Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Worst call ever?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   fluffybear

fluffybear

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,281 posts
  • LocationPeachtree City, GA.
Joined: Jun 19, 2004

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:30 AM

Not the worst call I've ever seen... and even though I feel for Detroit, I think the rule was probably applied technically correctly.

It is kind of a crap rule though...


+1

It's a rule the NFLmay need to look at during the off season and tweak a bit.

Proud DirecTV customer since July, 1994

My Q2 2015 Set-Up


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   n3ntj

n3ntj

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,744 posts
  • LocationLancaster, PA area
Joined: Dec 18, 2006

Posted 14 September 2010 - 03:24 PM

They keep talking about it being a bad call and what not, but I haven't heard anywhere what the actual rule is that was being enforced 'correctly'. I saw the guy catch the ball in the end zone, land on two feet in bounds with control of the ball, and that looks like a touchdown. Why exactly is this NOT a touchdown??

HD Snob - "Friends Don't Let Friends Watch Cable".
Electrical/RF Engineer & Inspector
DirecTV Equipment: HR24-200 (2), 5LNB Slimline, AM21, SWiM 8 installed (MRV), Cinema Kit (Wifi connection)
Configuration: Native OFF. Units OFF when not in use.
TVs: 2 Panasonic Plasma TV's each using HDMI (one 1080p/one 720p)
DirecTV customer since 1998. Plus HD DVR package w/ NHL Center Ice & MLB Extra Innings.
OTA Antenna: Homebrew UHF & VHF antennas w/ 30dB amplifier fed w/ RG-6 Quad-shield coax.


#28 OFFLINE   Sackchamp56

Sackchamp56

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 310 posts
Joined: Nov 09, 2006

Posted 14 September 2010 - 07:14 PM

This rule neds to be changed immediately. This is the second time that the rule has changed the outcome of a game recently. The same call was made in last seasons opener Raiders vs Chargers against louis Murphy. It cost the Raiders that game as well.

#29 OFFLINE   Scott Kdot

Scott Kdot

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 9,491 posts
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Posted 14 September 2010 - 07:26 PM

Honestly Lovie's call to go for it on 4th and goal was much worse than the officials call. After all the officials got the call right, but only because the rule is stupid.

 


#30 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,614 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 15 September 2010 - 12:50 PM

They keep talking about it being a bad call and what not, but I haven't heard anywhere what the actual rule is that was being enforced 'correctly'. I saw the guy catch the ball in the end zone, land on two feet in bounds with control of the ball, and that looks like a touchdown. Why exactly is this NOT a touchdown??


The rule, screwy as it is, says that IF you are in the air when you make the catch (as opposed to already having 2 feet on the ground) that you have to main control of the ball all the way through the catch AND landing back on the ground.

In the field of play, they have the "make a football move" rule... so you can catch, then drop, and it is incomplete unless you had possession long enough to do something else.

In the end zone, there is no "make a move" usually because breaking the plane of the goal-line makes it a score...

So the grey area comes into play in the end zone as to when the catch is complete.

In most people's eyes, the play is complete when the player controls the ball cleanly AND is 2-feet down (or knees + butt down). The hand doesn't count in this case because in the field of play a hand can be used to re-steady yourself and stay up rather than down by contact.

The problem with the rule, in this specific case, is... it requires an official to essentially judge whether the catch process was complete and player was down on the ground and the ball came loose OR it was incomplete because he didn't maintain the ball OR it was a TD and he let go of the ball as he was getting up.

The "getting up" part is the nebulous area where the ref has to decide if that release of the ball was at the end of the catch process OR when the player was getting up to celebrate.

So I think the rule was called as correctly as it could under the circumstances... but again, it is a crap rule that needs to be looked at again.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#31 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:53 AM

After they screwed up that pitchers perfect game, and refused to reverse the call even


Thank GOD Commissioner Selig didn't reverse that call! It would have been worse than the original umpire's error.

So you think it should have been reversed, huh? Then answer this question: If that bad call was the first call of the game, and every succeeding batter had been retired for a near-perfect game, should it have been reversed as well? What would you have done with the extra out recorded in that inning and the rest of the guys who followed?

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#32 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:55 AM

By his definition, it would mean to me that if a receiver catches the ball at the ten yard line, for example, but lost his footing and stumbled ten yards across the goal line, while NOT juggling the ball in any way, yet fell to the ground, which then causes the ball to be dislodged from his hand(s), then it would be an incomplete pass.


No it wouldn't, because the receiver would have then become a runner, and the rules are different for runners compared to receivers.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#33 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:00 AM

This rule neds to be changed immediately. This is the second time that the rule has changed the outcome of a game recently. The same call was made in last seasons opener Raiders vs Chargers against louis Murphy. It cost the Raiders that game as well.


This rule has been in place since 1999. Every season it seems it comes up at least once. I doubt they'll change it, especially considering it's been around for a while and by the time the offseason rolls around, it may be forgotten.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#34 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,614 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:36 AM

Thank GOD Commissioner Selig didn't reverse that call! It would have been worse than the original umpire's error.

So you think it should have been reversed, huh? Then answer this question: If that bad call was the first call of the game, and every succeeding batter had been retired for a near-perfect game, should it have been reversed as well? What would you have done with the extra out recorded in that inning and the rest of the guys who followed?


I don't think I heard anyone argue that baseball call should have been reversed IF it had come earlier in the game or in the middle of an inning.

I think the major reason for outcry for a reversal was because it would have been the last play of the game AND the very next play resulted in an out that did end the game... so reversing that call and awarding the perfect game that had been earned would not have affected any meaningful statistics.

Errors at other points in a game really can't be redacted after the fact because of the reason you gave (and others).

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#35 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:52 AM

If they cannot be changed at earlier points of a game, then they must not be changed at later points. It makes a mockery of the game and cheapens it. As much as I dislike Selig, he made the right decision. The umpires on the field are the ones responsible for making the calls. Selig isn't.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#36 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,614 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 19 September 2010 - 03:16 PM

If they cannot be changed at earlier points of a game, then they must not be changed at later points. It makes a mockery of the game and cheapens it. As much as I dislike Selig, he made the right decision. The umpires on the field are the ones responsible for making the calls. Selig isn't.


How does letting a bad call at the end of the game stand end up being less of a mockery than everyone pretending the bad call didn't happen?

If a policeman pulls you over because he was following a car just like yours... and he writes you a ticket for running a stop sign that you didn't run... That should stand, right? I mean, even if the policeman realizes he pulled over the wrong guy and you find proof that it wasn't you... you should still pay the ticket, because we can't go back and correct things?

Correcting bad calls in the middle of the game are murky because teams play differently under different circumstances... so even though a bad call is unfair, you can't say what effects it had on the rest of the game just to take that one bad call out.

But in a game that ends on the very next play after the bad call... and the same team would win either way... it's hard to argue that the bad call can't be rescinded in that case.

You can't go back and do it weeks later though... You pretty much have to do it within a few days before other teams' overall standings are affected for playoff positioning.

But more to the point... IF officials are supposed to be there to make calls and enforce the rules and make the game outcome fair and right... there's no point in having officials IF every effort isn't going to be made to back them up (replay in-game) and correct all the correctable mistakes.

A playground game without officials at all would be better than having an official make obvious bad/wrong calls that change the outcome of the game.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#37 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 03:36 PM

How does letting a bad call at the end of the game stand end up being less of a mockery than everyone pretending the bad call didn't happen?


No one pretended it didn't happen. It did; it was a part of the game. End of story.

If a policeman pulls you over because he was following a car just like yours... and he writes you a ticket for running a stop sign that you didn't run... That should stand, right? I mean, even if the policeman realizes he pulled over the wrong guy and you find proof that it wasn't you... you should still pay the ticket, because we can't go back and correct things?


Please. You can't even make such a comparison between a baseball game and a legal situation.


But in a game that ends on the very next play after the bad call... and the same team would win either way... it's hard to argue that the bad call can't be rescinded in that case.


Either it is rescinded (the very term is offensive to the game) in both cases or neither. To allow for it in one case and not the other is illogical and unfair.

You can't go back and do it weeks later though... You pretty much have to do it within a few days before other teams' overall standings are affected for playoff positioning.


A few days??? Good Lord, what a mess that would make! Even a protest of a ruling must be done before the next pitch or play, and if occurring on the final ruling of a game, before noon the next day.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#38 OFFLINE   yosoyellobo

yosoyellobo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 2,351 posts
  • LocationJacksonville Fl
Joined: Nov 01, 2006

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:01 PM

This rule has been in place since 1999. Every season it seems it comes up at least once. I doubt they'll change it, especially considering it's been around for a while and by the time the offseason rolls around, it may be forgotten.


I don't have a horse in this race but I wonder if this had been the final play of the Super Bowl and it had cause less say the Saints a repeat victory how would they have rule.

#39 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 05:43 PM

The same way they did yesterday. I have no doubt.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#40 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,614 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:37 PM

A few days??? Good Lord, what a mess that would make! Even a protest of a ruling must be done before the next pitch or play, and if occurring on the final ruling of a game, before noon the next day.


Yes, the complaint should be registered immediately following the end of the game.. I agree there.

I was just meaning (in this case MLB) that the decision to correct the mistake would need to be made by the governing body within a couple of days. You cant let it fester for a month and then go back to last month and rescind a bad call. IF they did it, it would have had to be done VERY quickly in the timeline after the end of the game.

Also... in the football game, the ref made the correct call on the incomplete catch... so while we all feel for Detroit, everyone has to recognize that it wasn't a "bad call"... it was proper enforcement of a bad rule!

In the baseball game, it was a bad call... which makes the two scenarios very different in terms of how you'd seek to resolve them.

For the NFL game, you'd hope the league would revisit and change the rule... but that wouldn't affect the past because the rule was applied correctly by the official. For the MLB game, if they'd decided in those next 24-48 hours after the game to take back that call and award the perfect game I think that would have been fine... but weeks or now months later there is really no point talking about it because they can't go back and change it now.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#41 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:00 PM

The single reason they should not and cannot change the MLB call, whether we like it or not, is because the decision was made by the umpire. There is nothing in the rules that says anyone but an umpire can call a batter-runner safe or out. That's not the commissioner's job.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#42 OFFLINE   DBSNewbie

DBSNewbie

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 807 posts
Joined: Nov 03, 2007

Posted 19 September 2010 - 09:32 PM

No it wouldn't, because the receiver would have then become a runner, and the rules are different for runners compared to receivers.


In my example, the receiver would still be in the "process" of completing his catch. When I said stumbling, I meant falling to the ground over the course of ten yards. For further clarification, imagine the receiver jumping into the air as he catches the ball at the ten yard line and then stumbling over the goal line in exactly the same manner as the play in the OP.

In the case of the play in the OP, the receiver was falling to the ground as he was attempting to complete the process of the catch. He just only "fell" a couple of yards from the moment he made first contact with the football, rather than ten yards while all the while falling to the ground and maintaining full control of the ball.

Common sense would say (as the article a few posts up described) that a catch was indeed made. It's just the ambiguity of the definition of the "process" that screws up the rule.

Edited by DBSNewbie, 19 September 2010 - 09:39 PM.

Slimline, WB616 (2), SWM8 (2), OTA, MRV (U)
Den: Sony KDS-60A3000 -> HR20-700; Sony KDL-40S2000 (5) -> HR20-700 (2) & HR20-100 (3)
Master Bed: Kuro PDP-5020FD -> HR34-700
Master Bath: Sony KDL-26S3000 + PSP -> HR24-200
Daughter's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR20-700
Son's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR24-500
Kitchen: Sharp 20" -> H24-700
Guest: Sharp 20" -> H20-100
Patio: SunbriteTV 3220 -> H25-500
Living Room: Sony 42" XBR Plasma -> HR20-100

Diagram of Setup

#43 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,431 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:15 AM

In my example, the receiver would still be in the "process" of completing his catch. When I said stumbling, I meant falling to the ground over the course of ten yards. For further clarification, imagine the receiver jumping into the air as he catches the ball at the ten yard line and then stumbling over the goal line in exactly the same manner as the play in the OP.

In the case of the play in the OP, the receiver was falling to the ground as he was attempting to complete the process of the catch. He just only "fell" a couple of yards from the moment he made first contact with the football, rather than ten yards while all the while falling to the ground and maintaining full control of the ball.

Common sense would say (as the article a few posts up described) that a catch was indeed made. It's just the ambiguity of the definition of the "process" that screws up the rule.


Your example was wrong because receiving rules are completely different in the endzone then in the field.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#44 OFFLINE   DBSNewbie

DBSNewbie

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 807 posts
Joined: Nov 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:43 AM

Your example was wrong because receiving rules are completely different in the endzone then in the field.


What if the receiver were running laterally across the back of the endzone and caught the ball in exactly the same manner as Calvin Johnson did?

Furthermore, let's say that the catch process was initiated at the back of the end zone directly in front of the goal post and ended near the pylon at the back right corner of the end zone (exactly where Calvin Johnson ended up)

That's approximately 25 yards that was covered. If the receiver never bobbles the ball until the ground causes it to be dislodged from his hand while he was getting up, common sense would say he caught the ball. The result of the play, however, if interpreted exactly like the play in the OP, would then be an incomplete pass according to the rules.

The rule needs to be tweaked.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that it was the point of Common Sense vs. The Rule that I was arguing. Yes, the rules are applied differently when a receiver is in the end zone as opposed to in the field. However, I was just trying to show that that in the case of the "process" the rule should be tweaked to allow the referee to make a judgement call to determine whether or not control and possession were demonstrated and the "process" being completed prior to losing the football, regardless of where it happened. (Midfield, Goal Line, End Zone, etc)

Edited by DBSNewbie, 20 September 2010 - 09:14 AM.

Slimline, WB616 (2), SWM8 (2), OTA, MRV (U)
Den: Sony KDS-60A3000 -> HR20-700; Sony KDL-40S2000 (5) -> HR20-700 (2) & HR20-100 (3)
Master Bed: Kuro PDP-5020FD -> HR34-700
Master Bath: Sony KDL-26S3000 + PSP -> HR24-200
Daughter's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR20-700
Son's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR24-500
Kitchen: Sharp 20" -> H24-700
Guest: Sharp 20" -> H20-100
Patio: SunbriteTV 3220 -> H25-500
Living Room: Sony 42" XBR Plasma -> HR20-100

Diagram of Setup

#45 OFFLINE   WhoRu

WhoRu

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 27 posts
Joined: Nov 27, 2008

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:49 AM

I think the deeper question here is why my Detroit boys keep getting the old shaft. The touchdown that wasn't a touchdown, the perfect game that wasn't a perfect game, Wings goal called off cause Tommy Holmstrom broke wind on the edge of the crease. And did you see Johnny Damon called out on strikes on a pitch at least a foot outside this year when a walk would have tied the game?

An obvious conspiracy of gigantic proportions.

Hey Tim Bedore, how about moving on from your animal conspiracy theory and taking up this cause?

#46 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:52 AM

Your example was wrong because receiving rules are completely different in the endzone then in the field.


No they're not. You're confusing the differene between a runner and a receiver. The rules of a catch are the same whether the catch is made in the end zone or on the field of play. The differences come when a receiver can't complete a catch and when a runner drops the ball. Moreover, a receiver becomes a runner when he completes the catch process and makes a "football act," such as taking steps to advance.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#47 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,431 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:11 AM

No they're not. You're confusing the differene between a runner and a receiver. The rules of a catch are the same whether the catch is made in the end zone or on the field of play. The differences come when a receiver can't complete a catch and when a runner drops the ball. Moreover, a receiver becomes a runner when he completes the catch process and makes a "football act," such as taking steps to advance.


That's what I meant, but I was half awake. Thanks LV.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#48 OFFLINE   DBSNewbie

DBSNewbie

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 807 posts
Joined: Nov 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:23 AM

No they're not. You're confusing the differene between a runner and a receiver. The rules of a catch are the same whether the catch is made in the end zone or on the field of play. The differences come when a receiver can't complete a catch and when a runner drops the ball. Moreover, a receiver becomes a runner when he completes the catch process and makes a "football act," such as taking steps to advance.


That's the problem of the rule as it pertains to the "process"... When does a receiver complete a catch, thus becoming a runner? Or in the case of the OP, when does the receiver complete his process of the catch and only loses the ball as he was merely getting up after the play?

That's the point I was trying to get across several posts ago. I totally agree with you, as far as the rules are concerned and the officials applying the rule in regards to the play in the OP.

I just feel that some kind of tweak needs to be made allowing an official the ability to make a judgement call on the completion of said process.

Edited by DBSNewbie, 20 September 2010 - 10:38 AM.

Slimline, WB616 (2), SWM8 (2), OTA, MRV (U)
Den: Sony KDS-60A3000 -> HR20-700; Sony KDL-40S2000 (5) -> HR20-700 (2) & HR20-100 (3)
Master Bed: Kuro PDP-5020FD -> HR34-700
Master Bath: Sony KDL-26S3000 + PSP -> HR24-200
Daughter's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR20-700
Son's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR24-500
Kitchen: Sharp 20" -> H24-700
Guest: Sharp 20" -> H20-100
Patio: SunbriteTV 3220 -> H25-500
Living Room: Sony 42" XBR Plasma -> HR20-100

Diagram of Setup

#49 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Supreme Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,449 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:54 PM

That's the problem of the rule as it pertains to the "process"... When does a receiver complete a catch, thus becoming a runner?


Asked and answered. See my post preceding this one.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

 


#50 OFFLINE   DBSNewbie

DBSNewbie

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 807 posts
Joined: Nov 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:37 PM

Asked and answered. See my post preceding this one.


That's exactly what I mean. When is the precise moment at which the process is completed when he is falling down in an attempt to catch a ball?

Is it two feet in bounds? After a couple of steps? Being down? Etc, etc. If the answer is yes to any of those, then didn't Calvin Johnson "complete" his catch?

Would stumbling after jumping in the air to catch a ball constitute a "football move", whether he stumbles over the course of ten yards or one yard, thus being ruled a completion before the ground eventually causes the ball to be dislodged?

Or would stumbling 25 yards laterally in the endzone be enough time to constitute possession before having the ball hit the ground and coming free?

The rules as it pertains to Calvin Johnson's catch (or non-catch) can be interpreted in a numerous number of ways. But as I said earlier, common sense says that he did catch the ball, which of course would be a judgement call on the part of the official and in my opinion should be integrated into the rule.

Edited by DBSNewbie, 20 September 2010 - 09:44 PM.

Slimline, WB616 (2), SWM8 (2), OTA, MRV (U)
Den: Sony KDS-60A3000 -> HR20-700; Sony KDL-40S2000 (5) -> HR20-700 (2) & HR20-100 (3)
Master Bed: Kuro PDP-5020FD -> HR34-700
Master Bath: Sony KDL-26S3000 + PSP -> HR24-200
Daughter's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR20-700
Son's: Sony KDL-40W3000 -> HR24-500
Kitchen: Sharp 20" -> H24-700
Guest: Sharp 20" -> H20-100
Patio: SunbriteTV 3220 -> H25-500
Living Room: Sony 42" XBR Plasma -> HR20-100

Diagram of Setup




Protected By... spam firewall...And...