with 10,000 or or so Arsenal supporters in giving a referee the finger - the whole North Bank Lower back at Highbury. giving him the finger at once.

 

This really is the sole issue

Thing is there are not set rules on that. The Umpire is supposed to be there to mark the ball. There is no rule about the players finding the ball and handing it to the ref. In fact as we have seen players can spot the ball. The Umpire will if he is comfortable it is set in the right place simply tap the ball . That is the fact. Show me the NFL Rule that states otherwise. No worries - you can't because there is none.. The Simple truth is the Umpire did a woefully inadequate job of being in position to quickly spot the ball, period. He was literally over thirty yards behind the play when Dak slid down., the referee clearly reacted more quickly and appeared at least a second before the umpire did there. Watch the wide angle video and you can see clearly the umpire is well behind the referee in even beginning to approach the new position where the ball, meaning that even if some such rule w=existed it would impossible there because that officla was too far behind the play to make it possible.

[QUOTE="Homer, post: 11673261, member: 20450]"And lastly the snap should have most definitely lead to a play, not a spike. If this run play was drawn up during the timeout, then it should have immediately been followed up by a "hail mary" play. Don't even try to spike cause there likely won't be enough time...which there wasn't.[/QUOTE]

They never should have called that play. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the officiating crew did its job correctly and properly.

[QUOTE="Homer, post: 11673261, member: 20450] But as the play unfolded it just seemed like the cowboys were all out of sorts. They needed to be a machine there and they weren't. Game over.[/QUOTE]

Even if they were a machine as you say the most importance piece of the machinery was waiting 30 yards back up the field forGod knows what reason...

 

You can prove bias with a simple question.
Bias involves MOTIVATION. Unless you can wrestle a confession from someone, you can't prove bias.
No disrespect intended, but the complexities of humanness don't comport to simple "yes" or "no" answers.

 

You have 2 shots at the end zone!! Period. That run with no timeouts was flat out ridiculous! But they had an opportunity earlier and simply couldn’t get it done!

 

We “ lost the game “ when at midfield before the half your moving in position to kick a FG be down 6 at the half instead you get zero nothing . 16-10 at half plus getting the ball begin 3rd quarter things were looking up until they weren’t ….down 9 instead of 6 was huge .

 

It’s so sincerely stupid to think “hmmm, humans are prone to biases…..refs are humans….I’ve proven the conspiracy!!!!”

How some of these people function as adults is beyond.

 

The guy behind the LOS is likely trained to stay in his spot until the play is over. Can't expect a ref to jog alongside the guy with the ball so he can grab it the moment the player is down.

 

I take it back, Dak was in fact boned by the ref yesterday.

 

First off you aren't in a court of law, there is no standard of proof required. Nobody's going to jail no matter what, so don't apply some false standard here.

You won't answer the question because you know as well as I do that star pitchers get latitude on balls and strikes less renowned or experienced pitchers do. They get bigger wider strike zones and always have. It's subconcious bias and what motivates as you say is the only thing that's not easy to determine. But its existence is easy to see.. Just like top defensive backs will get away shirt tugs and arm-bars other defenders never would. Remember Deion Sanders arm-barring Michael Irvin in the 1994 Championship Game? That DPI all day long on most DB s but not Deion because he was that good, he got the benefit of the doubt, which is a form of subsconcious bias, Every great DB gets awy with things rookie DBs or less renowned DBs don't? Why because they're the best and thus when they do it they get what they call across the pond "the benefit of the doubt" repeatedly

A more notorious example beyond football would be Christian Laettner stamping on Aminu Timberlake's chest in the 1992 NCAA Regional Final. It was deliberate and normally would or should have led to an automatic ejection but only a technical was given and Laettner ended up hitting the winning shot and that's all people want to remember. Think that if Laettner wasn't an All-American playing for the defending National Champions. Lattner's doesn't get ejected? Again subconscious bias. I could say more on this incident but won't here. Or Michael's Jordan's last winning shot for Chicago on which he got away with one of the most blatant push-offs you'll ever see to create room to shoot.. But all anyone remembers now are those two shots not the actions that preceded and should have prevented them.

Back to your sport baseball. Everyone knows certain star pitchers throughout the history of the game got called strikes on balls outside the strike zone no other pitchers got because the umpires respected their perfomance and excellence and achievements. Again subconcious bias. And don't even get me started on international football or if you choose soccer

Look referees have a tough job, but that doesn't excuse doing it incompetently or inconsistently or based on bias, subconscious or otherwise.. But it also doesn't excuse major league sports from working to make the referee's job as easy as possible, not by eliminating the human element but by making the human element less impactful on the rules their enforcement or the consequences of either.. In fairness that won't help so much at the high school (as far as I have gone coaching basketball), but at the Major League Level absolutely can across all sports. It won't eliminate the human factor at all, nor it will entirely eliminate the potential to minimize officiating's impact on game outcomes immediately, but anything that improves officiating and helps on-field officials officiate more competently, more consistently, and with less room for subconscious biases impacting should be welcome by all fans in all sports.

 

The former NFL Director of Officiating Dean Blandino absolutely disagrees and said so in an interview Monday.. I would guess he would know.

 

Wasn't BlindWino was the guy who overturned the Dez catch on the field?

 

Yes lol and and cute as that name is isn't it a bit of a stretch? Actually that should tell you he honestly believes the refs blew it yesterday..

 

Let it go.

 

Too long, didn't read beyond the first sentence.

I'll just say this: establishing proof isn't just for a court of law. If you're going to accuse a ref of bias, i.e., purposely making calls against a team he doesn't like, then, yes, I'm requiring proof.

Second, have you umpired or refereed games involving men or/and young men in which you must make a call in a split second?

If so, then we'll resume this conversation about bias as I will ask you to explain if any of your calls included bias.

If your answer is "no" you haven't officiated any sports events, then my insight trumps your lack of experience.

I KNOW what I'm talking about based on like EXPERIENCE. You can only guess.

 

Didn't you get the memo: he was definitely biased against the Cowboys then. This time, he's being objective.

Funny how that works.

 

Dak started to slide at the 25, so that's where the ball should have been spotted. But when the Cowboys lined up, they were at like the 23.5-yard-line. So technically, the ref should have not only touched the ball, the ball should have been moved to the 25. But the ump only moved the ball back about 1/2 yard in all the commotion (but you can see him TRYING to move the ball back further, but he couldn't stretch that far with the Center standing right there).

So, sure, the ump may been out of position and cost the Cowboys a few seconds...but if the ump would have picked up the ball and moved it back to the 25 as he should have, and then the Cowboys offense would have had to walk back as well to reset at the 25, they still wouldn't have had time to spike it.

Thus, it was a bad decision to try to run for 15 yards and then spike it. I think Dak over ran it. I bet the play was to run for about 10 and then slide, but Dak ran an extra 5 yards, and it was just too far...too far the ump to make it.

Just too much risk involved.

So I blame all of them...meaning Moore and McCarthy for calling such a risky play in the headset, and then Dak for getting greedy.

You're better off trying to get 10 to 15 yards in the air near the sideline, and if it's incomplete, then at least you still have time for one Hail Mary.

Question: In that situation with an offense with no TOs and like 15 seconds, can a receiver catch the ball in the middle of the field for like 10 to 15 yards, and then instead of trying to run the ball out of bounds to stop the clock, can the receiver just throw it to the sideline and backwards a few yards right out of bounds to stop the clock (just throwing it in the air like a pass to no one right out of bounds)? It would basically be an intentional lateral out of bounds to stop the clock? What's the rule that says you can't do that? Sure, the ball would be placed at the spot the lateral/fumble goes out of bounds, but at least you would gain some yards, yet still be able to stop the clock. Is this legal? I've never seen it done, but why not?