Jump to content

Worst Playoff Officiating (Non) Call Ever

Wally Pryor

By Wally Pryor
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

CurlyDumps

CurlyDumps 4446

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

Saints lost this game on their own, not because of one bad call.

I agree to an extent. The blown call has funneled all blame away from Payton’s “look at meeeeee!” play calls after the Ginn completion. Run the ball 3 times, force the Rams to use up their timeouts, kick a FG, and Saints probably win in regulation. But that smug fuck just had to prove he’s smarter than McVay.

Edited by CurlyDumps
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CurlyDumps

CurlyDumps 4446

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Irish Wrist Watch said:

I would be interested to know how the clock would have looked if Brees didn't throw the first incompletion and then the clock wasn't stopped after the non-call, and the Saints kick a FG. Also, how many TOs would the Rams have left.

Rams started the drive with 1:41 and 1 TO.

So subtract a timeout, about 30 seconds of running clock, plus a little extra time for 2 run plays vs 2 incompletions, maybe a minute or just under that with no timeouts.

Edited by CurlyDumps
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImissWallyPryor

ImissWallyPryor 9045

Posted
Posted

 

8 hours ago, Saint Tacky said:

Drew Pearson shoving off the Viking defensive back on the 1975 Hail Mary.  Should have been called for offensive pass interference.

Franco Harris' "Immaculate Reception" should have been waived off for breaking the "double touch" rule.

There was no bigger Vikings fan then me back in the 70s, and I screamed holy hell about that call for years. Now that I’m an objective adult, I’m not so sure Pearson shoved Nate Wright. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

 

There was no bigger Vikings fan then me back in the 70s, and I screamed holy hell about that call for years. Now that I’m an objective adult, I’m not so sure Pearson shoved Nate Wright. 

I'm an old school Cowboys fan and it always looked like Drew gave him a bit of a shove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImissWallyPryor

ImissWallyPryor 9045

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm an old school Cowboys fan and it always looked like Drew gave him a bit of a shove.

The end zone view is the best, and Pearson reaches back for the ball with both hands. I think Nate Wright left his feet before he located the ball, resulting in an awkward fall. 

1:25 mark...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14043

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm an old school Cowboys fan and it always looked like Drew gave him a bit of a shove.

drew put his hand on him.  the ball was underthrown drew made the adjustment first and wright lost his footing making it look way worse than it was. if there was a slight shove it was hard to see.

Pearson lived in my neighborhood and across the street from a good friend back in his playing days.  he'd come over and shoot with us every now and then in the summer. nice guy. /csb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irish Wrist Watch

Irish Wrist Watch 1349

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

Rams started the drive with 1:41 and 1 TO.

So subtract a timeout, about 30 seconds of running clock, plus a little extra time for 2 run plays vs 2 incompletions, maybe a minute or just under that with no timeouts.

You're calculations appear correct. If they start at the 25, they'd still likely get a shot at a FG, but there could only be one pass or so in the middle of the field.  They might have still pulled it off.  Payton would have looked pretty bad on that.

 

The first pass call was a good one. It's possible Brees threw it away (at the receiver's feet) when he saw a movement he didn't like on the part of a defender, although it looked like a pretty easy completion if he hadn't. Can't blame him for throwing on third down either. The receiver was pretty open.

In one of the replays, you can see two motherfucking refs standing within ten yards of the foul. Cowards of the first order. They had no business being NFL refs

Superbowl LIIIE is tainted.

Edited by Irish Wrist Watch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steamboat1874

Steamboat1874 4036

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

I can only assume that some of you guys don't watch much football, in which case, the events probably do seem very bang-bang.  On the other hand, watch football every weekend for 10 years or more and no, that was no close.  That no call was egregious. 

Been watching football for over 50 years.

Do I think it was interference?....yes.

Was it so obvious no one should have missed it?

No.

Neither ref can tell exactly where that ball is when the contact happened and when you look at the replays from the angles the refs have you can't either. The ball is right there in real time.

They swallowed their whistle so to speak late in a championship game. Happens way more often in basketball by the way. 

If the Saints would have stopped the Rams they could have still won just like the Chiefs if they would have stopped the Patriots.

End of story...get over it.

 

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Neither ref saw the helmet to helmet either, right?

 

selective enforcement of a ‘point of emphasis’ is the crime.

 

It’s fundamentally important to our league...except when it isn’t.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Been watching football for over 50 years.

Do I think it was interference?....yes.

Was it so obvious no one should have missed it?

No.

Neither ref can tell exactly where that ball is when the contact happened and when you look at the replays from the angles the refs have you can't either. The ball is right there in real time.

They swallowed their whistle so to speak late in a championship game. Happens way more often in basketball by the way. 

If the Saints would have stopped the Rams they could have still won just like the Chiefs if they would have stopped the Patriots.

End of story...get over it.

 

The ball was 3-5 yds away from the receiver when contact was made.  I'd like to see the angle that a ref had that would make that a difficult call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steamboat1874

Steamboat1874 4036

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The ball was 3-5 yds away from the receiver when contact was made.  I'd like to see the angle that a ref had that would make that a difficult call.

Here you go....not the first view but the first replay from the refs POV.

No way you can tell where that ball is in relation to the players involved if you are that ref.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Red Five said:

Watching it live, I thought it was strange that Lewis didn't argue the call. Just got up and jogged back. 

Thats because hindsight is 20-20. He probably thought they still had it in the bag. A 3 point lead with 1:40 left is usually a win also.  The blown call was bad, but the Saints defense did also abort itself on the field on the last Rams drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Here you go....not the first view but the first replay from the refs POV.

No way you can tell where that ball is in relation to the players involved if you are that ref.

 

Yeah it looks a bit close there, but the defender never makes a play for the ball, and then there's the helmet to helmet hit as the guy launches from his feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Thats because hindsight is 20-20. He probably thought they still had it in the bag. A 3 point lead with 1:40 left is usually a win also.  The blown call was bad, but the Saints defense did also abort itself on the field on the last Rams drive. 

He did make a gesture after he was heading back to the sideline thinking the flag was coming, and when it didn't he stands there with arms spread wide asking wtf ?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Surly Bevo

Surly Bevo 24716

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
12 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:
You are an idiot.
Watch the replay above moron.

We did. It was still an obvious call, especially when you consider the ref isn't watching on a 2D screen but in 3D ultra definition. You know, his eyes.

That call was the textbook, absolutely textbook definition of pass interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

The Saints receiver did not even think it was interference.

 

Yeah he did. watch the video, and you see he reacts as he's heading  back to the sideline when no flag comes out.  It was a really bad call. The receiver is clearly hit well before a catchable ball gets to him. That's PI all day long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steamboat1874

Steamboat1874 4036

Posted
Posted

There is no rule that says you have to make a play on the ball.

If you are at the receiver when the ball arrives you can make contact without looking for the ball. The helmet to helmet thing is something different however.

I think it was interference but I also can see how the ref would not call that. If a ref would have been at the exact spot of the two players it would probably be called but both of them were about 8 to 10 yards away on the sideline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8692

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

There is no rule that says you have to make a play on the ball.

If you are at the receiver when the ball arrives you can make contact without looking for the ball. The helmet to helmet thing is something different however.

I think it was interference but I also can see how the ref would not call that. If a ref would have been at the exact spot of the two players it would probably be called but both of them were about 8 to 10 yards away on the sideline.

This is an incredibly stupid hill to die on

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I think it was interference but I also can see how the ref would not call that. 

I am baffled anyone would say this. Imagine that was a Texas receiver and an OU DB did that. You'd really be saying "ah, them's the breaks, me and the ref have a difference of opinion on that there play"...?

It is amusing watching people strain to position themselves as the Voice of Reason in a debate that's not happening. This isn't a discussion over a shade of paint for the nursery, we're talking about a math problem. 2+2 is four. No one needs to pipe up with "I can see where you'd get three out of that equation". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CurlyDumps

CurlyDumps 4446

Posted
Posted

My theory is that the would-be penalized action was so unusually egregious that the refs' brains just failed to process what they saw in time.  How often do we see a DB just violently take a receiver out like that - that early? This was not your father's pass interference infraction.

They were so confused by what they saw,  the only explanation that made sense was the "both guys going for the ball" explanation. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irish Wrist Watch

Irish Wrist Watch 1349

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The ball was 3-5 yds away from the receiver when contact was made.  I'd like to see the angle that a ref had that would make that a difficult call.

One thing any ref should take into account is how the receiver is reacting to the ball. In this case, he was cupping his arms at his chest - his planned catch. He wasn't beginning to reach out or beginning to dive for a pass beyond his reach.  Likewise if a receiver is just beginning his jump and he's cut down or grabbed, it's obvious that the defender gets there before the ball, and it isn't for the ref to say it was uncatchable unless it is clearly out of reach.

We see this kind of interference in every fucking game in the NFL.

And yeah, the receiver was so certain PI would be called, he was practically celebrating on his jog back to the huddle, until he realizes the Cowards of LA County weren't going to call it.

Edited by Irish Wrist Watch
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gecko

gecko 1104

Posted
Posted

It's interference from every angle...that's not an open question.  I'm not invested in this outcome (I could care less about the Saints or the Rams)....I'm just trying fathom what the ref saw that caused him to come to a different conclusion.  I'm interested in all possible interpretations and conclusions, even Steamboats (but not Vic's)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54017

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, gecko said:

It's interference from every angle...that's not an open question.  I'm not invested in this outcome (I could care less about the Saints or the Rams)....I'm just trying fathom what the ref saw that caused him to come to a different conclusion.  I'm interested in all possible interpretations and conclusions, even Steamboats (but not Vic's)

3vP2z.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4050

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/21/2019 at 10:15 AM, Saint Tacky said:

Franco Harris' "Immaculate Reception" should have been waived off for breaking the "double touch" rule.

That's the view of the Make Believe and Pretend Raiders, one of whom admittedly concocted his own "conspiracy theory," his words, to "explain" how the NFL had a "vendetta," again his words, against the Raiders.

The reality is that there's no way in hell Jack Tatum didn't touch that ball. No ball bounces like that after a WR drops it while running in the opposite direction of where the ball goes flying like that. You don't need to be a Pittsburgh Steelers fan to believe that, you just need to understand basic laws of physics to understand it. When a ~10-pound leather football is thrown ~50-80 mph to the North to a WR running North-to-Northeast and when the ball hits him and only him, then bounces off his hands and travels fully 21 fucking feet to the fucking South, there's something else at play...like a DB who threw his forearm at the WR and in the process hits the ball as well.

Need more tangible evidence than my admittedly amateurish scientific take on it? Watch the video.

Go to 21:39 and you clearly see that Jack Tatum makes indisputably direct contact with the football. Now, it's quite true that it does look like after Tatum hits it that it then glances off of Fuqua's shoulder, but that's irrelevant because the double touch rule was deemed null and void the exact moment a defensive player touches the ball regardless of sequence (i.e. it doesn't matter who the last one to touch it was, just that the defensive player touched it at all). This is also why the correct call was made when, for example, John Mackey scored that long TD in Super Bowl 5: because while it was true that Eddie Hinton made contact with the ball, Mel Renfro very clearly made contact with it as well, which nullified the double touch rule (which never should have been a rule to begin with).

No, George Atkinson, Phil Villipiano and all those other whiny-assed Raiders are dead wrong to belittle that play as the "Immaculate Deception." Those are simply homerisms that have absolutely no truth in them whatsoever. And again, you don't need to be a Steelers fan to understand that. You just need to watch those 70's Raiders players in ANY of those Top 10 videos that the NFL Network shitted out like diarrhea in the past few years. They seriously believe that a Raider player should have topped EVERY one of those lists and they whine like crazy when they don't.

Edited by hpslugga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32710

Posted
Posted

Yeah I was raised to hate the Steelers as a Cowboys fan born in 1977, but that has always looked like a 100% clean play to me. Tatum clearly touched the ball from one angle, it also wouldn't have flown back like that if he hadn't. Although it's theoretically possible that he hit Fuqua's hands so hard that his hand knocked it back, that's very unlikely and you'll never get that called like that.

And the ball also didn't hit the turf. You can tell based on the top of the ball compared to Harris's leg. Unless Franco Harris has the shortest lower legs in history, that ball never touched the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54017

Posted
Posted

What I've found amazing is that every time using or extending instant replay is proposed in MLB or the NFL or wherever, you'll have a horde of people who show up railing against instant replay because "it will take the human element out of the game." 

I want to know where these people are now and if they're happy that "the human element" fucked the Saints?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard Kimball

Richard Kimball 1492

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

What I've found amazing is that every time using or extending instant replay is proposed in MLB or the NFL or wherever, you'll have a horde of people who show up railing against instant replay because "it will take the human element out of the game." 

I want to know where these people are now and if they're happy that "the human element" fucked the Saints?

As a person who doesn't like replay, a couple of thoughts.

A non-called penalty is not a reviewable play, and I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested allowing coaches to challenge a non-called penalty. 

To me, it's not the matter of taking out the "human element," it's the fact that it delays the game, increases bickering, and most of the reviewed calls are so close, they could go either way. 

College basketball seems to have done a good job of implementing review without slowing down the game, but for the most part, I'd rather take a bad call every so often than have to deal with the five minute commercial breaks that happen with every review. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard Kimball

Richard Kimball 1492

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah I was raised to hate the Steelers as a Cowboys fan born in 1977, but that has always looked like a 100% clean play to me. Tatum clearly touched the ball from one angle, it also wouldn't have flown back like that if he hadn't. Although it's theoretically possible that he hit Fuqua's hands so hard that his hand knocked it back, that's very unlikely and you'll never get that called like that.

And the ball also didn't hit the turf. You can tell based on the top of the ball compared to Harris's leg. Unless Franco Harris has the shortest lower legs in history, that ball never touched the ground.

What you say is true, but you left out "fuck the Steelers."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13125

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

The NFL said it was interference. The db said it was fucking interference!  It's not even up for debate because it's so fucking obvious.

Eh it is a judgement call. I thought maybe the Ref thought it was uncatchable...who knows what he was looking at. But it is hardly the worst call ever.

But it is not like if it was called the Saints automatically win the game. They were not even ahead at the time. They should have stopped the Rams. Or not turned it over in overtime. The Rams won the game.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...