2018-19 NFL Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 103, 104, 105, 106  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:01 pm    Post subject:

oasisdude77 wrote:
LakerLanny wrote:
4stargeneralbulldog wrote:
Saints fans are really angry, they're now filing lawsuits! The owner and head coach have been whining and complaining so bad. Newsflash, every NFL game is going to have a few non-calls and a controversial call or 2.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25824920/angry-new-orleans-saints-fans-file-lawsuits-put-billboards


I don't blame them.

It cost them a Super Bowl spot, literally.

This "missed call" was so obvious that it is criminal.

To me, this puts a major taint on the Super Bowl.


Oh come on. Was the Patriots first super bowl victory in 2002 tainted when they clearly benefited from what is now the second worst officiating decision in playoff history with the tuck rule?

If the Rams win this thing, the majority won't be talking about the non PI call down the road.


I'm sure there will be a group of Saints fans that turn into the new version of the Raiders fan that still whine about the tuck rule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
oasisdude77
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 2734

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:56 pm    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
oasisdude77 wrote:
LakerLanny wrote:
4stargeneralbulldog wrote:
Saints fans are really angry, they're now filing lawsuits! The owner and head coach have been whining and complaining so bad. Newsflash, every NFL game is going to have a few non-calls and a controversial call or 2.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25824920/angry-new-orleans-saints-fans-file-lawsuits-put-billboards


I don't blame them.

It cost them a Super Bowl spot, literally.

This "missed call" was so obvious that it is criminal.

To me, this puts a major taint on the Super Bowl.


Oh come on. Was the Patriots first super bowl victory in 2002 tainted when they clearly benefited from what is now the second worst officiating decision in playoff history with the tuck rule?

If the Rams win this thing, the majority won't be talking about the non PI call down the road.


I'm sure there will be a group of Saints fans that turn into the new version of the Raiders fan that still whine about the tuck rule.


It was a g'damn fumble
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:54 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:37 pm    Post subject:

Our youth league uses the CIF tiebreaker, basically the same as college only from the 10 yard line. I always turned down the ball first for 2 reasons. I got to choose the end zone we used, which was important depending on weather and wind. And I knew how we needed to score to win or tie.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:56 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:03 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
I agree, despite what many are saying, the NFL didn’t put the Rams in the Super Bowl to pay them back for moving to LA. The refs blew a couple of obvious calls that benefitted the Rams, that probably happens in every close game. But it wasn’t on purpose. One thing it did was make those Ram fans who were complaining about the refs selected for the game look stupid. I’m looking at you Steve Mason.


I know exactly what happened....the official that would normally make the call which would be positioned somewhere between the hash and sideline somewhere closer to the goal line was a little out of position, and had a poor angle. Either he still saw it and froze or literally did not have the angle to be sure if hit was before ball...only he can tell us. That said, there are at least 2 other officials that could and should have pulled their flag, but when he did not reach for the flag, they questioned themselves for a split second.....now it is 2 - 3 seconds after the play and no flags are on the field.....and it just probably feels like its too late to make the call.....while praying it was not as bad as it appeared. Clearly in this case, it was if not worse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:34 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.


If you were a coach, would you ever choose to kick off, knowing all the advantageous that you know?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:20 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.


If you were a coach, would you ever choose to kick off, knowing all the advantageous that you know?


Without looking this up, I think I remember a game in the 1990's that went to OT in the NFL and a coach chose to kick off rather than to take the ball and go on offense. And this was when it was sudden death and just a FG could win the game for you on offense! The team that got the ball kicked a FG to win the game, and I think that coach got fired at the end of that season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:22 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.


If you were a coach, would you ever choose to kick off, knowing all the advantageous that you know?


Without looking this up, I think I remember a game in the 1990's that went to OT in the NFL and a coach chose to kick off rather than to take the ball and go on offense. And this was when it was sudden death and just a FG could win the game for you on offense! The team that got the ball kicked a FG to win the game, and I think that coach got fired at the end of that season.


Interesting! Wonder why in the world would you choose to do that with sudden death?

If everything goes right, you kick it out of the end zone, they get the ball at the 20, they go three and out, they punt it for 40-45 yards and you get the ball around the 30-35 yd line?

So all that to gain between 10-15 yds?


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:22 pm    Post subject:

The ref who blew that call, Gary Cavaletto, is from Goleta and blew a big call in the Ventura-Buena rivalry. Ventura kicked a game winning FG and despite the ball going over the crossbar, he called it no good and Buena won. Small world.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:43 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.


If you were a coach, would you ever choose to kick off, knowing all the advantageous that you know?


no, there is always a preference to control the ball. Maybe you misunderstood my statement....I never suggested that it was more advantageous to kick off, only that there are advantages that can come from kicking off.

In regards to the debate of should each team get a possession in Overtime based on "fairness", I think the large sample and results of the team receiving the ball first in OT only winning about half of the time make that argument null....again if it based on being fair which is where this discussion began.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:07 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Here are the facts....in the NFL since the TD sudden death rule was implemented, the team that won the coin toss won the game 52.7% of the time, and rarely on the initial drive. In comparison to college, where both teams are guaranteed to get an offensive possession....the team that won the coin toss went on the win the game 54.9% of the time!

The raw data suggests the coin toss has little to no effect on the eventual winner of the game. Home field advantage has a much larger impact. I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.

Again, the coin toss winner wins about half of the games.....you really can't ask for a better outcome if you want the game determined on the field.


Can you give me the link of your stats? I'd like to take a look.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:30 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



You raise some really great points in regards to the upsides of starting on D in OT. But they are really grounded in being able to have great confidence in your defense and some luck. The advantage in having the power to decide how you will attempt to move the ball forward will always be better than having to react to that and prevent it.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:23 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.


If you were a coach, would you ever choose to kick off, knowing all the advantageous that you know?


no, there is always a preference to control the ball. Maybe you misunderstood my statement....I never suggested that it was more advantageous to kick off, only that there are advantages that can come from kicking off.

In regards to the debate of should each team get a possession in Overtime based on "fairness", I think the large sample and results of the team receiving the ball first in OT only winning about half of the time make that argument null....again if it based on being fair which is where this discussion began.


Yes, the team that wins the coin toss has only won a little over 50% of the time, but I was aware of that and I still believe in what I said. A team like the Chiefs is at a massive disadvantage if they lose the toss. But they shouldn't have to be penalized because this is their football team. This is a team that was good enough to get the #1 seed in the AFC and was good enough to get to OT in the AFC Championship. That's what they have. So no matter if you have an incredible offense and a bad defense, or a great defense and a mediocre offense, or are decent-but-not-great on both sides, whatever...I just believe that it's always going to be fair if both sides have to take the field on both offense and defense. Where is the argument for unfairness if both teams get the chance to have an offensive possession? Whereas if you have a system where one team may not touch the ball on offense, well, you know my take on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:54 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Here are the facts....in the NFL since the TD sudden death rule was implemented, the team that won the coin toss won the game 52.7% of the time, and rarely on the initial drive. In comparison to college, where both teams are guaranteed to get an offensive possession....the team that won the coin toss went on the win the game 54.9% of the time!


Those numbers are so close that I still like the college system better. I’m not sure the difference is even statistically significant.

I think the college system is also better because both teams have their offense and defense take the field.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:02 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
adkindo wrote:
I think the point being missed is there are advantages to being on defense first. It can create multiple advantageous situations that are only available to the team that initially defends. First, you begin playing within 20 to 25 yards of the endzone that provides you the win....any turnover and you are in FG range to win immediately with a kick. Also, if you can hold the team to a 1st Down or less, you will immediately have field position advantage....and that is often difficult for another team to take over once you have established that advantage in an evenly matched game.



Has there ever been a team that didn’t choose to receive the ball despite all these “advantages” on defense?


no, because teams will always find it more advantageous to have the ball and more direct control......but that does not mean there are real advantages related to being the team that kicks off in OT.


If you were a coach, would you ever choose to kick off, knowing all the advantageous that you know?


no, there is always a preference to control the ball. Maybe you misunderstood my statement....I never suggested that it was more advantageous to kick off, only that there are advantages that can come from kicking off.

In regards to the debate of should each team get a possession in Overtime based on "fairness", I think the large sample and results of the team receiving the ball first in OT only winning about half of the time make that argument null....again if it based on being fair which is where this discussion began.


I’m looking at it from a different way. I think having Brady and Mahomes battle each other is more entertaining than an OT system that might only let one of them play in OT.

I agree the current system isn’t really that unfair. It will “seem” unfair to a lot of people rooting for the Chiefs though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 47565

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:48 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
I agree, despite what many are saying, the NFL didn’t put the Rams in the Super Bowl to pay them back for moving to LA. The refs blew a couple of obvious calls that benefitted the Rams, that probably happens in every close game. But it wasn’t on purpose. One thing it did was make those Ram fans who were complaining about the refs selected for the game look stupid. I’m looking at you Steve Mason.


I know exactly what happened....the official that would normally make the call which would be positioned somewhere between the hash and sideline somewhere closer to the goal line was a little out of position, and had a poor angle. Either he still saw it and froze or literally did not have the angle to be sure if hit was before ball...only he can tell us. That said, there are at least 2 other officials that could and should have pulled their flag, but when he did not reach for the flag, they questioned themselves for a split second.....now it is 2 - 3 seconds after the play and no flags are on the field.....and it just probably feels like its too late to make the call.....while praying it was not as bad as it appeared. Clearly in this case, it was if not worse.


I agree with Adkindo here.

In my mind, the ref responsible for the play blew the call and even though the others probably realized it, the delay would have made it seem awkward to throw the flag.

That is when the crew chief needs to just step in and throw the flag....even if it is 10 seconds late or whatever. You simply can't miss a game deciding call that blatant with the Super Bowl on the line.

As I mentioned above, to me it does taint the Super Bowl badly. I know that others disagree and it isn't a popular opinion but New Orleans would have had the ball at the 10 yard line 1st down with 1 45 left and the Rams with only one timeout.

You do the math, they could have run the clock almost all the way down and then attempted the game winning FG from a distance of less than 30 yards.

It is unfortunate for both teams in my opinion and a real black eye on the NFL.

The officiating sucked in the Pats-Chiefs game as well but the Saints-Rams gaffe was over the top.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:11 am    Post subject:

^
Yeah, I saw that if the PI flag is thrown there, the Saints' win probability would've been 98%. Had they simply taken a knee three times and then kicked a very short FG on 4th down, there would've been roughly 15 seconds left, with the Saints kicking off and the Rams down by 3. So you probably need a missed FG to stay alive, if you're the Rams.

In the KC-NE game, the ref missed that roughing the passer call on Brady when Chris Jones did not hit him in the helmet. If that play is reviewable, it would've been 3rd and 7 for the Pats, instead of giving them a free first down nearly out to midfield. Obviously, it wouldn't have meant the game was over, but it had to have swung the win probability significantly.

THESE THINGS NEED TO BE REVIEWABLE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:44 am    Post subject:

I could get behind an idea like this:


Dan Patrick Show

Verified account

@dpshow
Follow
Follow @dpshow

More
Mike Florio’s NFL referee fix: add a video official that is at the stadium in a replay booth with ability to communicate with refs on field in real-time when a call is missed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:58 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
^
Yeah, I saw that if the PI flag is thrown there, the Saints' win probability would've been 98%. Had they simply taken a knee three times and then kicked a very short FG on 4th down, there would've been roughly 15 seconds left, with the Saints kicking off and the Rams down by 3. So you probably need a missed FG to stay alive, if you're the Rams.

In the KC-NE game, the ref missed that roughing the passer call on Brady when Chris Jones did not hit him in the helmet. If that play is reviewable, it would've been 3rd and 7 for the Pats, instead of giving them a free first down nearly out to midfield. Obviously, it wouldn't have meant the game was over, but it had to have swung the win probability significantly.

THESE THINGS NEED TO BE REVIEWABLE!


I don't know how they would implement the system. I believe there's a foul on every play.

If you look hard enough, you can probably find some type of violation. There would be alot of overturned TDs on some ticky tack stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:05 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^
Yeah, I saw that if the PI flag is thrown there, the Saints' win probability would've been 98%. Had they simply taken a knee three times and then kicked a very short FG on 4th down, there would've been roughly 15 seconds left, with the Saints kicking off and the Rams down by 3. So you probably need a missed FG to stay alive, if you're the Rams.

In the KC-NE game, the ref missed that roughing the passer call on Brady when Chris Jones did not hit him in the helmet. If that play is reviewable, it would've been 3rd and 7 for the Pats, instead of giving them a free first down nearly out to midfield. Obviously, it wouldn't have meant the game was over, but it had to have swung the win probability significantly.

THESE THINGS NEED TO BE REVIEWABLE!


I don't know how they would implement the system. I believe there's a foul on every play.

If you look hard enough, you can probably find some type of violation. There would be alot of overturned TDs on some ticky tack stuff.


I get that what you're saying, that you are worried that it could open up a Pandora's box. Still, I think that there should be some type of system in place to be able to do something about truly blown calls, like blatantly missed calls where everyone in the world can see what happened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:56 am    Post subject:

This is awesome.

A 10-year-old kid won a science fair by proving Tom Brady is a cheater
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:21 am    Post subject:

Fwiw maybe the Saints kicker was saved from an embarrassing moment like this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:33 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^
Yeah, I saw that if the PI flag is thrown there, the Saints' win probability would've been 98%. Had they simply taken a knee three times and then kicked a very short FG on 4th down, there would've been roughly 15 seconds left, with the Saints kicking off and the Rams down by 3. So you probably need a missed FG to stay alive, if you're the Rams.

In the KC-NE game, the ref missed that roughing the passer call on Brady when Chris Jones did not hit him in the helmet. If that play is reviewable, it would've been 3rd and 7 for the Pats, instead of giving them a free first down nearly out to midfield. Obviously, it wouldn't have meant the game was over, but it had to have swung the win probability significantly.

THESE THINGS NEED TO BE REVIEWABLE!


I don't know how they would implement the system. I believe there's a foul on every play.

If you look hard enough, you can probably find some type of violation. There would be alot of overturned TDs on some ticky tack stuff.


I get that what you're saying, that you are worried that it could open up a Pandora's box. Still, I think that there should be some type of system in place to be able to do something about truly blown calls, like blatantly missed calls where everyone in the world can see what happened.


Yup, they'd have to put in language like: egregiously/blatantly missed calls.

Now, they have to determine if the missed call was egregious/blatant enough. That's going to be the cut off, that's going to be the judgment call.

How many egregious/blatant missed calls were there in the Rams/Saints game?

Here's an article pointing out 3 blatant missed calls committed by the Saints. You probably can find a few more blatant missed calls. [below]

So the question is - what makes a missed call a blatant/egregious one? There's going to still be outrage if a missed call was reviewed and determined that it wasn't blatant/egregious enough.

Here's an example for you - in the Patriots-Chiefs game - was the offside on Dee Ford blatant/egregious? Let's say the refs missed that one and then they reviewed it. Would you call that after review? It had nothing to do with the play, it was a game changing play, but it was pretty blatant/obvious that he was lined up over the ball. But then you have to determine what does blatant mean? Does it mean that it's clearly a violation? Or does it mean that it's important enough that you need to make the call?

Also, all turnovers/scoring plays are automatically reviewed. It just takes the air out of the game when a TD or turnover is overturned. Usually when a team scores a TD, the announcer's always looking for flags. "No flags on the play. TD!" Now, you're not even safe if there's no flags on the play. I think at least 5-10% of TDs will be overturned. That's going to be deflating.

Quote:
But what will be talked about much less is how the Saints also benefited from multiple missed calls by the officials at other points in the NFC Championship Game on Sunday.

There was a visible facemask on Jared Goff on second-and-goal late in the game with the Saints up 20-17. Had that been called, the Rams would have had first-and-goal and a very good shot to go up 24-20.

Other missed calls included a facemask committed by the Saints against Rams receiver Brandin Cooks, and a delay of game that preceded a Saints touchdown in the third quarter.

https://larrybrownsports.com/football/referees-missed-penalty-calls-rams-saints/481704
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:59 am    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
Fwiw maybe the Saints kicker was saved from an embarrassing moment like this.


No, the Saints kicker made his FGs. Dumb.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 103, 104, 105, 106  Next
Page 104 of 106
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB