The Raidahs got screwed!!! Conspiracy!!!!

[freak]

With about 2:20 left, Rice was pushed out of bounds, but the clock kept running.

CONSPIRACY!!!! The refs cost Chokeland the game!!!!!!!

Originally posted by freak
With about 2:20 left, Rice was pushed out of bounds, but the clock kept running.

CONSPIRACY!!!! The refs cost Chokeland the game!!!!!!!

Fortunately we won't have to listen to all of the whining about the refs this year. "Yeah, Gannon's five picks didn't cost them the game, the referees did."

But on a serious note, didn't you think that the officiating was inexcusable? It was terrible. Now it didn't cost Oakland the game but that does not in my opinion make those calls acceptable.

Exhibit "A" -- the call that went against Tampa on the opening kick off (which you mentioned in another post.) It was later reversed on review -- but how the HELL did it get called incorrectly in the first place? A screw up that significant in the business world would cost you a job.

Exhibit "B" -- the ruling that the receiver's feet "DID NOT come down in bounds" upon review. How can you be the Back Judge -- standing on the line at the back of the endzone by definition -- with the play happening in your FACE, and not see the contact that caused him to come down out of bounds? This guy's sole responsibility on that play was limited to the portion of the rule book that pertains to boundary infractions -- the only portion of the rule book relevant on the play. AND to make matters worse he rule emphatically that the player was out of bounds -- not pushed out of bounds. Unbelievable. He was not only wrong -- he was emphatic about it which in my mind says he never saw the play.

Exhibit "C" -- Jerry Rice being tackled in bounds. Are these guys high? Rice was still STANDING when he was pushed in the back out of bounds! What part of that was a tackle and what part of that incurred in bounds?

The officiating in the league has reached a level of ineptness that is laughable. It is a disgrace to football and although the Raiders lost that game for many reasons not related to the officiating, that fact does not excuse it. They need to take more authority away from the officials on the field with respect to what can and cannot be reviewed and reversed. This season has thoroughly demonstrated that they cannot handle it.

[freak]

Originally posted by NoRespect
Exhibit "B" -- the ruling that the receiver's feet "DID NOT come down in bounds" upon review. How can you be the Back Judge -- standing on the line at the back of the endzone by definition -- with the play happening in your FACE, and not see the contact that caused him to come down out of bounds?

Here's the deal. I don't think they could challenge whether he was forced out. It seems to be like a penalty, which is a judgement call. So to rule his feet didn't come down in bounds, is just simply stating facts.

And I disagree he would have come down in bounds. At first I thought he was pushed out. There was a camera angle from the back judge's position, that I found interesting. I thought his right foot was coming down half in, and half out of the end zone, and then he got pushed.

Exhibit "C" -- Jerry Rice being tackled in bounds. Are these guys high? Rice was still STANDING when he was pushed in the back out of bounds! What part of that was a tackle and what part of that incurred in bounds?

Hence my using this bad call to rip the Faidahs.

Originally posted by freak
Here's the deal. I don't think they could challenge whether he was forced out. It seems to be like a penalty, which is a judgement call. So to rule his feet didn't come down in bounds, is just simply stating facts.

And I disagree he would have come down in bounds. At first I thought he was pushed out. There was a camera angle from the back judge's position, that I found interesting. I thought his right foot was coming down half in, and half out of the end zone, and then he got pushed.


Freak:

I realize it wasn't reviewable. However that's the part I have a problem with. The guy missed the call in my mind -- the method of how he missed it is irrelevant. In other words, when you are challenging the very fact that the official acted competently or not, anything the official did such as blow a whistle, signal a penalty, throw a flag -- any of HIS actions or the actions of ANOTHER official are irrelevant. Challenge the f-n play, give them a second chance to be wrong and move on. There is no reason for that call to be beyond the scope of review. NONE. If that call wasn't clearly illustrative of the very reason you have a review nothing is.

We will never know if his foot would or wouldn't have come down by his own momentum in bounds because of the amount of contact. By definition that is why it HAD to be ruled a catch in my opinion. If it is too close to call -- and there is enough contact to change his trajectory -- that "proves" the rule in the first place. Either way, it SHOULD have been subject to the review process. Not a meaningless review in which they tell us the sky is blue, but the answer to the question that prompted the review in first place. In other words allow everything to be reviewed -- or tell the coach that his review cannot reverse the call. Better yet change the friggin' rules so that it CAN. Talk about irony -- the proof of the official's incompetence is GRANTING a review that is meaningless!!!

Sorry but nothing p-sses me off more than officiating in the NFL. It has become the poster child for failure and stupidity. Our government gets more right than they do.