neilfish2 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 From what I've seen on video, one official signals no good, the other kinda looks at him like he is stupid.....does not give any signal, the official that gives the no good signal sees that the ball is on the (inside portion of the endzone) and figures that the field goal is no good because of where it lands. I think he was a little premature on his decision, and the way it looks on video he did not talk it over with the other Ref. I totally agree that the play is not reviewable, BUT, both officials did not agree on the call......If both refs would have looked at each other and signaled no good, then the FG is no good, and if after the call went under the hood/ or looked at the (JUMBO TRON) and determined that the kick was good then that would be an injustice, because a kick is not reviewable. (But will be next year because of this). The best part about this, is that they did get it right, regardless if you agree or not..... Now the official that said no good should be fired or fines in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 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 say review occurred. i say discussion occurred which is perfectly legal. your second point....no, i dont believe this. a Reviewable play, by Rule, must be completed in 60 seconds. a Non-Reviewable play is decided on the field, after the Officials confer on the field. is there a time limit on doing this? i honestly do not know, but i have never seen them take 15 minutes to discuss a non-reviewable call. using the phrase, "get away with" infers they are breaking the rules, which from my understanding they did not do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scourge Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Grits and Shins. · View this post · Squeeze me a little harder Grits and Shins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 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? This is not about getting the call right. Clearly in the end they did that. This is about a blantant dis-regard of the rules in place. The rule is clear, no review on FGs ... NONE. The guys under the goal post ruled NO FG. So on what grounds does the head referee head put on a head set and confer with the replay booth. Several of you said the refs can confer as long as they want ... do you really believe that they could make a regular habit of conferring for 15 minutes on calls in NFL games? Several of you have said since it took 15 minutes they could not have used replay. Suppose for a minute that this is true ... this would only lead me to believe that the either the guy that said it was no good was as adamant as the guy that said it was good ... either that or the guy that said it was good really wasn't sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 The guys under the goal post ruled NO FG. it wasn't the Guys, it was Guy...only one official signaled no good...... I ref. football on the high school level, I know its not the same, but we have discussions all the time.... there is no instant replay in HS Ball, but Refs huddle to get the call right, thats what happend here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 The rule is clear, no review on FGs ... NONE. And none was done. A discussion took place, which as many have said earlier, is without limit of time and is perfectly legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 \ either that or the guy that said it was good really wasn't sure. or that the guy that said it wasn't good wasn't sure? You are not going to win this, regardless of your intention. The two knuckleheads under the crossbars were discussing Snickers and wanting to get away for awhile. That's obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 This is not about getting the call right. Clearly in the end they did that. This is about a blantant dis-regard of the rules in place. The rule is clear, no review on FGs ... NONE. The guys under the goal post ruled NO FG. So on what grounds does the head referee head put on a head set and confer with the replay booth. Several of you said the refs can confer as long as they want ... do you really believe that they could make a regular habit of conferring for 15 minutes on calls in NFL games? Several of you have said since it took 15 minutes they could not have used replay. Suppose for a minute that this is true ... this would only lead me to believe that the either the guy that said it was no good was as adamant as the guy that said it was good ... either that or the guy that said it was good really wasn't sure. Grits...I think you are mixing up definitions here. A field goal being a non-reviewable play means that a field goal cannot be red flag challenged or even booth reviewed in the last two minutes of a game. Non-reviewable DOES NOT MEAN that the officiating crew cannot discuss differing views of a play and come up with an official on field call. Clearly, if you watched the game, as a previous poster pointed out...only one official scored the FG no good. It takes both to cement the call. If there is disagreement between the two, the Head referee's job is to determine who is correct. And this takes discussion. Have you ever officiated a football game before...I used to ref High School. We had a 8 minute discussion amongst ourselves on a out of bounds late hit penalty. I thought it was a clean hit, another guy called late hit. The ref didn't see the play. All told we conferred for 8 minutes as this call had dre consequences for one team. We got the call right....I was WRONG....and it was ruled a late hit. I saw the video later which confirmed it. On field discussion does not constitute review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 The guys under the goal post ruled NO FG. Incorrect...perhaps you should watch a replay of the kick....the umpire that felt it was good was looking in amazement/bewilderment at the ump that was signaling "No Good". The head ref comes over, they converse, he goes to the headset to check and see if its reviewable...its not...they re-huddle. He asks the ump that feels its good if he's sure it hit the back support...he says yes....they review the rule for such an even occuring...they all agree the FG should be ruled "Good". Not really that hard to understand, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Grits....as i said earlier on, i see your point on 'a rule is a rule' thinking, and i agree with that. but in this case,when you refuse to accept the rules as they are written, you lose all credibility on that approach.... or maybe you are just it was a good little debate while it lasted...but case solved. and a ps....it was never about, 'did they get the call right' for me, it was about the rule. and imo, they got the call right within the rules. if they got the call right but OUTSIDE the rules, i would have had a problem with that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Being that this is a FANTASY FOOTBALL msg board, Grits and Shins must have lost the FF game because of the FG... and that is why he is thats is my So quit ing about it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271118033 The officials called the kick no good. The Ravens ran off the field, celebrating a victory in which they scored 16 straight points in the fourth quarter, the last three on a 47-yard field goal by Matt Stover with 26 seconds left. Referee Pete Morelli had announced over the public address system that he would "take a look at this play" before he went to the review booth and manned the headphones to replay assistant Howard Slavin. According to league spokesman Greg Aiello, Slavin told Morelli that he couldn't show him the kick because field goals are not reviewable under the rules. Morelli proceeded to further discuss the kick with his crew and Aiello said one of the back judges, Keith Ferguson, "felt more strongly" that the ball had crossed through the goal posts. Morelli based his reversal on Ferguson's opinion. Referring to the initial call, Morelli said, "It was a ruling by one of the officials. The other official informed me that the ball hit the back of the extension of the goal post. ... We determined that was what it struck. Therefore, it made the field goal good." No review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 or maybe you are just Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 22.6574832 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 This is not about getting the call right. Clearly in the end they did that. This is about a blantant dis-regard of the rules in place. The rule is clear, no review on FGs ... NONE. The guys under the goal post ruled NO FG. So on what grounds does the head referee head put on a head set and confer with the replay booth. Several of you said the refs can confer as long as they want ... do you really believe that they could make a regular habit of conferring for 15 minutes on calls in NFL games? Several of you have said since it took 15 minutes they could not have used replay. Suppose for a minute that this is true ... this would only lead me to believe that the either the guy that said it was no good was as adamant as the guy that said it was good ... either that or the guy that said it was good really wasn't sure. you've repeatedly hammered that it was "15 minutes," as if that somehow proves they reviewed the play. link It turns out they were right. The officials discussed the situation for around five minutes before ruling the kick went beyond the crossbar and through the uprights. NFL rules dictate that the play is not reviewable by replay. seems entirely appropriate to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heehawks Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Being that this is a FANTASY FOOTBALL msg board, Grits and Shins must have lost the FF game because of the FG... and that is why he is thats is my So quit ing about it.... Above hits the nail on the head...however... No disrespect but flat out, refs make calls, they are only human, and its football. Regardless of the "rules" the right call was made at the end of regulation. No other discussion needs to be had. Suck it up, except the fact that you are pissed off that they "cheated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Being that this is a FANTASY FOOTBALL msg board, Grits and Shins must have lost the FF game because of the FG... and that is why he is thats is my So quit ing about it.... see his amended post below This is not about getting the call right. Clearly in the end they did that. This is about a blatant hate of the cowboys. The Refs know that the cowboys have the Brownies 1st rounder and want it to be worse so they cheated. The rule is clear, no review on FGs ... NONE and because I perceive that the play was reviewed my beloved cowboys are not going to be able to draft Darren McFadden . The guys under the goal post ruled NO FG IN MY EYES and that is all that matters because I want the Brownies draft pick to be worse so we can have a shot at Darren McFadden . So on what grounds does the head referee head put on a head set and confer with the replay booth is it just to screw the cowboys out of a higher draft pick so that they wont be able to draft Darren McFadden . Several of you said the refs can confer as long as they want ... do you really believe that they could make a regular habit of conferring for 15 minutes on calls in NFL games when the correct decision hurts the cowboys draft pick that they own from the Brownies. The REFS screwed the cowboys ? Several of you have said since it took 15 minutes they could not have used replay. Suppose for a minute that this is true ... this would only lead me to believe that the either the guy that said it was no good was as adamant as the guy that said it was good ... either that or the guy that said it was good really wasn't sure. And I will continue to babble on and keep my homer blue star glasses on because the Refs screwed my beloved cowboys and now their draft pick is going to be worse and they wont have a shot at Darren McFadden Fixed oh and fwiw the Brownies took McFadden away from you long ago Edited November 23, 2007 by keggerz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) No review. They (the officiated crew) were looking at the JumbroTron. Edited November 23, 2007 by justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 They (the officiated crew) were looking at the JumbroTron. i cant believe that the Browns JumboTron Operator would put that replay up to try and get the officials to look at it so they could review the play it was a Ravens home game Fire the JumboTron guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Fire the JumboTron guy He didn't do anything wrong. He knew that the play was not reviewable and that the refs had already made a call of no good on the field. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 They (the officiated crew) were looking at the JumbroTron. And? First of all, I find that implausible. Second of all... so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyre Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Why is it such a big deal for you for them to get together and discuss the call? One official saw it one way, another saw it differently, they got togehter to discuss, and made sure they made the right call. That is what refs should do if there is any question on calls like this, especially when one like this affected the outcome of the game. This happens all the time in game, refs get together, discuss the call if there is doubt, and make a decision off of that. Whats the matter, you pick cleveland to lose in a dead pool?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Whats the matter, you pick cleveland to lose in a dead pool?? the answer to that question: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=2300114 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 And there was NO review of the Gaffney TD at the end of the first half ... Whether the call was good or not is irrelevant ... it was close enough to warrant a review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 And there was NO review of the Gaffney TD at the end of the first half ... Whether the call was good or not is irrelevant ... it was close enough to warrant a review. i think it was a TD but I also agree that it was close enough to warrant a review....wow we actually agree on something in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts