The Irish Doggy Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Wow, this is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Sort of like a science experiment by this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 (edited) Well as cloak and dagger as that may seem, the fact remains the referees did not review it so there was no infraction of the rules and the correct call was made. Doesn't matter what wild speculation there was about him calling to see if they could review it or not or if he was waiting idly by as some nefarious types in the booths were doing high speed reviews themselves so that they could cram the correct call down the throats of the Ravens. Nothing wrong was done. Right call was made. How many games did that lose you anyway?\ You are talking about slippery slopes and you demand that the wrong call is made? Hmmm.... I wasn't vested in that particular game ... I didn't lose anything on the results of that game. So tell me ... for what possible reason did the referee put on the head set and talk to the replay official? His job is to respond to the booth for an instant replay NOT initiate it. There was NO reason for him to put that head set on and talk to the replay booth ... NONE. Whether the play was reviewable or not was irrelevant to the referee on the field ... there is no set of circumstances where the guy on the field can initiate an instant replay. At a VERY MINIMUM he opened the door for the appearance of an improper action. Edited November 26, 2007 by Grits and Shins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 This is exactly why I turned down a chance to referee pee-wee football. You're just sucking the fun out of the game instead of rejoicing that the right call was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 How do you figure? The rules are very clear on the matter ... FGs are NOT reviewable. There is no gray area. There is Gray area in the matter that FG's were declared to be 'unreviewable' based on the premise that the goal posts extend upward for infinity much the way they used to say the goal line hypothetically extends around the world. Based on how things appear different based on camera angles the NFL did not want ref's reviewing a FG to see if it passed through the uprights because if the ball was higher than the uprights then the angles would wreak havoc on that type of replay but no direct reference was made to reviewing a fg based on whether or not it passed over the cross bar. These are two totally different scenarios and I will bet that the rule is amended to reflect this before the start of next season because using replay to determine whether or not the ball crossed over the cross bar or not will be much more definitive than determining whether or not the ball passed through the uprights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 This is exactly why I turned down a chance to referee pee-wee football. You're just sucking the fun out of the game instead of rejoicing that the right call was made. Stop feeding the monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 There is Gray area in the matter that FG's were declared to be 'unreviewable' based on the premise that the goal posts extend upward for infinity much the way they used to say the goal line hypothetically extends around the world. Based on how things appear different based on camera angles the NFL did not want ref's reviewing a FG to see if it passed through the uprights because if the ball was higher than the uprights then the angles would wreak havoc on that type of replay but no direct reference was made to reviewing a fg based on whether or not it passed over the cross bar. These are two totally different scenarios and I will bet that the rule is amended to reflect this before the start of next season because using replay to determine whether or not the ball crossed over the cross bar or not will be much more definitive than determining whether or not the ball passed through the uprights. You are referring to 'why' field goals are not reviewable ... that is irrelevant. There is NO gray area in the rule ... it says field goals are NOT reviewable. It does not list an exceptions. The rules says "Plays that are not subject to review" and lists "field goals" ... that is black and white and does not leave room for ANY field goal to be reviewed regardless of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Man, good thing they didn't review it, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 Man, good thing they didn't review it, huh? Baaaaa ... says the sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Baaaaa ... says the sheep. Leave Spain out of this. TIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Baaaaa ... says the sheep. Are you sure its not the soft waft of a windmill you hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Baaaaa ... says the sheep. Do you have any actual proof it was reviewed or statements by anyone on the field that day saying so? Youre entitled to your opinion,but you have no evidence that has swayed me to believe it was cheating yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Do you have any actual proof it was reviewed or statements by anyone on the field that day saying so? Youre entitled to your opinion,but you have no evidence that has swayed me to believe it was cheating yet. Yeah and apparently well thougfht out reasoning doesn't sway his opinion either. I do believe his intention here is to just stir up an argument. I tried discussing it from an Officials perspective but he just ignored what I said and reiterated his un-proven argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 Yeah and apparently well thougfht out reasoning doesn't sway his opinion either. I do believe his intention here is to just stir up an argument. I tried discussing it from an Officials perspective but he just ignored what I said and reiterated his un-proven argument http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=2304584 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I have always thought that Grits was the biggest idiot in this whole forum. I would like to thank him and this post for proving how correct I was. Thanks Grits - you are a complete idiot and people like you make me feel better about myself for being not one bit like you. Oh and this post rates 45.334567 Grits = Jagoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 You can't have hard and fast rules about these things. It all seems so grey to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 You can't have hard and fast rules about these things. It all seems so grey to me. If the rules are all gray ... why have any at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 If the rules are all gray ... why have any at all? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha-z Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Wow, I'm drained from reading all this. Personally, I don't know why any play is not reviewable. Why should one certain play be and another not if they both effect the outcome of a game. Hey, that's another issue though! I do believe they got it right and I watched that game, one ref made a call and the other waited and didn't agree. Bad move by the first ref that signaled no good IMO, they both should have discussed it before either one made a decision. Either way, I see nothing wrong with the way it was handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 If the rules are all gray ... why have any at all? Not all rules are gray, some are black and some are white. Sort of like whales. No one complains about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 With all the influence that organized crime, bribes, etc. have on a ref's calls, isn't it naive to call them cheaters because of a FG review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyre Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Yeah and apparently well thougfht out reasoning doesn't sway his opinion either. I do believe his intention here is to just stir up an argument. I tried discussing it from an Officials perspective but he just ignored what I said and reiterated his un-proven argument Bingo!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I have always wondered why some people take joy in fishing and some congratulate them for it. So just because I make a bigger ass out of myself than anyone else and get a reaction for it I have done something great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts