RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => General Discussion => Topic started by: yarnnelg on October 06, 2015, 10:02:45 AM
-
The big boys messed up. Less than 2 minutes remaining. Detroit driving, Calvin Johnson receives a pass stretching for the goal, inches from the line, ball punched out and into the endzone.
Nine yards deep in the endzone, lone Seahawk, batts the ball out of the back of the endzone. Back Judge crouched looking at the entire sequence. No flag for batting.
Austin is the officiating expert and stated that a flag should have been thrown. Ball to the last point of possession, half the distance, first and goal.
Automatic instant replay because of the goal line situation. But, instant replay can't call a penalty, that's field only. Yet Austin never points that out.
-
Instant replay can call a penalty in certain situations, but I don't think it can call intentional bat vs. unintentional. That can only be determined by the officials on the field.
The NFL (Dean Blandino) has also said it should have been flagged.
-
You almost get a sense that the Back Judge either missed completely or .... this was brought up last night. Decided not to flag because there were no Detroit players near the Seahawks player and the ball was headed out anyway. That took a lot of speculation on their part.
I started thinking (Bad mistake I know) "That Defensive Back really didn't intend to grab that face mask, I should let it go."
-
Detroit Fans are great. Day after, several bill boards up. Ref with blindfold on, " Blind to the Bat"
-
The video was not what I envisioned, I was expecting a clear bat, not a nudge out of the back of the endzone.
-
On one angle you can see the back judge reach for his flag but not throw it. Its a tough call to make, by the book its a foul, but the ball could of easily been recovered by Seattle or was probably going to go out of bounds anyway. I know the NFL is different then hs football regarding what you call but I know I am always being told that you dont call a hold on the WR on the left side if the run is to the right. It's kind of the same situation. Except everyone can see this foul.
-
I know the NFL is different then hs football regarding what you call but I know I am always being told that you dont call a hold on the WR on the left side if the run is to the right. It's kind of the same situation. Except everyone can see this foul.
This foul has nothing to do with calling something away from the play - this foul was at the point of attack - where the ball was! It should be called.
What are the options on this play? Either let the ball go, where it could hit the ground, stay in bounds, and take a bounce somewhere where a Detroit player can get it - or try to recover, where you might not be able to recover properly, allowing a Detroit player to eventually get the ball.
The NFL is becoming more of a joke every week. I hear MANY fans talking about how this will be the downfall of the NFL eventually. Calls are being made and not being made to affect the outcome of games every single week. Referees need to get it right at this high level of play, or allow replay to get it right. Even replay has it's hands tied and can't make simple calls.
For example, Bills vs Patriots - early in the game when it was still a game, on third down, the Bills QB ran towards the sidelines, jumped in the air, and while in the air threw a pass. He was never out-of-bounds until after the pass was thrown. The referees on the field decided he was out of bounds before the pass was thrown. For some reason, NFL replay can't look at this to decide whether he was in or out of bounds. Why this one particular exception?
-
1. With illegal batting intent does matter it is not like a facemask where it is or it isn't. The official has to judge intent. I can see where on the field, the official could have ruled the touching was not intentional and thus not a bat. By the looks of it, he barely touched the ball, and it remained traveling in the original direction. The problem now days is everyone is a Monday morning official. Intent is really a total judgement call, and to me the official should be given the benefit of the doubt as to judgement. Unfortunately, that is not how the game has evolved. Officials are expected to be perfect on every play and get better from there.
2. The reason replay cannot change an incomplete (player OOB) pass to complete is more than likely a whistle was blown when the player was ruled OOB. This means that everyone stops playing so there is no way to know whether the ball would have been caught without the whistle which caused the defense to stop playing.
-
This foul has nothing to do with calling something away from the play - this foul was at the point of attack - where the ball was! It should be called.
Absolute NONSENSE, when the ball was TOUCHED the play was LONG DONE and the touching had no impact on the play as the ball was heading OOB on it's own. A qualified, professional official was in the absolutely PERFECT position to observe the action, and made his decision based on what he was looking directly at.
As Mr. Berra advised, "it ain't over, till it's over", and every now and then really bad stuff just happens. Monday night was Detroit's turn. The Detroit coach has it right, ouch, "stuff happens", that game is OVER, next game is coming, whining won't change anything.
The NFL and Mr. Blandino, not only threw his official under the bus, he held him there so the bus could back up over him.
-
I have to agree.
-
I hear MANY fans talking about how this will be the downfall of the NFL eventually. Calls are being made and not being made to affect the outcome of games every single week.
Hound Dog, the MANY fans you hear howling are going down the wrong rabbit trail. The networks and the fans feed off this stuff. 24 hour sport stations need controversy to fill air time. :sTiR:
The downfall of N-Football-L will be concussions and the actions we have seen recently in a few high school games across the nation. nAnA When a generation of little Johnny's grow up, who don't play or watch football, they will follow their own interests, whatever it may be. :'(
-
On one angle you can see the back judge reach for his flag but not throw it.
Where did you get your video? linky please?
-
1. With illegal batting intent does matter it is not like a facemask where it is or it isn't. The official has to judge intent.
Umm....K. J. Wright later admitted that he did it on purpose, but he didn't know it was illegal.
-
Where did you get your video? linky please?
I saw it on ESPN during sportscenter.
-
Umm....K. J. Wright later admitted that he did it on purpose, but he didn't know it was illegal.
Whether Wright admitted it was on purpose or not is immaterial. It is the judgment (perception) of the official that matters.
The official judged that it was not intentional, and I can see how he may have went that way (yes he was wrong as to the player's actual intent if you believe what he player said). Judging intent is not easy but it is what we are asked to do when it comes to batting.
Unfortunately, the official cannot ask the player at the time "did you touch the ball intentionally?" The official has to base his judgement on what he saw, and in real time it looked like his judgment was valid (at least to me) as the ball was barely touched and the direction of the ball was not changed.
We will never have perfection as long as we have to judge the intent of others based on what we see, and how we perceive what we see.
-
Absolute NONSENSE, when the ball was TOUCHED the play was LONG DONE and the touching had no impact on the play as the ball was heading OOB on it's own. A qualified, professional official was in the absolutely PERFECT position to observe the action, and made his decision based on what he was looking directly at.
The play is never 'long done' when a player can do something with the ball. KJ Wright could have recovered the ball, then turned around and run into the field of play. The play was NEVER 'long done'.
The ball was going up in the air and would have hit down in the end zone and bounced if he didn't bat the ball. It's an oblong sphere. Who knows what way it would bounce once it hit the ground?
EJ Wright ADMITTED that he intentionally batted the ball. So, ergo, the referees were WRONG on the play to judge he did it without intent.
-
This is an officials' board so, please, use correct officiating language...There is only 1 Referee in a given game. In this case it was the Back Judge who made the call.
-
It was a plain as day illegal bat.
That it wasn't called indicates that, rightly or wrongly, illegal batting is one of those fouls that are so rare and so obscure that calling it opens the calling official to accusations of looking for boogers. Helping the runner is another such foul. I was overtly told in the third year of my 20-year Fed career, after calling a helping the runner that was clearly supported by video, that the next time I called helping the runner would be the last game I worked for the association.
These fouls happen on 3 plays in 10,000. They aren't called on one of these plays begause the offending team's coaches and our management come down on us like a ton of bricks on the folks who correctly call them the other two times.
We reap what we sow.
-
...when the ball was TOUCHED the play was LONG DONE...
...As Mr. Berra advised, "it ain't over, till it's over...
So which is it?
-
So which is it?
Don't see a contradiction, Andrew, unless of course you are bound and determined to find something wrong. Both the "beauty, and the beast" of being the actual covering official is that it's YOUR judgment that counts. It certainly helps when you understand the rule and are in the proper position to observe and evaluate what exactly YOU are observing.
Unfortunately, when you've checked all the right boxes, you may well be subject to pettifogging from people who insist of finding the fly droppings in the pepper factory, but that goes with the territory.
The "play" was the dislodging the football, in the field of play. The ensuing fumble propelled it across and out of the EZ. Whether the subsequent touching by a defensive player affected what was already happening is a judgment call, that an experienced, professional game official, who had positioned himself in perfect position to observe and evaluate the contact, and it's affect, had the responsibility and opportunity to judge, which by the way, he did.
All the rest is "wishful thinking" and "speculation", and most importantly, doesn't much matter, aside somewhat from the ill advised suggestions by Mr. Blandino which were unfortunate.
-
Don't see a contradiction, Andrew, unless of course you are bound and determined to find something wrong. Both the "beauty, and the beast" of being the actual covering official is that it's YOUR judgment that counts. It certainly helps when you understand the rule and are in the proper position to observe and evaluate what exactly YOU are observing.
Unfortunately, when you've checked all the right boxes, you may well be subject to pettifogging from people who insist of finding the fly droppings in the pepper factory, but that goes with the territory.
The "play" was the dislodging the football, in the field of play. The ensuing fumble propelled it across and out of the EZ. Whether the subsequent touching by a defensive player affected what was already happening is a judgment call, that an experienced, professional game official, who had positioned himself in perfect position to observe and evaluate the contact, and it's affect, had the responsibility and opportunity to judge, which by the way, he did.
All the rest is "wishful thinking" and "speculation", and most importantly, doesn't much matter, aside somewhat from the ill advised suggestions by Mr. Blandino which were unfortunate.
:thumbup everything about this +1
-
When I saw it as it happened, I did think, "Where's the flag?" However I can understand why he didn't throw it. The rule states, IIRC, that when in question, it is not a foul. So I get why he was hesitant. I still would have flagged it though.
-
Had he flagged it, the Seahawks, the Seattle media, and probably even bbeagle would have been all over the back judge for looking for boogers, and the League would have been silent at best (and likely worse).
I would still like to think I would have made that call, though.
-
Everyone was surprised that it's a foul. Cheater Caroll had never seen it called, didn't know it was a rule. The Seahawks had no idea it was illegal. Close to "I didn't know murder was unlawful therefore I'm innocent" defense.
I still think the Back Judge saw it start to finish, drop the flag and discuss it. If need be, pick it up. Three times that day " There is no foul on the play" with no further explainations.