[CapeCodder]

First. The Chargers got hosed. At the very least they should have been given the ball at the point it hit the ground, rather than the ten yards or so up the field where they were actually entitled to it. No way the Broncos should have retained possession. If current replay rules don't all correct of such a blatant error that the NFL should fix them.

Second. the Pats are still formidable. And, maybe, Favre is just the same old Favre, tossing the ball away at critical times. Doesn't the Pack look smart today?

 

[dcowboy7]

First. The Chargers got hosed. At the very least they should have been given the ball at the point it hit the ground, rather than the ten yards or so up the field where they were actually entitled to it. No way the Broncos should have retained possession. If current replay rules don't all correct of such a blatant error that the NFL should fix them.

Second. the Pats are still formidable. And, maybe, Favre is just the same old Favre, tossing the ball away at critical times. Doesn't the Pack look smart today?

1. u cant correct inadvertent whistles with replay....once the whistles blows alot of players quit playing....therefore 1 player might fall on the ball while another stops so thats not fair either.

2. pats dont scare me cause cassell has no arm....wait till they play a real team then we will see....its not favres fault its manginis fault....they are still calling plays as if pennington (who bombed again yesterday) was still the qb.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

I still can't believe the inadvertant whistle happens as much as it does. I think refs would be better off if they didn't keep it in their mouths all the time... In this particular case, if a ref had to reach down and pull it up before blowing that might have been all the time necessary for the play to develop naturally.

Also... I really don't understand why an inadvertant whistle happens there anyway. There wasn't anyone (even the QB) in danger of taking a hit... so they really should let that play end naturally, then blow the whistle when the ball stops... then even if they get it wrong it would at least have been reviewable.

I agree, otherwise, that once a whistle blows it becomes hard to fairly assess what happens next because some players do what they are taught to do (stop when they hear the whistle)... so you don't know 100% if the Chargers would have recovered the ball or not. In this case it looks highly likely they would have, but if the Broncos were running at full speed too, maybe it would have gotten knocked out of bounds and they would have just lost yardage.

Also have to credit the Broncos for the 2-point conversion... they still had to earn the victory.

 

[jazzyd971fm]

Also... I really don't understand why an inadvertant whistle happens there anyway. There wasn't anyone (even the QB) in danger of taking a hit... so they really should let that play end naturally, then blow the whistle when the ball stops... then even if they get it wrong it would at least have been reviewable.

+1 This is supposed to be how the play should be handled; but I guess things happen. Anyway the N.F.L. will take a look at this http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3589407

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Incidentally... much kudos to Jay Cutler and company after the game. He was sure it was a fumble himself. No trying to wish it away... I think the whole Broncos sideline was amazed they got a freebie there, which is probably why they went for 2-pts figuring if they got it they deserved the win, and if not then they really felt they were already on borrowed time anyway.

Also have to give Norv Turner credit for not going ballistic during the game or at post-game. Good composure, while clearly indicating his distaste. I wouldn't have gone the unsportsmanlike route and pulled my team or anything, but I'm sure I would not have handled that situation as well as he did.

The Chargers have to be the best 0-2 team in years.

 

[Sackchamp56]

First. The Chargers got hosed. At the very least they should have been given the ball at the point it hit the ground, rather than the ten yards or so up the field where they were actually entitled to it. No way the Broncos should have retained possession. If current replay rules don't all correct of such a blatant error that the NFL should fix them.

Second. the Pats are still formidable. And, maybe, Favre is just the same old Favre, tossing the ball away at critical times. Doesn't the Pack look smart today?

All i can say is what everyone always said about the tuck rule game. None of it would have mattered if the Chargers stopped them from scoring. They still had a chance to win the game. All they had to do was stop them from scoring.

 

[bobukcat]

Incidentally... much kudos to Jay Cutler and company after the game. He was sure it was a fumble himself. No trying to wish it away... I think the whole Broncos sideline was amazed they got a freebie there, which is probably why they went for 2-pts figuring if they got it they deserved the win, and if not then they really felt they were already on borrowed time anyway.

Also have to give Norv Turner credit for not going ballistic during the game or at post-game. Good composure, while clearly indicating his distaste. I wouldn't have gone the unsportsmanlike route and pulled my team or anything, but I'm sure I would not have handled that situation as well as he did.

The Chargers have to be the best 0-2 team in years.

It was a thoroughly entertaining game, that's for certain! The bad call was unfortunate because it cheapend the outcome to some degree.

 

[joshjr]

As for the Packers looking smart today. Hold on to that thought until they play Dallas next week. If they beat Dallas then I will give Green Bay credit for sticking with Rogers.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

They still had a chance to win the game. All they had to do was stop them from scoring.

This is what I don't get... Lots of people keep saying this... BUT consider...

Remember the year the US lost to the USSR in the Olympics? You know that game, in the way back machine where the refs gave the USSR extra time and another possession?

So... people in the US to this day keep saying "we were cheated"... and I don't ever hear anyone say "but the US team had another chance to stop the USSR and didn't get it done".

So why do folks continue to say this about the Broncos/Chargers game?

Fact is... San Diego DID stop Denver... the refs just blew (literally) the call and Denver got another chance.. Yes, maybe San Diego could have stopped them again... but how many times do you have to stop them?

Or, what about that year in college where Colorado got 5 downs to score a touchdown because someone screwed up the down marker and no one caught it until after the game? Yeah, the other team got a chance to stop them... but shouldn't have had to.

Not to kick old stuff up... but I had a "what is cheating" thread a while back that ran its course... Denver did not cheat here, it was a refs blown call, but the end result is still the same. People complained about underage athletes in the Olympics, for example, but why didn't people just say "yes, but the US team had a chance to compete and win".

The rules seem to change on what is cheating/unfair vs what the other team should do and not have a gripe. I'm still trying to figure out the inconsistency.

All that said... there is unfortunately no way to correct the Chargers/Broncos outcome... so everyone has to move on... but it is a real shame when this sort of thing happens.

 

[Sackchamp56]

This is what I don't get... Lots of people keep saying this... BUT consider...

Remember the year the US lost to the USSR in the Olympics? You know that game, in the way back machine where the refs gave the USSR extra time and another possession?

So... people in the US to this day keep saying "we were cheated"... and I don't ever hear anyone say "but the US team had another chance to stop the USSR and didn't get it done".

So why do folks continue to say this about the Broncos/Chargers game?

Fact is... San Diego DID stop Denver... the refs just blew (literally) the call and Denver got another chance.. Yes, maybe San Diego could have stopped them again... but how many times do you have to stop them?

Or, what about that year in college where Colorado got 5 downs to score a touchdown because someone screwed up the down marker and no one caught it until after the game? Yeah, the other team got a chance to stop them... but shouldn't have had to.

Not to kick old stuff up... but I had a "what is cheating" thread a while back that ran its course... Denver did not cheat here, it was a refs blown call, but the end result is still the same. People complained about underage athletes in the Olympics, for example, but why didn't people just say "yes, but the US team had a chance to compete and win".

The rules seem to change on what is cheating/unfair vs what the other team should do and not have a gripe. I'm still trying to figure out the inconsistency.

All that said... there is unfortunately no way to correct the Chargers/Broncos outcome... so everyone has to move on... but it is a real shame when this sort of thing happens.

I agree that it sucks. As a fan of the Raiders who were screwed out of an AFC championship because of the "tuck rule" in the snow game, I know how it feels. I made the same arguments that you are making. No one bought it. Thought I'd try to bait someone into making the argument for me. Its interesting to see how different the reaction to a blown call is based on what team it happened to. Hopefully they will change the rule, but don't get your hopes up. They don't like to admit they are wrong.

 

[Tigerman73]

They are calling it an inadvertant whistle, he blew the call by calling it an incomplete pass, that's why he blew the whistle. San Diego challenged the call by saying it was a fumble and it was overturned. Only problem was the play was whistled dead before San Diego recovered the ball. So it was given back to Denver on the 10 yard line.

 

[dcowboy7]

As a fan of the Raiders who were screwed out of an AFC championship because of the "tuck rule" in the snow game, I know how it feels.

thats happened in an afc divisional playoff game....u dont know if they wouldve won the afc championship game.

 

[Sackchamp56]

thats happened in an afc divisional playoff game....u dont know if they wouldve won the afc championship game.

correct. Should have said cost them an afc championship game appearance.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

I agree that it sucks. As a fan of the Raiders who were screwed out of an AFC championship because of the "tuck rule" in the snow game, I know how it feels. I made the same arguments that you are making. No one bought it. Thought I'd try to bait someone into making the argument for me. Its interesting to see how different the reaction to a blown call is based on what team it happened to. Hopefully they will change the rule, but don't get your hopes up. They don't like to admit they are wrong.

In the spirit of fairness... the biggest problem seems to be the rule that doesn't allow them to review and change possession of the football in this particular case... so the error made by the ref in blowing the whistle gets compounded by the inability to correct the mistake. We almost saw this last year on a Cleveland field goal that went through, hit the back of the support bar, then bounced back. Had they ruled that one no good, the review would not have been allowed to reverse even though everyone knew it was good... they changed that rule in the offseason. I hope they similarly change the inadvertant whistle rule in cases like this to allow the review to permit change of possession.

On a similar note... last night's Dallas/Philly game had a similarly wrong outcome though it didn't affect the ultimate winner. The Philly receiver that threw the ball back in celebration for the TD he had not yet made... ruled a TD so everyone stopped but the ball actually should have been a live ball and no one but Dallas players were standing next to it so no question Dallas would have gotten the ball if the whistle had not blown.

The review of the play proved no TD, but because of the dead ball whistle Philly retained possession and scored on the next play. Had Philly won the game, we'd have 2 games in as many days decided by poor whistle blowing.

I hope the official who blew the whistle last night is receiving the same downgrade that Hoculi did for his gaffe... because it was very much the same kind of play with a whistle preventing the other team from gaining possession of a live ball.

 

[dcowboy7]

....so everyone stopped but the ball actually should have been a live ball and no one but Dallas players were standing next to it so no question Dallas would have gotten the ball if the whistle had not blown.

nope it was a dead ball:

Appearing on Tuesday's Dan Patrick Show, NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira explained that the Dallas Cowboys could not have recovered the loose ball that receiver DeSean Jackson discarded as he was on the doorstep of the end zone during Monday night's game.

The outcome, then, is the same as it was on Sunday between the Chargers and the Broncos. The ball was dead when it hit the ground.

The key is that, in Jackson's case, the ruling is that he was throwing a backward pass. By rule, the review of the touchdown call resulted in the ball being down where it landed.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/16/cowboys-couldnt-have-recovered-the-ball/

 

[Stewart Vernon]

nope it was a dead ball:

Appearing on Tuesday's Dan Patrick Show, NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira explained that the Dallas Cowboys could not have recovered the loose ball that receiver DeSean Jackson discarded as he was on the doorstep of the end zone during Monday night's game.

The outcome, then, is the same as it was on Sunday between the Chargers and the Broncos. The ball was dead when it hit the ground.

The key is that, in Jackson's case, the ruling is that he was throwing a backward pass. By rule, the review of the touchdown call resulted in the ball being down where it landed.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/16/cowboys-couldnt-have-recovered-the-ball/

That is only true because the whistle blew... which was the problem in both cases. Had the whistle not blown, and the "TD" not had to be reviewed... the play was not over and the ball was live.

Consider the famous Leon Lett play where he touched the ball, but did not recover, and then Miami recovered and got to kick another field goal try to win that game years ago. Had a whistle-happy ref blown the whistle when Lett touched the ball, that would have been the end of that... but those refs let the play continue and we have the famous play to talk about year after year.

The problem in the Chargers/Broncos game and the error in the Cowboys/Eagles game is essentially the same... A fumble/backwards pass that had a blown-dead-whistle which prevented the proper ruling from being available. Once the whistle blows, the play is over and review can't overturn and change possession... which is the 2nd problem.

In summation... Once the whistle blew in both cases, the referees were severely limited in what could be reviewed and overturned by rule. BUT had they not blown the whistle in either case, and the correct fumble ruling/backwards pass been in play and allowed to continue... then a review would have allowed for the proper result.

Problem #1: Too early whistle
Problem #2: Rules prohibit correction of the too-early whistle.

 

[dcowboy7]

That is only true because the whistle blew... which was the problem in both cases. Had the whistle not blown, and the "TD" not had to be reviewed... the play was not over and the ball was live.

Consider the famous Leon Lett play where he touched the ball, but did not recover, and then Miami recovered and got to kick another field goal try to win that game years ago. Had a whistle-happy ref blown the whistle when Lett touched the ball, that would have been the end of that... but those refs let the play continue and we have the famous play to talk about year after year.

The problem in the Chargers/Broncos game and the error in the Cowboys/Eagles game is essentially the same... A fumble/backwards pass that had a blown-dead-whistle which prevented the proper ruling from being available. Once the whistle blows, the play is over and review can't overturn and change possession... which is the 2nd problem.

In summation... Once the whistle blew in both cases, the referees were severely limited in what could be reviewed and overturned by rule. BUT had they not blown the whistle in either case, and the correct fumble ruling/backwards pass been in play and allowed to continue... then a review would have allowed for the proper result.

Problem #1: Too early whistle
Problem #2: Rules prohibit correction of the too-early whistle.

no....not in the eagles case because it was ruled a "backwards pass"....thats different rules than a fumble.....even if the whistle hadnt blown and the cowboys recovered the ball then the eagles would have challenged the call and when it went to replay review the officials would have then reversed the cowboys possesion & ruled it as a backwards pass putting the ball in the eagles possesion at the 2.

its different then the broncos play because that play wasnt a backward pass it was just a fumble....its just that the whislte blew which screwed it up.

also the leon lett play was not ruled a backward pass because he held the ball low when it was knocked out....he didnt flip in over his head which basically constitutes a pass....it was just a fumble like the broncos play....except in the lett play the whistle correctly didnt blow so it was recoverable by anyone.