PDA

View Full Version : This game is fixed!



zulater
11-04-2012, 04:31 PM
Goodell gave the order for the Giants to win this one for a feel good recovery story. :mad2:

katmandu
11-04-2012, 04:33 PM
Goodell gave the order for the Giants to win this one for a feel good recovery story. :mad2:NO JOKE !!!!!

Four MAJOR BLOWN CALLS (1st 25 minutes of the game) by the REFS ?????

MAJOR BULLSHIT !!!!!!​

T&B fan
11-04-2012, 04:34 PM
next there going to just give them 7 points for shits and giggles

Edman
11-04-2012, 04:35 PM
Not gonna lie. This game stinks something fierce.

The Steelers can't let it get to them. They have to keep fighting. Sitting back and whining isn't going to help.

It just makes winning all the more sweeter.

Animal Mother
11-04-2012, 04:35 PM
What are you guys Seahawks/Cardinals/Bengals fans?

Actually there were 5: pass interference, clark hit, non-TD, non-fumble, block in the back

ALLD
11-04-2012, 04:36 PM
You have no evidence. Just because the refs called a phantom helmet to helmet hit on Ryan Clark and then called a fumble an incomplete forward pass to spot the Giants two TDs?

steel9guy
11-04-2012, 04:36 PM
This is the worst I've ever seen!!!

ALLD
11-04-2012, 04:38 PM
If I was a Giant I would feel ashamed.

mark0933
11-04-2012, 04:41 PM
Can we get the replacement officials back?????

zulater
11-04-2012, 04:47 PM
You have no evidence. Just because the refs called a phantom helmet to helmet hit on Ryan Clark and then called a fumble an incomplete forward pass to spot the Giants two TDs?

And a 40 yard interference call on a ball that was perfectly defensed.

- - - Updated - - -

They're allowed to call penalties against the Giants?

fansince'76
11-04-2012, 04:48 PM
I'm not gonna bitch like a Seahawks fan. Just gotta fight through it. We've done it before.

Steeldude
11-04-2012, 04:50 PM
The game isn't fixed. The Steelers' O-line sucks.

fansince'76
11-04-2012, 04:52 PM
The game isn't fixed. The Steelers' O-line sucks.

Doesn't exactly explain the horseshit penalties on our defense that gave the Giants a free TD, but whatever...

Craic
11-04-2012, 04:53 PM
Geez . . . I think I AM on a Seahawk board right now.

Yes, there's been some really bad calls. A phantom PI, a back personal foul penalty, a missed clipping.

But the ball WAS MOVING in Ben's hands before it started moving forward. That's a fumble. It doesn't matter that he pushed the ball forward, it's still a fumble. The second PI was a good call - Lewis wasn't looking back at the ball when he hit the WR. It was a brilliant WR play.

Let's keep our head about this people. Yes, some bad calls, but bad calls doesn't = fixed.

st33lersguy
11-04-2012, 04:54 PM
The Giants better forfeit this game out of integrity and I better hear the sports media go nuts demanding new refs the way they demanded the regular refs back after the PAckers-Seasucks game.

fansince'76
11-04-2012, 04:58 PM
But the ball WAS MOVING in Ben's hands before it started moving forward. That's a fumble. It doesn't matter that he pushed the ball forward, it's still a fumble.

Yep. It was a fumble in SB XLIII and it was a fumble in this game. I am pissed off about the phantom PI and the phantom unnecessary roughness, though.

ALLD
11-04-2012, 04:58 PM
The ball moving slightly in Ben's hand still falls under the tuck rule. It was a bad incomplete pass and a bad call. If it was Brady they would have given the ball back and maybe a few extra yards.

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 04:58 PM
We're only down by 4 and we get the ball first in the 2nd half. This game is not over.

Craic
11-04-2012, 04:59 PM
The game isn't fixed. The Steelers' O-line sucks.

Nevermind the fact that their going up against two of the best DL men in the NFL. Nevermind the fact that they're dominating the line in the Run game. Never mind that the rookie at Right Tackle has been worked over one time, and only one time in the half by one of the most dominating DL's in the league, or that said RT has sealed off holes on his side between him and the TE that has sprung the RB for at least two or three good runs.

No, this line is no better than the line last year, or the year before, or even the year before that. Of course that's the answer!

ALLD
11-04-2012, 04:59 PM
The media is like MSNBC and CBS, they are based in NY so they will not make a big deal out of the calls either.

Edman
11-04-2012, 05:01 PM
Geez . . . I think I AM on a Seahawk board right now.

Yes, there's been some really bad calls. A phantom PI, a back personal foul penalty, a missed clipping.

But the ball WAS MOVING in Ben's hands before it started moving forward. That's a fumble. It doesn't matter that he pushed the ball forward, it's still a fumble. The second PI was a good call - Lewis wasn't looking back at the ball when he hit the WR. It was a brilliant WR play.

Let's keep our head about this people. Yes, some bad calls, but bad calls doesn't = fixed.

The Hawks & Fans were right to complain about XL. That game wasn't officiated well.

What they were not right is blaming their loss strictly on the officiating. The Hawks really sucked that game and didn't fight through it.

There's acknowledging where something stinks, and then there's just making excuses because you can't play. The refs in this game are garbage, Preach. That's all there is to it. If the Steelers lose this game, it isn't because of the officials, it was because they couldn't fight above the officiating. Bad calls or not, they still have a job to do, and that's to play and win.

That doesn't excuse the horrid farce going on right now. The officiating is terrible.

Craic
11-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Yep. It was a fumble in SB XLIII and it was a fumble in this game. I am pissed off about the phantom PI and the phantom unnecessary roughness, though.

The phantom PI is was gets my goat the worst. The Unnecessary Roughness penalty was a very bad call, but it's something that we're going to have deal with until the refs see that Clark has learned how to hit legally. He's brought that on himself. If there's any question, he'll get the flag until he proves that he is consistently hitting clean now. Like I said, a bad ball, but that's something that you reap what you've sown, and he's sown that call for years with headshots.

fansince'76
11-04-2012, 05:03 PM
Gotta wonder if Clark will get fined/suspended for the bogus penalty, though...

JayC
11-04-2012, 05:03 PM
even cowher is in on the fix. since when is a QB's arm going forward not a pass. the ball moved but he still had it otherwise it wouldn't have went 5 yards down the field before it hit the ground

st33lersguy
11-04-2012, 05:04 PM
Average uneducated steeler hater: "This is just to make up for all the games the refs fixed for the steeler"

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 05:04 PM
Yep. It was a fumble in SB XLIII and it was a fumble in this game. I am pissed off about the phantom PI and the phantom unnecessary roughness, though.

Fine, but are the refs the only ones that did not see the block in the back on Miller?

SCSTILLER
11-04-2012, 05:04 PM
If I was a Giant I would feel ashamed.

A friend of mine who is a die hard, from NYC, Giants fan texted me and said this game was fixed for the Giants. He stated that the way the first half was called that there is no other explanation. Take it for what it is

ALLD
11-04-2012, 05:06 PM
Cowher said the fumble was a fumble, but disagreed on Clark's PF. I say Cowher is wrong because Ben never lost control and got it past the scrimmage line by a mile. He wasn't bobbling it and it didn't slide out. That is the very reason why the tuck rule was put in place. Now if it is selectively enforced, that is a different ball game.

- - - Updated - - -


Gotta wonder if Clark will get fined/suspended for the bogus penalty, though...

If he gets fined can he pay with Monopoly money?

Craic
11-04-2012, 05:09 PM
The Hawks & Fans were right to complain about XL. That game wasn't officiated well.

What they were not right is blaming their loss strictly on the officiating. The Hawks really sucked that game and didn't fight through it.

There's acknowledging where something stinks, and then there's just making excuses because you can't play. The refs in this game are garbage, Preach. That's all there is to it.

Re-read the OP - or the thread title. Do YOU think the game is fixed? Cause the OP sure does.

And honestly, there's been two bad calls. Very bad calls, but that's it. The others looked bad, but in hindsight, were the right calls. And as I said, Clark's hit was very clean - but he isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt until he proves that he consistently hits cleanly. See my last post under "You reap what you've sown."

- - - Updated - - -


Fine, but are the refs the only ones that did not see the block in the back on Miller?

On runbacks like that, those blocks often happen. It's pretty common, actually. Remember the same thing happening on Harrison's runback in the SB.

- - - Updated - - -


even cowher is in on the fix. since when is a QB's arm going forward not a pass. the ball moved but he still had it otherwise it wouldn't have went 5 yards down the field before it hit the ground

Nope. I can completely let go of the ball and push it five yard down the field. The question is, did he have CONTROL of the ball. The answer is "no." He lost control before his arm went forward. After that, it doesn't matter where the ball ended up.

fansince'76
11-04-2012, 05:11 PM
Re-read the OP - or the thread title. Do YOU think the game is fixed? Cause the OP sure does.

DA GIANTS PAYED DA REFS!!! :chuckle:

Craic
11-04-2012, 05:14 PM
Gotta wonder if Clark will get fined/suspended for the bogus penalty, though...

You all know where I fall on this issue normally - the players know the rule and it's their fault if they can't hit within them. But if he gets fined for that hit, I'll be some kind of upset. It was one of the best hits I've seen in quite some time.

Matter of fact, that play was within the rules from EVERy angle. 1. he didn't launch. 2. He didn't hit him with his helmet. 3. He hit below the shoulder. Hence, it wasn't a spearing, a hit on a defenseless receiver.

The only think CLOSE that I could imagine, was the timing of the hit. But even then, in slow motion, the ball was by when he hit him, but in real time, that play was too bang bang.

- - - Updated - - -


DA GIANTS PAYED DA REFS!!! :chuckle:

:buttkick: :chuckle:

st33lersguy
11-04-2012, 05:33 PM
bad spot

- - - Updated - - -

The refs give challenge to the Steelers. Wow!

steeldevil
11-04-2012, 05:37 PM
Clearly the nfl wants the giants to win beause of the hurricane...

st33lersguy
11-04-2012, 05:38 PM
Clearly the nfl wants the giants to win beause of the hurricane...

No, it's because Goofdell has a disdain for the Steelers because they won't go along with his stupid rule changes

steeldevil
11-04-2012, 06:27 PM
BEAT THEM AND THE REFS IN THEIR HOUSE

X-Terminator
11-04-2012, 06:34 PM
Let this be a lesson to all Whinehawk fans. Good teams find a way to overcome awful officiating. Gotta say this is pretty damn satisfying...even if I didn't watch one second of it (which thankfully will be the last game I miss until Dec. 16).

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 06:34 PM
HELL YA!!!!!!!!!!!!

fansince'76
11-04-2012, 06:34 PM
I'm not gonna bitch like a Seahawks fan. Just gotta fight through it. We've done it before.

Perseverance.

That's what it's called, Suckhawk fans.

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 06:35 PM
Obstacles on the path to VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!! WHOO!!!!!!!!

Godfather
11-04-2012, 06:36 PM
Yep.

LOSERS blame the zebras. WINNERS overcome bad officiating.

st33lersguy
11-04-2012, 06:37 PM
I haven't seen a team overcome such crappy officiating to win so well since the Steelers in the 05 divisional game. Take that Justin Tuck, take that Goofdell, take that Refs

stillers4me
11-04-2012, 06:37 PM
Eli asked for his money back.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/390164_3988040103596_934481975_n.jpg

Steeldude
11-04-2012, 06:47 PM
Nevermind the fact that their going up against two of the best DL men in the NFL. Nevermind the fact that they're dominating the line in the Run game. Never mind that the rookie at Right Tackle has been worked over one time, and only one time in the half by one of the most dominating DL's in the league, or that said RT has sealed off holes on his side between him and the TE that has sprung the RB for at least two or three good runs.

No, this line is no better than the line last year, or the year before, or even the year before that. Of course that's the answer!

Did I say it was worse than last year? Yes or no?

You are content with the O-line and I expect more. We have different standards.

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 06:49 PM
Did I say it was worse than last year? Yes or no?

You are content with the O-line and I expect more. We have different standards.

You can't deny that they are showing signs of improvement. That is 3 games in a row with a 100 yard rusher. Yes, they allowed some sacks today, but they were playing against, probably, the best D Line in the league.

Edman
11-04-2012, 06:51 PM
This is how you beat bad officiating.

Seattle should take notes.

tube517
11-04-2012, 06:54 PM
Perseverance.

That's what it's called, Suckhawk fans.

"Just play". I remember that from Cowher on the BS polamalu call in the Indy game. They kept fighting and won. Just like they did here.

Craic
11-04-2012, 07:29 PM
Did I say it was worse than last year? Yes or no?

You are content with the O-line and I expect more. We have different standards.

No, you said that the line sucks. That is the common thought of the line for the last few years and why I believed that you were equating them. Maybe being more specific in the assessment would help clarify. For me, the fact is, this line is the best that's it's been since the 2005 season (maybe 06). Am I happy with the sacks today? Not in in the least. But what I am happy with, is the fact that they are opening holes for the running game finally; the fact that they are dominating at times on the LoS; the fact that when it counted today, the line kept Ben upright. Is there room for improvement? Sure. But sucks? After the last few years? That's the kind of assessment I'd expect from a bandwagon fan when the wheels fell off, someone who hasn't been following this team as much as you or I have. I know your not a bandwagon fan, and I know you've followed the team closely, so when you say "sucks," what else am I to assume?

stillers4me
11-04-2012, 07:34 PM
Pittsburgh Dad‏@Pittsburgh_Dad3...2...1...win! I was gonna let you kids stay up late but the refs overturned that call too.

steelpride12
11-04-2012, 07:36 PM
Update: Steelers were awarded 2 wins for tonight's game for beating the Giants and the refs! :lol:

X-Terminator
11-04-2012, 07:38 PM
Did I say it was worse than last year? Yes or no?

You are content with the O-line and I expect more. We have different standards.

If your standard is perfection (and for you, it usually is), then you will never, ever be happy. Archie Bunker fits you perfectly.

steeldevil
11-04-2012, 07:41 PM
The oline is run blocking better than it has since AT LEAST 2006.

And the pass blocking is better than the past few years, although some of that is because of the change in offense.

Keep it up Big Uglies!!

zulater
11-04-2012, 07:45 PM
Re-read the OP - or the thread title. Do YOU think the game is fixed? Cause the OP sure does.

And honestly, there's been two bad calls. Very bad calls, but that's it. The others looked bad, but in hindsight, were the right calls. And as I said, Clark's hit was very clean - but he isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt until he proves that he consistently hits cleanly. See my last post under "You reap what you've sown."

- - - Updated - - -



On runbacks like that, those blocks often happen. It's pretty common, actually. Remember the same thing happening on Harrison's runback in the SB.

- - - Updated - - -



Nope. I can completely let go of the ball and push it five yard down the field. The question is, did he have CONTROL of the ball. The answer is "no." He lost control before his arm went forward. After that, it doesn't matter where the ball ended up.

The "OP" in the moment was really pissed at some especially bad calls that cost the Steelers 11 points! Do I think the game was fixed? No, and regardless of outcome once the game ended I would have cooled down and chalked it up to some piss poor officiating. And then would also say the league needs to start making these refs accountable. If players can be fined and suspended for bad judgement on a hit when things are moving 100 mph around them, then why can't refs be held to a higher standard and be punished for using bad judgement? Particularly when the call's affect the score on the field.


Do I apoligize for this thread? Hell no! I post like a guy on a bar stool next to you and give a running commentary to events as they unfold. The Steelers got hit by an early barrage of terrible calls that adversly affected them on the scoreboard and I was far from alone in voicing my outrage, both here and on twitter.

GBMelBlount
11-04-2012, 07:49 PM
I'm not gonna bitch like a Seahawks fan. Just gotta fight through it. We've done it before.

Good call Gary. :thumbsup:

zulater
11-04-2012, 07:56 PM
When someone posts something like this does anyone really take it literally? To me the message board is a way to emotionally purge myself so I'm not screaming in the house upsetting the wife and dogs, and having the neighbors think I'm coming unhinged! :lol:

steel striker
11-04-2012, 07:57 PM
Well i did lose my mind after a few of the BS calls but, they found a way to win this game that is all that matters. Today marked the third straight 100+ ground game and, the defense is strating to come together as well. I hope Rainey & Brown are ok.

Craic
11-04-2012, 08:05 PM
When someone posts something like this does anyone really take it literally? To me the message board is a way to emotionally purge myself so I'm not screaming in the house upsetting the wife and dogs, and having the neighbors think I'm coming unhinged! :lol:

:chuckle: I understand that. But you do realize that your emotional purge ends up being purged on all of us humans that read it here... Not that I don't understand your need to do so, I was quite torqued off myself at the calls tonight. I mean, I'll even admit that at one point I thought maybe the fix was in. That's actually how I was able to answer the post here, because I had to think myself through the same thoughts. I mean, until I saw the replay of the fumble and the explanation of the rules, it DID look bad!

86WARD
11-04-2012, 08:08 PM
Goodell gave the order for the Giants to win this one for a feel good recovery story. :mad2:

Lol...probably true!

Steeldude
11-04-2012, 08:12 PM
You can't deny that they are showing signs of improvement. That is 3 games in a row with a 100 yard rusher. Yes, they allowed some sacks today, but they were playing against, probably, the best D Line in the league.

I agree they are showing signs of improvement. My beef had more to do with the pass protection than the running game. I realize the Giants front four is very good, but some of those plays should not have been so easy for the Giants.

Perhaps the adjective "sucks" was too strong of a word : )

Steeldude
11-04-2012, 08:18 PM
If your standard is perfection (and for you, it usually is), then you will never, ever be happy. Archie Bunker fits you perfectly.

I expect consistently good or better. Why settle for mediocrity?

The term Archie Bunker isn't accurate, Gloria : )

PS: I am happy right now. The wife isn't home. She is probably wasting money somewhere, but she isn't home. It's not the perfect setting, but I am happy

zulater
11-04-2012, 08:23 PM
:chuckle: I understand that. But you do realize that your emotional purge ends up being purged on all of us humans that read it here... Not that I don't understand your need to do so, I was quite torqued off myself at the calls tonight. I mean, I'll even admit that at one point I thought maybe the fix was in. That's actually how I was able to answer the post here, because I had to think myself through the same thoughts. I mean, until I saw the replay of the fumble and the explanation of the rules, it DID look bad!

I still call BS on the so called fumble. If you want to change the tuck rule, I'm all for it. But by the established standards of the tuck rule that was in fact a foward pass, and no amount of league apoligists will convince me otherwise. A few games back the Steelers won a reversal on the tuck rule on a fumble that was much more influenced by a defenders hit. That one ( can't remember which game?) I honeslty thought that one wouldn't have, and shouldn't have been reversed, though it was. This one, just like Ben, (who was in more of a position to know than any talking head or replay official) I was absolutely certain would be, and should have been reveresed.

That call isn't made the same from game to game. They either need to better define it, or better yet get rid of it, and if it looks like a fumble then it is.

Craic
11-04-2012, 08:29 PM
I still call BS on the so called fumble. If you want to change the tuck rule, I'm all for it. But by the established standards of the tuck rule that was in fact a foward pass, and no amount of league apoligists will convince me otherwise. A few games back the Steelers won a reversal on the tuck rule on a fumble that was much more influenced by a defenders hit. That one ( can't remember which game?) I honeslty thought that one wouldn't have, and shouldn't have been reversed, though it was. This one, just like Ben, (who was in more of a position to know than any talking head or replay official) I was absolutely certain would be, and should have been reveresed.

That call isn't made the same from game to game. They either need to better define it, or better yet get rid of it, and if it looks like a fumble then it is.
I went back and played that back and forth numerous times, frame by frame, and the thing is, the announcer (I think it was Nance, maybe not), was right. BEFORE Ben's arms started moving forward, the ball can be seen moving in his hand from the hit. He never regained control of the ball and brought his hand forward. Since there was no forward momentum when the ball was originally knocked loose, it's a fumble. It doesn't matter that he could propel the ball forward afterward. The tuck rule has nothing to do with this call, because his arm wasn't coming forward when the ball began moving.

In fact, it's the EXACT same call that they called on Eli Manning at the end of the game, and also the same call that was called against Warner in the SB at the very end.

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 08:31 PM
They still missed a block in the back on Heath. Very obvious, right in the open.

steelreserve
11-04-2012, 09:02 PM
It didn't look like he lost control of the ball to me. It looked like the ball turned in his hand a little bit but he still had complete control. Just because the ball moves at all does not mean you've lost control of it.

Sorry, but they do not get a pass from me on that one, and the fact that they gifted NY 100+ yards and at least 14 points in the game - not to mention that they blew another obvious call ON THAT SAME PLAY - does not make me inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. That entire officiating crew should be suspended next week, and on the fast track out the door at the end of the season. What a total fucking disgrace on all counts.

Count Steeler
11-04-2012, 09:03 PM
I'm pretty sure this crew did another one of our games and they sucked ass on that one as well. I can't think of it yet, but this crew is bad.

Bring back the replacements!

zulater
11-04-2012, 09:05 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000090030/article/new-york-giants-benefit-from-two-shaky-calls-by-refs

On the ensuing drive, Ben Roethlisberger was sacked by Osi Umenyiora. Michael Boley returned Big Ben's fumble 70 yards for a touchdown. But was it a fumble?

Roethlisberger appeared to regain control and maintain enough possession of the ball to throw it forward on the play. We thought the call should have been overturned as an incomplete pass upon review. It wasn't, giving the Giants seven points.

"I didn't ask for an explanation," Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said. "I can't figure out some of this stuff now. I just tried to move on as best I can because that's what our guys need to do."

The video is on this link. I think the league is fabricating the interpretation of the rule. Should have been ruled incomplete.

vader29
11-04-2012, 09:14 PM
If a Steeler player had picked up that "fumble" from Ben, it would have been ruled as an incomplete pass.

zulater
11-04-2012, 10:07 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/04/giants-use-questionable-call-to-tie-game/

UPDATE 5:31 p.m. ET: Michael Boley just returned what the refs are calling a fumble 70 yards to put the Giants ahead 14-7. There’s a bit more doubt on this call, but it certainly appears Roethlisberger’s arm was moving forward with the ball when the ball came out and the play could have been ruled an incomplete pass. NBC officiating consultant Jim Daopoulos believes it should have been called an incomplete pass and there also appeared to be a block in the back on Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul that went uncalled. It’s been an interesting day for referee Bill Leavy’s crew to say the least.

The more I see and read, the more I'm convinced that it was a terrible call and that the league is spreading their propaganda damage control revisonist history trying to claim Ben didn't influence the ball foward to gain an incomplete pass.

One thing's for sure I've lost all respect I once had for Phil Simms. Chris Collingsworth may be a pencil neck geek, but if he sees a duck he'll call it a duck every single time.

zulater
11-04-2012, 10:31 PM
https://twitter.com/RefereeJimD


It was a forward pass and should have been reversed in replay review.




Jason Whitlock quote.



I like Phil Simms but don't make excuses for that bogus call. Sounded like Goodell was in the booth.

X-Terminator
11-04-2012, 10:38 PM
referee Bill Leavy

Enough said on that. He and his crew are the worst officials in the league, so I'm not surprised at the bogus calls. And yes, I know he worked SB XL.

zulater
11-04-2012, 11:06 PM
http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ben-arm-screwed-11-4-12.gif

Ben Roethlisberger pretty clearly was attempting a pass here. Yes, his arm was slapped as he cocked it to throw, but he still had control of the ball. Then Roethlisberger tried to stop himself – tuck rule? – but it came loose, everyone stopped playing, and the Giants scooped the ball up and scored.

Good luck finding someone who isn’t a Giants fan that agrees with this call. New York leads Pittsburgh 14-7 at the half.


http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/11/04/ben-roethlisberger-pass-attempt-turned-into-a-giants-defensive-touchdown-due-to-a-horrible-call-by-the-refs/

By this standard any time a qb has a pass slip out of his hand it will be ruled a fumble.

Wallace108
11-04-2012, 11:37 PM
Here's the opinion of Mike Pereira, former NFL vice president of officiating:


Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira

Leavy felt ball was loose after contact by Osi. Very tight play. I think he still had control. In my opinion it was an incomplete pass.


Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira

Phil Simms came back & said that he agreed with the fumble call. As much as I like Phil, I have to disagree. He did not loose control.

zulater
11-05-2012, 05:22 AM
Here's the opinion of Mike Pereira, former NFL vice president of officiating:

So basically we have two respected ex NFL officials who say the play should have been reversed.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc...

Bottom line the Steelers got screwed a minimum of 11 points.

steeldawg
11-05-2012, 05:30 AM
That was bad it certainly looke like he threw the ball but i thought the pass interference call was awful too and that blow to the head call on ryan clark.

zulater
11-05-2012, 05:36 AM
That was bad it certainly looke like he threw the ball but i thought the pass interference call was awful too and that blow to the head call on ryan clark.

No question the first interference call on Lewis was a joke. and the call on Clark in the end zone was even worse.

steeldawg
11-05-2012, 05:45 AM
No question the first interference call on Lewis was a joke. and the call on Clark in the end zone was even worse.

I must admit i thought the fix was in and i am not conspiracy guy at all.

plenewken
11-05-2012, 06:19 AM
NFL scores are dictated by Goodell and Las Vegas. It's obvious.

Austin87
11-05-2012, 07:04 AM
NFL scores are dictated by Goodell and Las Vegas. It's obvious.

Really?









Really??

plenewken
11-05-2012, 07:18 AM
Let me correct what I said. Goodell doesn't care what the score is, but he's definitely influential in terms of who should win. He can't fix all games though cause there's still a high % of unknown but he's definitely instructing the refs to officiate one way or another, when certain teams play.
As for scores, Las Vegas is definitely behind. Thinking otherwise is naive. There's too much money bet on games for LV not trying to influence the scores.









Really??[/QUOTE]

Bluecoat96
11-05-2012, 07:20 AM
http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ben-arm-screwed-11-4-12.gif

Ben Roethlisberger pretty clearly was attempting a pass here. Yes, his arm was slapped as he cocked it to throw, but he still had control of the ball. Then Roethlisberger tried to stop himself – tuck rule? – but it came loose, everyone stopped playing, and the Giants scooped the ball up and scored.

Good luck finding someone who isn’t a Giants fan that agrees with this call. New York leads Pittsburgh 14-7 at the half.


http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/11/04/ben-roethlisberger-pass-attempt-turned-into-a-giants-defensive-touchdown-due-to-a-horrible-call-by-the-refs/

By this standard any time a qb has a pass slip out of his hand it will be ruled a fumble.

If you filmed me throwing a football, I'm willing to bet it would look JUST like this. lol

X-Terminator
11-05-2012, 07:31 AM
So basically we have two respected ex NFL officials who say the play should have been reversed.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc...

Bottom line the Steelers got screwed a minimum of 11 points.

Watched the replay this morning on NFL AM...and yeah, the Steelers got hosed. Big time. The refs are responsible for making that game closer than it should have been. Will they get punished for it? Hell no. And I'm willing to bet that if the tables were turned, it would have been ruled incomplete.

plenewken
11-05-2012, 07:39 AM
The block in the back of Heath on the TD was another blown call.

Edman
11-05-2012, 07:50 AM
The terrible PI on Lewis. That was textbook coverage. If Lewis doesn't stick his arm out Nicks catches it.
Ben's "Fumble" that wasn't.
The "blow to the head" PF call on Clark where he hit Cruz on the shoulder.
Manning heaving up a ball and whining for PI afterwards.
Ahmad Bradshaw's TD that wasn't a TD.

Yeah, the calls were terrible. The Officiating stinks.

Wallace108
11-05-2012, 09:20 AM
The block in the back of Heath on the TD was another blown call.

That was a horrible no-call. I can understand a block in the back being missed if it occurs away from the play. But there's no possible way this block in the back on Miller should have been missed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyXoTgaYmdY

BlastFurnace
11-05-2012, 09:59 AM
Enough said on that. He and his crew are the worst officials in the league, so I'm not surprised at the bogus calls. And yes, I know he worked SB XL.

Based upon statements he has made in the recent past about his regrets about SB XL, I would question whether he should be refereeing a Steelers game from this point on.

- - - Updated - - -


I must admit i thought the fix was in and i am not conspiracy guy at all.

Interestingly enough, James Farrior tweeted "The Fix is in" during the first half of the game as well. Bettis even ripped the officials on Twitter yesterday on the Boley return. Trai Essex sent out a tweet questioning the officials.

It was hard not to think that during that 2nd Qtr. If you were following Twitter during the game, there were more than a few tweets, beyond what I mentioned above, that hinted toward it by people from Pro Football Focus and some other writers.

Craic
11-05-2012, 11:53 AM
No question the first interference call on Lewis was a joke. and the call on Clark in the end zone was even worse.

I'd flip these. The first one was worse, because it was in the open, it was a large penalty, and it was against a player that does not have a track record of PI. The second one was in close, bang bang, and with a player with a track record of doing exactly what he was accused of. For me, the Lewis call was much, much worse.


So basically we have two respected ex NFL officials who say the play should have been reversed.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc...

Bottom line the Steelers got screwed a minimum of 11 points.

But what if you're looking for a duck, and really, it's a chicken, but your so intent on seeing a duck, that's what you see? There's no observation without interpretation.

Anyway, how you you figure 11 points? I count up seven (since I don't think the fumble was a bad call). Even so, if I did, then it'd be 14 points. I'm just wondering how you got 11 out of that.

HollywoodSteel
11-05-2012, 12:13 PM
I'd flip these. The first one was worse, because it was in the open, it was a large penalty, and it was against a player that does not have a track record of PI. The second one was in close, bang bang, and with a player with a track record of doing exactly what he was accused of. For me, the Lewis call was much, much worse.



But what if you're looking for a duck, and really, it's a chicken, but your so intent on seeing a duck, that's what you see? There's no observation without interpretation.

Anyway, how you you figure 11 points? I count up seven (since I don't think the fumble was a bad call). Even so, if I did, then it'd be 14 points. I'm just wondering how you got 11 out of that.

I think he's judging the bad calls without relation to one another. Meaning, if you don't account for the Giants being in the redzone because of the PI call, then the 3rd down play where Clark drew the flag would have ended up in a Giants FG (because Ike dropped an easy pick, but that's besides the point).

steelreserve
11-05-2012, 12:30 PM
Let me correct what I said. Goodell doesn't care what the score is, but he's definitely influential in terms of who should win. He can't fix all games though cause there's still a high % of unknown but he's definitely instructing the refs to officiate one way or another, when certain teams play.
As for scores, Las Vegas is definitely behind. Thinking otherwise is naive. There's too much money bet on games for LV not trying to influence the scores.

Why would Vegas try to influence the scores? In 99% of games, Vegas is going to make a lot of money regardless of the score. All they want is for roughly even numbers of people to bet on each side (which is why they have a point spread) and collect their 10% off the top. If they can do that, it doesn't matter at all who wins our loses, or by how much.

Seeing as how a Nevada gaming license is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits, no casino is going to be stupid enough to risk that. Why bother trying to cheat? The odds are set in their favor already.

HollywoodSteel
11-05-2012, 01:02 PM
Why would Vegas try to influence the scores? In 99% of games, Vegas is going to make a lot of money regardless of the score. All they want is for roughly even numbers of people to bet on each side (which is why they have a point spread) and collect their 10% off the top. If they can do that, it doesn't matter at all who wins our loses, or by how much.

Seeing as how a Nevada gaming license is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits, no casino is going to be stupid enough to risk that. Why bother trying to cheat? The odds are set in their favor already.

This is exactly right. Occasionally Vegas can lose money on huge games like the Super Bowl when money overwhelmingly goes on way, but as you said their goal is for this not to happen which is why the line moves: not to influence the outcome of the game but to influence even betting.

People hear stories about mobsters and such affecting games, but this is a far cry from what Vegas wants. As Steelreserve says, Vegas wants the to maintain the integrity of the game more than anyone. The more a game is on the up and up, the more people are willing to bet on it.

- - - Updated - - -


Why would Vegas try to influence the scores? In 99% of games, Vegas is going to make a lot of money regardless of the score. All they want is for roughly even numbers of people to bet on each side (which is why they have a point spread) and collect their 10% off the top. If they can do that, it doesn't matter at all who wins our loses, or by how much.

Seeing as how a Nevada gaming license is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits, no casino is going to be stupid enough to risk that. Why bother trying to cheat? The odds are set in their favor already.

This is exactly right. Occasionally Vegas can lose money on huge games like the Super Bowl when money overwhelmingly goes on way, but as you said their goal is for this not to happen which is why the line moves: not to influence the outcome of the game but to influence even betting.

People hear stories about mobsters and such affecting games, but this is a far cry from what Vegas wants. As Steelreserve says, Vegas wants the to maintain the integrity of the game more than anyone. The more a game is on the up and up, the more people are willing to bet on it.

GodfatherofSoul
11-05-2012, 01:07 PM
The terrible PI on Lewis. That was textbook coverage. If Lewis doesn't stick his arm out Nicks catches it.
Ben's "Fumble" that wasn't.
The "blow to the head" PF call on Clark where he hit Cruz on the shoulder.
Manning heaving up a ball and whining for PI afterwards.
Ahmad Bradshaw's TD that wasn't a TD.

Yeah, the calls were terrible. The Officiating stinks.

You left off the blindside block call on that return.

- - - Updated - - -



This is exactly right. Occasionally Vegas can lose money on huge games like the Super Bowl when money overwhelmingly goes on way, but as you said their goal is for this not to happen which is why the line moves: not to influence the outcome of the game but to influence even betting.

People hear stories about mobsters and such affecting games, but this is a far cry from what Vegas wants. As Steelreserve says, Vegas wants the to maintain the integrity of the game more than anyone. The more a game is on the up and up, the more people are willing to bet on it.

I've had some interesting conversations with a local mobster who flat out said some games are fixed. He also noted some reffing scandals in the NFL that got very little media attention (I think in the 90s). I actually googled for them since I thought he was full of shit, but they did happen. He noted that the only integrity they're worried about is the perception of integrity. There's a balance between payoff and making sure it's not obvious when it happens.

HollywoodSteel
11-05-2012, 01:19 PM
You left off the blindside block call on that return.

- - - Updated - - -



I've had some interesting conversations with a local mobster who flat out said some games are fixed. He also noted some reffing scandals in the NFL that got very little media attention (I think in the 90s). I actually googled for them since I thought he was full of shit, but they did happen. He noted that the only integrity they're worried about is the perception of integrity. There's a balance between payoff and making sure it's not obvious when it happens.

Yes, but fixed by whom? A few mobsters here and there or huge corporations that own Vegas casinos. It's true that perception of integrity is the most important thing to Vegas, but the easiest way to maintain the perception of integrity is to have actual integrity. Any messing around with it on the casinos' part would hardly be worth the risk in today's environment. And when people talk about "Vegas" doing something, whom do the mean? One powerful Vegas guy? The CEOs of all the corporations that own casinos getting together in a back room somewhere and risking everything in their lives over a measly few million dollars?

steelreserve
11-05-2012, 01:33 PM
I've had some interesting conversations with a local mobster who flat out said some games are fixed. He also noted some reffing scandals in the NFL that got very little media attention (I think in the 90s). I actually googled for them since I thought he was full of shit, but they did happen. He noted that the only integrity they're worried about is the perception of integrity. There's a balance between payoff and making sure it's not obvious when it happens.

Oh yeah - you do hear about that stuff from time to time. They've had some pretty well-documented point-shaving scandals in college basketball, match fixing in soccer, etc., so it does happen. But the important difference is the ones trying to rig a game are always the gamblers, not the casino.

I'm not saying it's impossible for an NFL game to be rigged, but usually the times you hear about that kind of thing are things like college sports, second-division Guatemalan soccer, etc. Sports that aren't widely followed, people aren't paid much, and you have easier access to the players - so it's easier to influence people using money, and easier to do so without being noticed. If I were a mobster, I'd go for the easier money. :thumbsup:

ALLD
11-05-2012, 03:22 PM
NBA was fixed by the refs, why not the NFL?

zulater
11-05-2012, 06:00 PM
I'd flip these. The first one was worse, because it was in the open, it was a large penalty, and it was against a player that does not have a track record of PI. The second one was in close, bang bang, and with a player with a track record of doing exactly what he was accused of. For me, the Lewis call was much, much worse.



But what if you're looking for a duck, and really, it's a chicken, but your so intent on seeing a duck, that's what you see? There's no observation without interpretation.

Anyway, how you you figure 11 points? I count up seven (since I don't think the fumble was a bad call). Even so, if I did, then it'd be 14 points. I'm just wondering how you got 11 out of that.

First off it was an incomplete pass. I have Mike Pereira, former NFL vice president of officiating, who currently is paid by Fox to analyze such things telling me so. I also have former NFL ref Jim Daopoulos who is currently paid by PFT to explain contraversial calls also saying so.

Why do I take their word over the league? Simple, the league lies to cover their ass. Just like they did with the Seattle- Green Bay co possession bullshit. ( of course you bought that one too didn't you) Pereira generally supports the call on the field, he has no axe to grind or anything to gain by needlessly stirring up shit. In other words he had no dog in the fight. And he quite defintively said the call should have been reversed.

So there's 7 points.

Now the other 4 points. Simple, even though I know the PI call against Lewis was a bad call I can't assume that drive ends in a punt. That was either a first or second down play, so for all any of us know that drive could have advanced inside the red zone. Plus I can forgive that call somewhat. Bad as it was I can see where the ref could have misenterpted it if he had the wrong angle or was too far back. So in the end I can concede that the Giants may have advanced the ball into the red zone one way or other.

But once there, on a 3rd down play that fails from the 3 yard line I can safely assume the probablity is high in that game situation that they probably attempt and make the field goal. So in essense the horrible call on Clark cost the Steelers an additional 4 points, the difference between a touchdown and a field goal. Hence one gifted touchdown that actually ended a promising Steelers drive that could have yielded points, plus the four points they were gifted due to being given a new set of downs inside the 5 yard line and you have 11 points.

zulater
11-06-2012, 10:35 AM
By the way Preach, just watched the end of game fumble by Eli, and your comparison of that actual fumble to Ben's non fumble is laughable. Not even close to the same play.

Sorry I didn't mean that to come off with an edge, but you got to quit buying the NFL's company line. Their denial of Ben's incompletion falling under the tuck rule was nothing more than CYA after the fact damage control. Given the Steelers field position at the time, that non reversal could have accounted for as much as a 14 point turnaround. Combined with the previous blown call on the PI and the Ryan Clark non helmet hit on a game that was being televised to about 75% of the country they needed to get out and try to control the message as best they could.

zulater
11-06-2012, 10:41 AM
The NFL rule book states: NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

judge the play for yourself:


[QUOTE=zulater;328873]http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ben-arm-screwed-11-4-12.gif

BnG_Hevn
11-06-2012, 11:15 AM
Well, I can't say for certain if it were fixed but I was thinking so at the time but the good thing about it is this: Even WITH the "fix", the Giants still couldn't pull out the win.

As for the penalties, you can't say "take away the bogus penalties" and therefore the points and come away with the same game. If the Giants go for a field goal instead of the PI on Clark giving them the additional plays to get a TD then their whole game plan changes from there on out and they possibly score more points.

In other words, you can't simply subtract 11 points (7 from fumble return and 4 from PI call) and say the final score would be what it was with Giants' score being 11 less.

For arguments sake, lets' say they kick a FG and the Steelers score a TD so the score would be Steelers 14 and the Giants 3 at halftime.

IF that were the case, you can bet your bottom dollar that Eli would have come out with guns blazing in the second half. They may have even started using the no-huddle and if successful, they could have ended up winning the game.

Cowher never let the players dwell on penalties. They happen and you need to move on. Like Simms said, they were bad calls but you need to get over it, cowboy up and play the damn game.

I thought the Steelers had a really good chance due to the fact that the Giants didn't move the length of the field on their own. They had two PI calls to put them on Steelers side of the field and the PF on Clark to help them get the other TD. Their offense was not working for them all night, it was really a matter of the Steelers "not beating themselves". Once Wallace ran the 51 yard TD in making it 20 - 17 I had a good feeling that they'd win.

Craic
11-06-2012, 11:38 AM
Counting points

Ah, I didn't know how you got to 11 (did I ever tell you my amps went to 11?) If you could clarify a couple points for me, because from my perspective, it seems that you negate one point when you made another point.

You gave the refs a pass on the call on Lewis based on the perspective of the ref in his position. However, you then condemn the call on Clark. Yet, the call on Clark was a heck of a lot closer to actually being a penalty (I'll explain what I mean in a second) than the call on Lewis. The ref for the call on Clark, was standing at the back of the endzone, and his perspective, was about helmet height. He would have seen Clark's helmet in line with the bottom of the WR's helmet, and then a jarring hit. Keep the following in mind:

(1) Lewis's play had very little to any touching on the WR. If I remember right, he never pushed the receiver off track, never hand-fought with the receiver, and never interfered with the receiver's ability to see the ball (such as raising hands while not look back for the ball). Hence, there was absolutely nowhere that the perspective of the ref could come into play to make a PI call. (Obviously there was, but in hindsight).

(2) Clark's play had numerous places where, from the perspective of the ref, it could have been called a penalty (and that's what I mean by much closer - not that he did anything wrong). First, as I said above, just the positioning makes his hit more suspect to a refs perspective than it did in Lewis's case. Second, even if it wasn't a helmet to helmet hit, had Lewis hit him with his helmet in the ribs, and the ref didn't catch the fact that he didn't launch, he could have also been called for hitting a defenseless player. So in two cases, though both of them DIDN'T happen, it would seem that the perspective of the ref could lead him to calling a penalty.

So if Lewis's call can be excused, then Clark's call has to be excused, because that's a much tougher call to make if you're allow for the ref's perspective. It's another reason why I'm a lot more mad about that call on Lewis than I am on Clark.


By the way Preach, just watched the end of game fumble by Eli, and your comparison of that actual fumble to Ben's non fumble is laughable. Not even close to the same play.

Sorry I didn't mean that to come off with an edge, but you got to quit buying the NFL's company line. Their denial of Ben's incompletion falling under the tuck rule was nothing more than CYA after the fact damage control. Given the Steelers field position at the time, that non reversal could have accounted for as much as a 14 point turnaround. Combined with the previous blown call on the PI and the Ryan Clark non helmet hit on a game that was being televised to about 75% of the country they needed to get out and try to control the message as best they could.


Merged posts

The NFL rule book states: NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

judge the play for yourself:


The pivotal question however, is whether he was "holding" on to the ball as the arm started forward. Nothing else matters after that. Watch Ben's thumb as soon as that ball start's turning, his thumb starts to slip before the ball moves forward. He begins to pinch to get the ball under control, but the ball is moving up in his hand. That is not control. Then he moves his hand forward and still has enough push on the ball to propel it forward.

The next thing to remember, is that the call on the field is a fumble. So if there is any question whatsoever that he did or did not hold on to the ball, the default call is a fumble.

One thing I will say though Zu, is please don't accuse me of "buying the NFL's company line." I tend to think for myself, and could care less what ANYONE else thinks, and that includes other Steelers fans or the league. I watch something myself, and then listen to arguments on both sides, and then make up my own mind.

zulater
11-06-2012, 12:22 PM
You gave the refs a pass on the call on Lewis based on the perspective of the ref in his position. However, you then condemn the call on Clark. Yet, the call on Clark was a heck of a lot closer to actually being a penalty (I'll explain what I mean in a second) than the call on Lewis. The ref for the call on Clark, was standing at the back of the endzone, and his perspective, was about helmet height. He would have seen Clark's helmet in line with the bottom of the WR's helmet, and then a jarring hit. Keep the following in mind:

No I didn't give the refs a pass on that bogus PI so much as I recognize that wasn't a 3rd down play. Take away that play and the Giants possession isn't over yet, so you can't speculate fairly on the final result of that possession. Whereas the other two plays we're discussing almost certainly determined the end result of possessions. No call on Clark in the end zone it's almost certainly going to end up a Giants fg attempt. Reverse the faulty fumble call on Ben, no Giants TD and Steelers continue the possession with 2nd down inside the Giants 40.

- - - Updated - - -


The pivotal question however, is whether he was "holding" on to the ball as the arm started forward. Nothing else matters after that. Watch Ben's thumb as soon as that ball start's turning, his thumb starts to slip before the ball moves forward. He begins to pinch to get the ball under control, but the ball is moving up in his hand. That is not control. Then he moves his hand forward and still has enough push on the ball to propel it forward.

Besides, you the league and Phil Simms (after league intervention), no one else who's weighed in on that play sees that as anything other than a missed non reversal. This includes ex NFL officials!

Craic
11-06-2012, 12:37 PM
No I didn't give the refs a pass on that bogus PI so much as I recognize that wasn't a 3rd down play. Take away that play and the Giants possession isn't over yet, so you can't speculate fairly on the final result of that possession. Whereas the other two plays we're discussing almost certainly determined the end result of possessions. No call on Clark in the end zone it's almost certainly going to end up a Giants fg attempt. Reverse the faulty fumble call on Ben, no Giants TD and Steelers continue the possession with 2nd down inside the Giants 40.

Actually, you did, as far as the way I read this part of you post:
Plus I can forgive that call somewhat. Bad as it was I can see where the ref could have misenterpted it if he had the wrong angle or was too far back.

Down, distance, score, doesn't matter here. It's about the ref's misinterpretation if he had the wrong angle, or was too far back - both issues are exactly what I think caused the call on Clark, as I pointed out. So if the call on Lewis can be forgiven somewhat, the call on Clark can be even more, because those two very problems are much more evident in the call on Clark - both angle, and not close enough to see that the helmet didn't hit.


Besides, you the league and Phil Simms (after league intervention), no one else who's weighed in on that play sees that as anything other than a missed non reversal. This includes ex NFL officials!
I don't care though (sounds harsh, not meant that way). My own eyes tell me the ball was moving in his hand before the arm came forward. It's a fumble. I'll grant you it was very close, and more than once I almost changed my mind on the issue, but what sealed it for me, was Ben trying to clamp his fingers together and the ball moving up on him. It shows beyond a doubt in my opinion that he did not have control of it.

HollywoodSteel
11-06-2012, 05:23 PM
I would never accuse you of simply "buying the company line" Preacher, but since you have a history of siding with the league on most controversial matters, it only follows that you bring such accusations on yourself, much like Ryan Clark with illegal hits. ;)

But seriously, I think perhaps part of the problem is the ambiguity of the rule. Like Zu, I've heard most experts today on the Sirius NFL channel say that the refs got it wrong. That the ball moving slightly before the arm comes forward does not constitute a fumble. He has a three finger grip on it until he almost smacks Colon's shoulder and the follow through. Even if a three finger will result in a horrible forward pass, it still technically constitutes as control in this context. Now I will admit that I am not an expert in the rule and am going to venture to guess that neither or you. You see movement and you reasonably equate that with a version of control that you have in your head -- just as legal definitions aren't always the same as common parlance definitions.

Look, for example the first time I saw a play where a receiver catches the ball and then falls with the ball hitting the ground and the ball moving ever so slightly as a result, I was like, "what the hell? That's incomplete!" until the announcer clarified the rule for me. My common sense told me that it was a trap, yet it didn't fall under the definition of a trap according to the rules.

Now the fact that most experts are not agreeing with the NFL's stance tells me that the rule itself needs to be better re-written.

HollywoodSteel
11-06-2012, 05:33 PM
Sorry, to clarify, that's three fingers plus the thumb gripping it on the other side. He could have started that play with that grip or the more common grip that QB's normally use -- either way, it constitutes possession and control. The fact that a defender forced the grip to change from one to another does not technically constitute loss of control. The ball was still pinched between his thumb and fingers.

- - - Updated - - -


I would never accuse you of simply "buying the company line" Preacher, but since you have a history of siding with the league on most controversial matters, it only follows that you bring such accusations on yourself, much like Ryan Clark with illegal hits. ;)

But seriously, I think perhaps part of the problem is the ambiguity of the rule. Like Zu, I've heard most experts today on the Sirius NFL channel say that the refs got it wrong. That the ball moving slightly before the arm comes forward does not constitute a fumble. He has a three finger grip on it until he almost smacks Colon's shoulder and the follow through. Even if a three finger will result in a horrible forward pass, it still technically constitutes as control in this context. Now I will admit that I am not an expert in the rule and am going to venture to guess that neither or you. You see movement and you reasonably equate that with a version of control that you have in your head -- just as legal definitions aren't always the same as common parlance definitions.

Look, for example the first time I saw a play where a receiver catches the ball and then falls with the ball hitting the ground and the ball moving ever so slightly as a result, I was like, "what the hell? That's incomplete!" until the announcer clarified the rule for me. My common sense told me that it was a trap, yet it didn't fall under the definition of a trap according to the rules.

Now the fact that most experts are not agreeing with the NFL's stance tells me that the rule itself needs to be better re-written.


I'm not even going to bother with editing this post -- way too many typos, but you get the gist.

HollywoodSteel
11-06-2012, 05:44 PM
Preacher, I don't know if this matters to you, but if you are saying the ball moves up in his hand before his arm is moving forward, I think you are mistaken. What happens before his arm comes forward is that his pinky comes off the ball and the next two fingers might move a little bit as well. Watch again but don't look at his pinky, look at his index finger and see if the ball slides under it before his arm starts coming forward.

tihmtahm
11-06-2012, 06:48 PM
All in all I have to say this was a feel good story of a game... For us Steelers fans that is! In spite of crappy calls, the Giants "D", and a couple of mistakes by the Steelers... The Steelers found a way to win the game! The "O" line looked better, the running game is doing fantastic despite a depleted RB squad, and the Steelers never lost heart! I'd say that's a feel good story!

Craic
11-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Ben

The problem however, is that when the ball moves, it continues to move. He never again gets it completely under control, and that, in my opinion, is why it was a fumble.

I agree with you however that the rule should be better written. But how can it be? I'm not sure in what way you can clarify this rule so that it isn't a complete judgement call--now that I think about it, there's one possibility - the ball must be completely out of the QB's hand before the arm moves forward. Of course, there's a whole bunch of problems with that as well, maybe more than as the rule is already written.

And no, I don't "side with the league." That's my entire point. I could care less about what the league says. I see it with my own eyes, go back and read the rule book, and then make a choice. For instance, all this hits Clark had, every one of them was clearly against the rules. So what's the point in arguing about it? Now, he's being looked for - something I can understand, and something he's brought on himself by not playing the game within the rules when many other DB's have. IMO, what's really happening is that the league officials are not tied up in the game with emotions screaming for their team, nor the impetus to defend their team's win or loss, and so they make a choice based on the rules and the instruction that "If in doubt on a headshot, throw the flag" (Personally, I don't like that last rule, as it really moves things into a gray area).

When I watch it, my first reactions, nine times out of ten, is exactly what most of the people in here are saying. Then I go back and do what I said above, and try to put the jersey of the other team on that player, then ask what I think. Ninety percent of the time, I have to admit that it's my Steelers bias that makes me want to call the penalty, or proclaim the penalty wrong. The standard MO around here, is to claim that there's some great conspiracy theory on the level of Roswell (aliens) and the Second Assassin on the Knoll (JFK) by the league and the refs against the Steelers. When you start with that kind of viewpoint, you're (general you, not you specifically HS) virtually predetermined to end up at the "We got screwed again!" stage.

zulater
11-07-2012, 11:46 AM
A couple quick things. Not arguing with Preacher anymore on this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But FYI for those of you who saw the incompletion called fumble as I did. That play occured on a 2nd and 5 play from the Giants 32. So if that play gets reveresed like most of us and Mike Pereira believe it should have been*, then the Steelers would have been facing a 3rd and 5 from the Giants 32. Easy to think that missed call accounted for at least a 10 point turnaround on the scoreboard.

* (Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira

Leavy felt ball was loose after contact by Osi. Very tight play. I think he still had control. In my opinion it was an incomplete pass.

By the way here's Mike Pereira credentials.

He was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-99)

Currently he's employed by Fox Sports to explain and review contraversial calls on the field. Way more often than not he supports the calls that have been made on the field or been reviewed in the booth.

No axe to grind or "Roswell aliens" Just an objective paid proffesional voicing his studied opinion on a play.


But what would he know?

One more thing. The atrocious PI call against Lewis occured on a 1st and 10 play that started on the Giants 41 yard line. So again, I can't assume the Giants fail on the next two downs and that possession ends in a punt if that play is called correctly. So even though the call was egreciously bad I can't assume or assign any specific point loss value on it.

zulater
11-07-2012, 08:36 PM
Another thing that pisses me off is that late in the 3rd quarter Mike Wallace got hit by Adrian Rolle on the ground after a catch. Initially there was a flag thrown for a late hit, but the refs got together and correctly picked up the flag as Wallace went down untouched and was in fact a live ball carrier when contacted. The point is that the refs obviously had the ability to get together and make the right call, so why the hell didn't they do that on the Clark shoulder hit in the end zone?