This game is fixed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodfatherofSoul

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:

NBA was fixed by the refs, why not the NFL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preacher

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.

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.

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.n...ed-11-4-12.gif

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulater

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulater

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.

Quote:

---

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 - - -

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulater

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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 - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollywoodSteel

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.

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollywoodSteel

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.

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.

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?