NFL REFS are CHEATERS!

[pig devilz]

The refs cheated. They used instant review to determine the FG was good when the rules clearly prohibit them from doing so.

 

what is the exact writing of the rule?...do you have a link?...i can't find it.

 

i understand your 'letter of the law' approach to this....not saying i disagree with you.

but a clear reading of the rule would clear it up, not just a loose interpretation of it.

 

a rule is a rule. but what is the exact rule?

[Grits and Shins]

what is the exact writing of the rule?...do you have a link?...i can't find it.

 

i understand your 'letter of the law' approach to this....not saying i disagree with you.

but a clear reading of the rule would clear it up, not just a loose interpretation of it.

 

a rule is a rule. but what is the exact rule?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3120230

 

Non-reviewable calls

Here are nine types of plays the NFL lists as falling outside the scope of replay review.

1. Status of the clock

2. Proper down

3. Penalty administration

4. Runner ruled down by defensive contact (not involving fumbles)

5. Forward progress not relating to first down or goal line

6. Forceouts

7. Recovery of loose ball in the field of play

8. Field goals

9. Inadvertent whistle

[justin]

what is the exact writing of the rule?...do you have a link?...i can't find it.

 

i understand your 'letter of the law' approach to this....not saying i disagree with you.

but a clear reading of the rule would clear it up, not just a loose interpretation of it.

 

a rule is a rule. but what is the exact rule?

 

 

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/...%20RULEBOOK.pdf

 

NFL Rule 15 - Section 9

[loaf]

1 ref said it was good ,1 said it was bad.They went under the hood to see if they could review and were told no.The ref who said it went through won over the ref who said it didnt by convincing the head official.

why this isn't understood by blutz is cause of his incessant need to argue

[Grits and Shins]

why this isn't understood by blutz is cause of his incessant need to argue

 

I understand that you fell for that line of crap. It doesn't take 15 minutes to make a call. They cheated and used instant review ... wonder if one of them was on Cleveland's payroll?

[keggerz]

1. at the RAVENS showing the play on the jumbotron for the officials to look at it if they wanted too. I wonder if the RAVENS dude that is in charge of the Jumbotron thought the FG was actually bad was hoping the REFS would see the replay.

 

2. Sounds like someone might be upset that a draft pick that a particular team has isnt going to be as good as they thought it was

 

 

If you really want to know what happened you should send Bill Belicheat an email and ask him....i am sure he still has all the stadiums wired for sound and video

[loaf]

whatever dude, refs are cheaters. Just ask bushwacked

[Ziachild007]

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/...%20RULEBOOK.pdf

 

NFL Rule 15 - Section 9

 

at the Ravens fan having the exact rule and section.

[keggerz]

why this isn't understood by blutz is cause of his incessant need to argue he is mad that the pick his girls owns via the browns isnt gonna be top 5

fixed

[Whiskey Pimp]

This game was in Baltimore wasn't it? If so, maybe the Jumbo Tron operator shouldn't have replayed the play if that's where the refs got their call from. You know, like when the home team takes their time showing a replay when the visiting team is trying to decide whether to challenge a call or not. Either way, the correct call was made.

[MikesVikes]

The refs called up to the booth. The booth told the ref that they had lots of money riding on the Browns winning this game and could they please overturn the call.

 

The ref asked what was in it for him. Booth said that they would make it worth his while.

 

Call got overturned.

 

I don't have a problem with that.

 

 

[Rovers]

I meant to post this last week.

 

The rule is cut and dried ... no review on field goals.

 

Yet last week in the CLE-BAL game they reversed the call on the field of NO FIELD GOAL after 15 minutes of deliberation. Did a ref on the field actually stick his head under a hood and review the play, no ... but he got on the horn with the guy in the booth and took his cue from him.

 

This is a blatant selective intrepretation of the rules.

 

 

 

They got the call right. Now, It's raining men! Hallelulah! It's raining men! were you goin off about?

[pig devilz]

thanks for the PDF link....looks like if they didn't go under the hood, it was legit

to discuss the call and even look at the Jumbo Tron. A Replay Review is done by using

'a field level monitor'.....seems like he didn't do an Official Review by definition.

Discussion among the officials is allowed, and that is what they did.

 

NFL Rule 15 Section 9

Reviews by Referee. All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level

monitor after consultation with the other covering official(s), prior to review. A decision

will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him

that warrants the change.

Reviewable Plays. The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:

(a) Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line:

1. Scoring Plays, including a runner breaking the plane of the goal line.

2. Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone, and end

line.

3. Runner/receiver in or out of bounds.

4. Recovery of loose ball in or out of bounds.

( Passing Plays:

1. Pass ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted in the field of play.

2. Touching of a forward pass by an ineligible receiver.

3. Touching of a forward pass by a defensive player.

4. Quarterback (Passer) forward pass or fumble.

5. Illegal forward pass beyond line of scrimmage.

6. Illegal forward pass after change of possession.

7. Forward or backward pass thrown from behind line of scrimmage.

© Other Detectable Infractions:

1. Runner ruled not down by defensive contact.

2. Runner ruled down by defensive contact when the recovery of a fumble by

an opponent or a teammate occurs during the continuing action of the play.

Note 1: If the ruling of down by contact is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering

player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

Note 2: Continuing action is any action that occurs through the recovery of the fumble.

Note 3: If the Referee does not have indisputable visual evidence as to which player

recovered the fumble, the ruling of down by contact will stand.

Note 4: This does not apply to quarterback pass/fumbles, complete/incomplete

passes, or the ruling of forward progress.

3. Forward progress with respect to a first down.

4. Touching of a kick.

5. Number of players on the field.

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to:

1. Status of the clock

2. Proper down

3. Penalty administration

4. Runner ruled down by defensive contact (not involving fumbles)

5. Forward progress not relating to first down or goal line

6. Forceouts

7. Recovery of loose ball in the field of play

8. Field goals

9. Inadvertent Whistle

Time Limit. For the 2006 season only, each review will be a maximum of 60 seconds

in length, timed from when the Referee begins his review of the replay at the

field-level monitor.

Rule 15, Section 9

OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 109

B2-Rule Book RULES p77-116.qxd 6/7/2006 10:03 PM Page 109

Edited November 23, 2007 by pig devilz

[Cyre]

I meant to post this last week.

 

The rule is cut and dried ... no review on field goals.

 

Yet last week in the CLE-BAL game they reversed the call on the field of NO FIELD GOAL after 15 minutes of deliberation. Did a ref on the field actually stick his head under a hood and review the play, no ... but he got on the horn with the guy in the booth and took his cue from him.

 

This is a blatant selective intrepretation of the rules.

 

 

So you were up in the booth and heard the whole conversation then?

[Grits and Shins]

 

You guys are cracking me up. If you have been around very long you know I have been a very vocal in my support of the officials. However, it is CLEAR that in this instant they cheated. It doesn't take 15 minutes to resolve "he saw" "i saw" or NFL games would regularly take 8 hours to play.

 

A call was made ... FG no good. Nobody is arguing this point.

Then, despite a clear rule that says FGs are NOT reviewable the head referee put on his head set and conferred with the replay booth.

 

Fifteen minutes later the call was reversed.

[AtomicCEO]

I don't see how you can be against anything that actually gets the call right.

 

I've always been in favor of an open communication channel with an officially sanctioned referee in the video booth who can make the correct call at any time. No need for a hood so someone on the field can verify what the guy upstairs sees.

 

You don't question the Line Judge when he says someone steps out of bounds, so you should just trust the guy in the booth to make the call when he's looking right at it. Boom. Answer in 10 seconds.

 

That whole hood spectacle is a pointless waste of everyone's time.

Edited November 23, 2007 by AtomicCEO

[Grits and Shins]

I don't see how you can be against anything that actually gets the call right.

 

I've always been in favor of an open communication channel with an officially sanctioned referee in the video booth who can make the correct call at any time. No need for a hood so someone on the field can verify what the guy upstairs sees.

 

You don't question the Line Judge when he says someone steps out of bounds, so you should just trust the guy in the booth to make the call when he's looking right at it. That whole hood is a pointless waste of everyone's time.

 

The problem is that it was against the rules. They made no effort to get it right in the game where a bogus call negated a Todd Heap TD. There are many many many cases where they make no effort to get it right. Why should Cleveland get an exception?

 

If you are going to allow the referees to selectively enforce the rules, why have rules at all?

[pig devilz]

Then, despite a clear rule that says FGs are NOT reviewable the head referee put on his head set and conferred with the replay booth.

 

this is incorrect. go back and read the rule. an Official Review, by Rule, was not done by the Referee.

you are using the word"reviewable" very loosely....

 

if you want the letter of the law to be carried out, then you have to live by the letter of the law.

you can't have it both ways.

[i_am_the_swammi]

1 ref said it was good ,1 said it was bad.They went under the hood to see if they could review and were told no.The ref who said it went through won over the ref who said it didnt by convincing the head official.

 

+1...not really much else to be said.

[Grits and Shins]

this is incorrect. go back and read the rule. an Official Review, by Rule, was not done by the Referee.

you are using the word"reviewable" very loosely....

 

if you want the letter of the law to be carried out, then you have to live by the letter of the law.

you can't have it both ways.

 

Did he put his head under the hood ... no. None-the-less a review still occurred.

 

Or do you believe the refs can get away with 15 minutes and conferences with the official in the replay booth on every play at any point in the game?

[i_am_the_swammi]

1. at the RAVENS showing the play on the jumbotron for the officials to look at it if they wanted too. I wonder if the RAVENS dude that is in charge of the Jumbotron thought the FG was actually bad was hoping the REFS would see the replay.

 

2. Sounds like someone might be upset that a draft pick that a particular team has isnt going to be as good as they thought it was

 

LOL...the second of these points is the likely reason for this patheitc thread.

[TheShiznit]

The problem is that it was against the rules. They made no effort to get it right in the game where a bogus call negated a Todd Heap TD. There are many many many cases where they make no effort to get it right. Why should Cleveland get an exception?

 

If you are going to allow the referees to selectively enforce the rules, why have rules at all?

 

I watched the end of the game and the ref was not under the hood for fifteen minutes....maybe 30 second to a minute...and that was just with the headset on...not under the hood. The refs can take as long as they want conferring amongst themselves to get a call right. They can even look at the jumbotron if they wish. Just like one ref can convince the Head ref to overturn an incomplete pass call if he clearly sees it was a catch, this too can be overturned by on field review amongst the officiating crew.

 

This was a discussion point on inside the NFL and Chris Collinsworth brought up the point that the replay official in the booth instructed the ref that this play is not BOOTH Reviewable. IOW, the booth would have had to ask to review the play...the ref was inquiring why they are not asking to review it..the booth told them they couldn't...why is this difficult for you. Evidently the head ref is a Principle at a Catholic High School...I would consider this a plus when judging a refs character on whether or not he is cheating...or whether we can believe him or not.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Did he put his head under the hood ... no. None-the-less a review still occurred.

 

Or do you believe the refs can get away with 15 minutes and conferences with the official in the replay booth on every play at any point in the game?

 

If it had been reviewed as you say, it wouldn't have taken 15 mintues.....the call would have been changed immediately, because it was obvious the FG was good. The fact it took so long goes more towards the logc that they didn't get to use replay.

[TheShiznit]

Did he put his head under the hood ... no. None-the-less a review still occurred.

 

Or do you believe the refs can get away with 15 minutes and conferences with the official in the replay booth on every play at any point in the game?

 

You are lying. The official did not have the headset on for fifteen minutes speaking with the replay booth. It was a minute or less. It was being shown by CBS. They can confer for as long as they want....the game clock had expired. 15 minutes...if this is correct...seems like a good amount of time if they got the call right....NO?

[Grits and Shins]

I watched the end of the game and the ref was not under the hood for fifteen minutes....maybe 30 second to a minute...and that was just with the headset on...not under the hood. The refs can take as long as they want conferring amongst themselves to get a call right. They can even look at the jumbotron if they wish. Just like one ref can convince the Head ref to overturn an incomplete pass call if he clearly sees it was a catch, this too can be overturned by on field review amongst the officiating crew.

 

This was a discussion point on inside the NFL and Chris Collinsworth brought up the point that the replay official in the booth instructed the ref that this play is not BOOTH Reviewable. IOW, the booth would have had to ask to review the play...the ref was inquiring why they are not asking to review it..the booth told them they couldn't...why is this difficult for you. Evidently the head ref is a Principle at a Catholic High School...I would consider this a plus when judging a refs character on whether or not he is cheating...or whether we can believe him or not.

 

A ruling was made on the field, FG no good. Once the guys UNDER THE GOAL POSTS ruled it no good why would any other referee on the field attempt to make a counter ruling and why would they go to the replay booth? It is not their job to determine when or if replay is appropriate. The guys UNDER THE GOAL posts are responsible for making the call ... and they did. That should have been the end of it.

 

The referees cheated.