The Official Officiating Thread

General discussions of other teams from around the league and general NFL events.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Funkytown
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4044
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Contact:

Re: The Official Officiating Thread

Post by Funkytown » Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:11 pm

Image
0 x
Image

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: The Official Officiating Thread

Post by Jordysghost » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:45 am

Funkytown wrote:Image
While were on the topic we might as well throw that blatant facemask on Rodgers that was ignored on the Cardinals walk off TD win in the 09 wildcard game, what a rip.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11582
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California

Re: The Official Officiating Thread

Post by jackal » Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:41 pm

the refs didn't call one on Griffen as well. I don't mind them not calling small stuff as long as they call it both ways ...

I thought the ref crew was very fair in the cardinals game..
0 x
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37409
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Official Officiating Thread

Post by Mothman » Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:46 pm

From Gregg Easterbrook, writing for the NY Times:

A Solution for Awful N.F.L. Officiating? Simplify the Rules
Officiating gaffes continue to be a story line of the 2015 N.F.L. season, and the problem is not just human error.

Football rulebooks are too complicated and too freighted with zany distinctions: In high school, players must wear shoes, but socks are optional, while in the pros, players must wear socks but don’t need to wear shoes.

And was it a catch or not a catch? In the off-season, the league said, “The language pertaining to a catch was clarified.” The clarification — it’s below — is 158 words and incomprehensible to a Supreme Court clerk.

Rulebook simplification would improve officiating. As for replay review, how about making it blind? If the reviewing official did not know what call was made on the field, he or she wouldn’t have observer bias.
Here’s the “clarification” of catch/no catch:

In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner. He does that by gaining control of the ball, touching both feet down and then, after the second foot is down, having the ball long enough to clearly become a runner, which is defined as the ability to ward off or protect himself from impending contact. If, before becoming a runner, a receiver falls to the ground in an attempt to make a catch, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball after contacting the ground and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land. When you are attempting to complete a catch, you must put the ball away or protect the ball so it does not come loose.
I agree with Easterbrook: simplify the rules!
0 x

ekk
Waterboy
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:08 am

Re: The Official Officiating Thread

Post by ekk » Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:54 pm

The catch rule is as simple as it's ever been. All the proposals I'm hearing would make it much more subjective and thus less consistent.
0 x

Post Reply