The Refs Are Cheating Us

[Ares]

NFL refs should get the same options that people used to get on Who Wants to be A Millionaire... 1. Ask the crowd, 2. Narrow it down to 2 options, 3. Phone a friend (who makes the call for you)...

 

[hyatt151]

This shit is getting so old that I feel like I wanna quit watching the nfl and move on to college.. I love the Bears and all, but I hate the refs bias against the Bears.. And before u ***** at me that I'm a homer or troll, open your damn eyes because it's so fucken obvious. they have something against one of the oldest team in football for some damn reason. For example that McPhee penalty for roughing the passer. To me that was a big horseshit call since it looked like one of the offensive lineman pushed him into fat Matt. Oh but the refs were so damn quick to bail them out with a flag during crucial times. Now let's forward to the packers vs chargers.. Chargers were punting at the 50 yard line and a packer clearly knocks out their punter and injures him. do we see a flag for that obvious foul? nope. Why? because the refs were claiming that the packer was pushed into the punter. Fucken bullshit. Well **** this...enough is enough. So sick and tired of watching fudge packers getting bailed game in game out, not getting any holding calls on their offense line, etc.( baktiari or however the **** u spell his name) gets away with so many holds it ain't funny..and when something gets called against them, their fan base will cry about it for years, and then turn around and talk shit on bear fans for complaining about bs calls.. Now for the Bears on the other hand the zebras never seem to miss a call against them..these calls yesterday were so damn bad it actually made me laugh..

Lions got fucked in Seattle, Colts were jobbed in N.E!! Bad officiating is a league wide problem, not a Chicago Bears vendetta.

 

[Calabis]

Lions got fucked in Seattle, Colts were jobbed in N.E!! Bad officiating is a league wide problem, not a Chicago Bears vendetta.

No, but lets not act like this isnt a buisness....and its probably why you see the same teams get away with or get favorable calls. Bears v Lions was just pathetic...the refs sucked bad

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

As mentioned in another thread, to think the NFL would be purposely biased against a charter franchise, with a wide fan base, in the third largest media outlet in the country is just plain silly. It's thermite paint on the walls of the World Trade Center silly.

 

[Icculus]

As mentioned in another thread, to think the NFL would be purposely biased against a charter franchise, with a wide fan base, in the third largest media outlet in the country is just plain silly. It's thermite paint on the walls of the World Trade Center silly.

That's Spartan bait and you know it.

 

[The Hawk]

It has gotten to the point now that I do not know what constitutes a legal pass completion nowadays? They've mucked this up so bad that the league itself doesn't know and it is they who set the rules

 

[gpphat]

No, but lets not act like this isnt a buisness....and its probably why you see the same teams get away with or get favorable calls. Bears v Lions was just pathetic...the refs sucked bad

I can understand this line of thinking but the big reason it seems this way is because the teams you are insinuating get the favorable calls are the big name players, so when they get the infavorable call it gets swept under the rug and not questioned because we as fans are ok with seeing the NE/GB/SEA get an unfavorable call.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I wonder if there is a portion of the Browns fan base that feels the NFL's bias against them is to keep them in the perpetual basement of the standings.

 

[ClydeLee]

I wonder if there is a portion of the Jaguars fan base that feels the NFL's bias against them is to keep them in the perpetual basement of the standings.

They'd rather have a London team than a Jacksonville team.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

They'd rather have a London team than a Jacksonville team.

That's a fair point. Updated.

 

[vincentvega]

No, but lets not act like this isnt a buisness....and its probably why you see the same teams get away with or get favorable calls. Bears v Lions was just pathetic...the refs sucked bad

I know people say that complaining about the refs calls is BS and we should have won the game in a fashion that the calls wouldnt make a difference. I guess in part I agree but (and I dont know if has been mentioned in this thread already) I thought it was somewhat telling the way both Cutler and Fox addressed questions by the media about their thoughts on the refs calls. They both said they couldnt respond due to fines by the league but you could clearly see in their words and expressions that they were not pleased. Coaches and QB's dont often take this tact unless there is some merit to it. Maybe it is not just a figment of our inagination...

 

[mecha]

this isn't as cut and dry as it probably should be, but I was under the impression that if a quarterback throws forward, that's a pass, and if he hands off or throws backwards, that's a run -- and if the ball gets knocked out of play in that scenario it's a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

that being said, why is there terminology present that's stating that a receiver is a "runner" when the ball was thrown forward, thrown being the key word, to a wide receiver?

you all and I both know that if the shoe were on the other foot they would tell the Bears to pound sand.

 

[Packer Fan]

that being said, why is there terminology present that's stating that a receiver is a "runner" when the ball was thrown forward, thrown being the key word, to a wide receiver?

In the online NFL rules book, the word "runner" is used 86 times. I think it's safe to assume this is any ball carrier, RB, QB, player after a catch, Defensive player on an interception or fumble return, Punt and kick returners, etc.

The catch rules are stupid, we can all agree, but I think you are reaching for a whine with this new angle.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

this isn't as cut and dry as it probably should be, but I was under the impression that if a quarterback throws forward, that's a pass, and if he hands off or throws backwards, that's a run -- and if the ball gets knocked out of play in that scenario it's a fumble, not an incomplete pass.

that being said, why is there terminology present that's stating that a receiver is a "runner" when the ball was thrown forward, thrown being the key word, to a wide receiver?

you all and I both know that if the shoe were on the other foot they would tell the Bears to pound sand.

A forward pass, by definition is a loose ball play. Meaning, while it is in the air any player has a right to the ball without interfering with another player (forward pass interference). Upon possession of that loose ball it becomes a running play. The distinctions are made because of penalty enforcement. If a foul happens during the course of a loose ball play (with a few exceptions, the obvious being PI) the enforcement spot is brought back to the line of scrimmage, while if the foul happens during the running play portion of the play it's enforced at the spot of the foul or end of the run - like a face mask.

The issue here, I believe (and if this has been mentioned already I apologize) is that Tate was upright and running. In this instance if he had full possession (which I'm not saying he did) all he has to do is put the football over the goal line (which I'm not saying he did). In this instance of the Calvin Johnson play that was referenced earlier in this thread, the catch was made in the end zone where he did not have the opportunity to be a runner and because the ball came loose he didn't possess through the process of the catch. I believe that was clarified after the Dez Bryant thing last year.

The issue with the rules of football is that they are so nuanced that it hurts the average viewer's ability to understand (not meaning that as a shot at you, speaking in general terms). For instance I've been reffing high school football the past 11 years and am an inspiring NCAA official. I don't know if you watched the Bama-A&M game last Saturday but there was an incident like this. It was a free kick where the returner for Bama muffed the ball at the four and the ball rolled into the end zone. I'm guessing that the average fan (and certainly at the time, the Bama return man) felt that if he recovered the ball in the end zone and was tackled or downed the ball it's a safety for A&M. Here's where the nuance comes in: had he downed the ball in the end zone it's a touch back. The force that put the ball in the end zone is still the kick (a loose ball play) and not the player. Had he cleanly possessed the ball and then fumbled it into the end zone, then yes a safety - but not in this instance.

It's a lot of fun in split second.