[Vague Title] Officiating

[Nuncha]

2 hours ago, Heavy Kevi said:

Yeah it was pretty egregious the way they manipulated the video with slow-mo to speed up a little just as they pretended it hit 'muths helmet.

 

Clearly the NFL was tired of all the lopsided wildcard matchups.

Yup - they want games to be close, especially in the playoffs.  There is no other explanation for reviewing a play and STILL F'ing up the call.  Clearly the fumble was recovered in bounds.

[Livinginthepast]

2 hours ago, Codyny13 said:

Sirius NFL radio this morning said that refs or NY has different angles that we don’t get to see…my question is why don’t we get to see them, if in fact a particular angle shows definitive proof that the ball did in fact hit Freiermuth? The NFL needs to be more transparent, and at the very least we deserve an explanation in real time.

Thats might be a convenient explanation by the NFL but is also guaranteed total BS. The camera angles are provided by the broadcaster not some double secret officials spy camera!  The NFL (as usual) is covering for its incompetent refs and its nonsensical rule book. 

[ImpactCorey]

2 hours ago, Codyny13 said:

Sirius NFL radio this morning said that refs or NY has different angles that we don’t get to see…my question is why don’t we get to see them, if in fact a particular angle shows definitive proof that the ball did in fact hit Freiermuth? The NFL needs to be more transparent, and at the very least we deserve an explanation in real time.

 

The call on the field was not a fumble recovery.  So in order to get it overturned, there would have to be definitive proof that it did NOT hit his helmet.  Not the other way around.  It was too close to say that IMO.  However, I think the premise of the rule is pretty dumb.  I don't think the ball should be considered out of bounds unless someone with possession is touching the ball.  Otherwise, the ball itself should have to be out of bounds (like when a player slaps it out).   It tapping someone's helmet who is sprawled out of bounds is pretty silly. 

 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

Outstanding.

Thank you.  I was outstanding in my field, then my neighbour yelled "Hey, stupid!  Go inside, it's cold out!" 😕

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

3 hours ago, Dillenger4 said:

The fumble out of bounds call was 100% correct. He actually touched it twice while lying OOB. Get over it... it's football.

That was BS and you know it. I am over it because we won, but it was still horse ****

[Freddie's Dead]

1 hour ago, Malazan said:

Every fanbase thinks the refs are screwing them on purpose (and at the league's direction because the league wants them to lose or the other team to win)

 

Either one or both of these calls should have been overruled by NY.  They pick weird times to step in and overrule, like the TD we scored on 2nd half KO in the WC game in HOU.....

[Paul Costa]

2 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

The refs basically forced the Bills to use up their challenges before the end of the 1st QTR.  Completely unacceptable.

This is the major point. They didn’t call obvious turnovers. Bills should not have had to challenge the First fumble. Really bad look on officials to blow 2 calls on overturns in the first quarter. So they just played dumb on the second one and that should have also been overturned. Zero accountability zero explanation.

Edited January 16 by Paul Costa

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

I disagree, and the ball appeared to touch the TEs helmet. If the ball touches a player who is OOB, the ball is then OOB. 
 

Bills definitely got away with some calls last night, I never felt like the Refs tried to get Pitt back in it. 

That was my only beef with both fumbles, they were close and should have been called turn overs, then it’s an auto review. 

 

2 things on that fumble:

 

First - IMHO there is clear footage the ball did not hit his helmet from another angle.

Second - Most importantly, what no one seems to notice is that even IF it had hit his helmet, that did NOT make the ball out of bounds because at the moment it is alleged to have hit the helmet the player was still in the air and had NOT YET touched down out of bounds and therefore was a player STILL in play.  So his helmet could have hit it (but didn't really) and it doesn't make the ball dead because the player is not yet out of bounds.  (capital words to highlight not yell).

 

This was 100% a fumble and Bills legal inbounds recovery.  Refs blew it.  There were some calls Bills got away with and some calls Pitt got away with, that is the nature of the game.  But this fumble was a incredibly egregious screw up by the refs and almost changed the whole complexity of the game had it not been for Elams INT.

Edited January 16 by Alphadawg7

[Southern Bills Fan]

Everyone saying they saw the ball hit is helmet is incorrect. There was never an angle that showed if it did or didn't hit his helmet. Thats not what the ref called though, he said " the ball was fumbled forward out of bounds therefore it will be returned to the spot of the fumble". This indicates that he wasn't calling that it hit his helmet while he was out of bounds, it's indicating that it wasn't recovered in bounds. This was obviously incorrect as the replay clearly showed a recovery by the Bills in bounds.

[Bob Jones]

4 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

They are ***clowns.  Josh stopped and nuked, no fake slide BS

That's my opinion too, after watching the replay about 10x in a row, but....driving home from work today I flipped on the "Dan Patrick Show" on my car radio, and he & his cohorts were agreeing with the "fake slide" narrative. So I guess some national talking head "experts" are agreeing with the Squealers pathetic whining.

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

The NFL needs to modernize how games are officiated.  They need officials looking at monitors correcting calls regularly.  It isn't right that the Bills had no more challenges based on that play.  It was a.good challenge, and in fact a challenge shouldn't have been necessary.  It should have been reviewed automatically.  As I've said before, it makes no sense that TDs and takeaways a automatically reviewed, but plays that WOULD be takeaways or TDs aren't reviewed.

Agreed. My idea would be to have 2-4 officials up in the press box (or in a production trailer), watching the game on HD monitors, and having the authority to buzz down to officials on the field, AT ANYTIME, in order to correct and/or even make a call that the on field refs miss.

[Bermuda Triangle]

4 hours ago, YattaOkasan said:

Successful challenges are not held against us.  Thats why we could challenge the second one, was cause the first one was correct.  But you dont get a third unless your first two are successful.  I do agree though, them messing calls up causing us to use challenge in the first instance still hurt us for the whole game.  If they get the first fumble correct we still have challenges in the second half if we dont get the second challenge still (though it seemed like a recovery to me).  

A team does not have an unlimited number of challenges, which is my point.  If a team gets an "extra" third challenge, because their first two challenges are correct, they do not receive a second "extra" (fourth) challenge, even if the 3rd challenge is correct.

[FilthyBeast]

Officiating has been suspect all year and don't expect it change anytime soon.

 

But I would also be awfully concerned against the Chiefs because we all know some of this stuff that wasn't called yesterday against the Bills will certainly be the opposite in this one.

 

And their offensive line seems to never get called for holding, and their DB's same thing despite all this 'sticky coverage' crap that Romo likes to call it anyway.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ImpactCorey said:

 

The call on the field was not a fumble recovery.  So in order to get it overturned, there would have to be definitive proof that it did NOT hit his helmet.  Not the other way around.  It was too close to say that IMO.  However, I think the premise of the rule is pretty dumb.  I don't think the ball should be considered out of bounds unless someone with possession is touching the ball.  Otherwise, the ball itself should have to be out of bounds (like when a player slaps it out).   It tapping someone's helmet who is sprawled out of bounds is pretty silly. 

 

This same thing happened to the Bills a year or two ago. I agree with you! Just because the ball touches the shoelace of a guy who is touching out of bounds it should NOT make ball be ruled out of bounds. 

[Paul Costa]

24 minutes ago, Southern Bills Fan said:

Everyone saying they saw the ball hit is helmet is incorrect. There was never an angle that showed if it did or didn't hit his helmet. Thats not what the ref called though, he said " the ball was fumbled forward out of bounds therefore it will be returned to the spot of the fumble". This indicates that he wasn't calling that it hit his helmet while he was out of bounds, it's indicating that it wasn't recovered in bounds. This was obviously incorrect as the replay clearly showed a recovery by the Bills in bounds.

And Carl Cheffers offering no explanation after the review needs to be addressed. I saw a view I didn’t see last night today to show Benford’s injury on the play. Clearly shows Benford knocking the ball out and the Pittsburgh Tight End waving at the ball as it bounced WY from him. Clear mistake on the original call by refs & an incorrect call after reviewing the video. Have to believe they didn’t want to have two overturned plays by the home team in the first quarter. Would love to hear Carl Cheffers post game presser. 

[zow2]

I hated the out of bounds call on the fumble.  Seemed like such a logical Bills recovery but whatever, we won.

 

What I do like with regards to the reffing is being the home team.  I feel like it's not necessarily about getting favorable calls,  but being home there are more non calls in your favor, that you probably should have been flagged for.

 

 

 

 

[NBDawg15]

On the Pickens play, the ref closest to the play threw a bean bag, indicating fumble and therefore a catch.  Then they huddle and say incomplete.  Why was that the call on the field when the closest guy had it right in real time?

 

 

Spector seemingly recovered the ball inbounds in real time on the broadcast.  But the refs huddle and say out of bounds. Wouldn't the easier call have been the play was a fumble recovery which would be reviewed to see if it wasn't?

 

Feels like these "huddles" of refs may have NY in their ears as well and looking to create a more competitive game after 3/4 of the previous games had been lopsided.  Or the refs are just that terrible, hard to say.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, NBDawg15 said:

On the Pickens play, the ref closest to the play threw a bean bag, indicating fumble and therefore a catch.  Then they huddle and say incomplete.  Why was that the call on the field when the closest guy had it right in real time?

 

 

Spector seemingly recovered the ball inbounds in real time on the broadcast.  But the refs huddle and say out of bounds. Wouldn't the easier call have been the play was a fumble recovery which would be reviewed to see if it wasn't?

 

Feels like these "huddles" of refs may have NY in their ears as well and looking to create a more competitive game after 3/4 of the previous games had been lopsided.  Or the refs are just that terrible, hard to say.

Answer: The refs are terrible. 
Period 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, ImpactCorey said:

 However, I think the premise of the rule is pretty dumb.  I don't think the ball should be considered out of bounds unless someone with possession is touching the ball.  Otherwise, the ball itself should have to be out of bounds (like when a player slaps it out).   It tapping someone's helmet who is sprawled out of bounds is pretty silly. 

 

So if a receiver is standing out of bounds and catches the ball while the ball is still inside the line, its a completion?

 

When any part of a player is out of bounds, his whole body is out of bounds.  When the ball touches any part of the body of a player who is out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds.

[ImpactCorey]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

So if a receiver is standing out of bounds and catches the ball while the ball is still inside the line, its a completion?

 

When any part of a player is out of bounds, his whole body is out of bounds.  When the ball touches any part of the body of a player who is out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds.

Notice the part where i said possession.  A receiver has to have possession and be in bounds for a catch.   I think the same should apply to a ball on the ground in play.  If you want that to count as out of bounds, you should have possession.  Its actually the same in both cases.  Your attempt at getting me actually proved my point.

 

A more appropriate comparison would be calling it a catch if a pass bounces off a players helmet.

Edited January 16 by ImpactCorey

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

2 things on that fumble:

 

First - IMHO there is clear footage the ball did not hit his helmet from another angle.

Second - Most importantly, what no one seems to notice is that even IF it had hit his helmet, that did NOT make the ball out of bounds because at the moment it is alleged to have hit the helmet the player was still in the air and had NOT YET touched down out of bounds and therefore was a player STILL in play.  So his helmet could have hit it (but didn't really) and it doesn't make the ball dead because the player is not yet out of bounds.  (capital words to highlight not yell).

 

This was 100% a fumble and Bills legal inbounds recovery.  Refs blew it.  There were some calls Bills got away with and some calls Pitt got away with, that is the nature of the game.  But this fumble was a incredibly egregious screw up by the refs and almost changed the whole complexity of the game had it not been for Elams INT.

I am not arguing but I am clarifying- I thought if a player was off the ground but hanging out of bounds he is out? I clearly remember a game against NE where they called it out when the players helmet was hanging over the sideline but nothing touched down. Obviously that could have just been poor officiating then also. Guy yesterday appeared to be off ground when he touched ball