Officiating?

Draft Dodger · 01-26-2003, 09:53 PM

has there been a worse job of officiating in a Super Bowl?

that was just horrible, almost from the beginning.

1) the "fumble" on the first Tampa return; I've seen bang-bang plays that were close enough to understand a missed call, but that thing wasn't even remotely close. Replay got it right, but TB had to waste a challenge.

2) the Porter 2-point conversion when he cleary would have been inbounds and got knocked out. shouldn't have been a question, especially with the official standing right on top of that play!

Those two calls were simply dreadful, and inexcuseable.

3) More borderline, but still a bad call - the pass interference call on Woodson in the 4th quarter when Johnson was literally throwing the ball away. There was no way that ball could have been caught. I could understand if they were calling a hold, but that wasn't a call.

4) Late in the 4th with the Raiders driving, Rice caught a ball and was immediately knocked out of bounds. They kept the clock going, and I still can't figure out why that would be. Rice never even hit the ground, inbounds or out of bounds.

Nice game, good to see the Bucs win (and better to see the Raiders lose - maybe someone should let them know ahead of time what time the game starts), but that officiating was just dreadful.

SackAttack · 01-26-2003, 09:58 PM

I was shocked to see that the head official only has six years' experience in the league. You'd think after the recent spate of officiating controversy that they'd have chosen an official with somewhat more tenure.

I think the replay rule needs to be slightly tweaked - Tampa should not have had to waste a challenge on what was clearly a horrible officiating call. If replay evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the ruling on the field, the team shouldn't be penalized their challenge for the stupidity of the referee. Not saying that ALL successful challenges should mean the coach gets to keep 'em, just for clarification's sake. Just that if the ref looks at the evidence and says "Okay, that was seriously a waste of time," the team shouldn't be penalized.

Maple Leafs · 01-26-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
4) Late in the 4th with the Raiders driving, Rice caught a ball and was immediately knocked out of bounds. They kept the clock going, and I still can't figure out why that would be. Rice never even hit the ground, inbounds or out of bounds.

I believe this one was called correctly. Rice was hit inbounds and knocked backwards out of bounds. Since he forward progress stopped in bounds, it's no different than an in-bounds tackle and the clock keeps moving.

mrskippy · 01-26-2003, 10:03 PM

Points 2, 3, and 4 are right on. Had the call against Woodson went back, the Bucs would've punted and the Raiders would've likely had some decent field position to narrowed it to a six point game.

sabotai · 01-26-2003, 10:09 PM

Sack,
The only problem is where you draw the line. I mean, how do you determine which were the really blown calls and which were not?

clintl · 01-26-2003, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
2) the Porter 2-point conversion when he cleary would have been inbounds and got knocked out. shouldn't have been a question, especially with the official standing right on top of that play!

I don't know that this one was that bad. That situation is always a judgment call, and there were points of time when Porter was in the air that one foot WAS out-of-bounds. He was clearly trying to get the foot down in bounds, but he was also still twisting when he was hit - I don't think it's a certainty that he would havec come down in bounds if he wasn't hit. At the very least, the one foot would have been very, very close to the end line.

Also, perhaps pass interference wasn't the right call, but Woodson mugged the receiver farther up the field on that play. If the ball was in the air, that was the right call. If it wasn't, he should have been called for at least for defensive holding or illegal contact.

SackAttack · 01-26-2003, 10:14 PM

sabotai,

If the ref can look at a single clip and reverse the call on the field in about 15 seconds, I think that's sufficient grounds for keeping the challenge.

Seriously, that one was a no-doubter.

Still, I really don't like the idea of saying "Okay, you're only allowed to prove the ref wrong once per quarter." I like the idea of taking it away and penalizing the team a timeout if the ruling on the field is upheld, but if it's overturned, taking away the challenge just seems to be more spiteful than anything else.

SackAttack · 01-26-2003, 10:15 PM

err, once per half, my mistake.

SirFozzie · 01-26-2003, 10:16 PM

Agreed.. it may not have been PI, but it CERTAINLY was at least Defensive holding, whcih is an auto first down anyway

Marmel · 01-26-2003, 10:19 PM

It really doesn't matter if he would have been in or out of bounds on the 2pt conversion. If he was in the air, and pushed, you have to call it a completion, that is the rules.

There was some bad calls, but nothing that affected the game, I don't think. I would grade it as a B, which for the NFL lately, is pretty good.

Ksyrup · 01-26-2003, 10:26 PM

On the pass interference, I'll use the same excuse that others used in the college championship - it was a penalty, they just called the wrong one. Worked then, why not now? Hold/ interference, either way a penalty.

As for Rice being knocked out of bounds, that occurs every game within the last 2 minutes. If the player has any forward momentum in-bounds, the clock continues to roll. I've seen it called the same way numerous times during the regular season.

The 2 point conversion I thought was a bad call, but the one foot was spread out farther from his other foot than it should have been to make that call a slam dunk. I think there's a chance that that foot comes down out of bounds if he isn't hit. But watching it in real-time, I would have given it to him.

Ksyrup · 01-26-2003, 10:31 PM

Dola. I know it didn't end up affecting the outcome, but I hope coaches learn something about going for 2 points so early in a game. Since teams can score by 2, 3, 6, or 7 points, you never know when 1 or 2 points will get you the combination you need, unless the game is in the 4th quarter, deep into it depending on the game. I coulnd't understand Oakland going for 2 after their first TD, and as Madden pointed out, they're only down by 10 if they just kick 3 XPs instead of going for 2 each time.

I wish it would have ultimately made a difference so there would have been a national discussion of the stupidity that is that 2 point conversion chart. It should also come with a "do not use until the 4th quarter" warning label.

clintl · 01-26-2003, 10:37 PM

Marmel, I think the rule is it's only a completion if in the official's judgment he would have come down in bounds if he had not been hit. The Porter play was very close, and I think could have gone either way.

Ksyrup, I agree with you. Callahan was a total idiot for going for 2 points every time, especially on the first TD. If he had just kicked the extra point, they would have been down 24, and within three scores possibly. Taking the chance on 2 at that point really wasn't worth it.

Mustang · 01-26-2003, 10:42 PM

Ya well.. did anyone catch the play the Zebra screwed up for the Clydesdales.. geez.. talk about BLIND!

JPhillips · 01-26-2003, 10:44 PM

Can you say, "Full time officials"?

kcchief19 · 01-26-2003, 10:51 PM

The system needs a major overhaul. Personally, I'm still against replay because I don't believe that it makes the game any better. Yes, it can correct some horrible calls, but it doesn't fix all horrible calls and it just stops the game. If anything, I think that replay simply moves the horrible calls around and brings luck even further into play. I think that replay is directly responsible for many of the officiating problems because the league's policies force officials to second guess themselves and make rulings with replay in mind rather than simply making the right call.

I think the current replay system was directly responsible for that fumble call. After the spate of "inadvertant" whistle calls a few years ago, the refs are now encouraged to let a play continue and not blow it dead. As a result, that encourages officials to let questionable fumble calls stand since they can be overturned, but if the player were ruled down by contact by the officials, then there can be no fumble since the play was over.

The current system is ridiculous. It is simply a matter of time before a team gets screwed three times and can't challenge the third time because they are out of challenges. Then we'll get some action on the deal.

Patman · 01-26-2003, 10:51 PM

I thought that Zebra was a jackass.

TroyF · 01-26-2003, 11:34 PM

I think the reffing has been pretty horrific this year.

I'm with Ksyrup on his two points. Woodson interfered with the WR. Call it holding, interference, illegal contact. . . whatever you want, it was still a penalty.

The call with Rice WAS the correct call. His forward progress was stopped in bounds. Furthermore, Rice was not making a movement to go out of bounds. (he turned in toward the field of play) The right call was made there.

The 2 pt. conversion was iffy. When I saw it live, I didn't think he would have came down in bounds. After about 5 replays I got the feeling he would have. The ref doesn't get to watch 5 replays before making the call. On a side note, why Callahan decided to challenge the call, I'll never know. Cowher blew up at a ref for not knowing the replay rules, here is a coach who decided to get stupid as well. Not a smart move.

The TB fumble on the return? One of the worst calls I've seen in a long time. Really, really bad reffing there.

Troy

sabotai · 01-26-2003, 11:49 PM

"When I saw it live, I didn't think he would have came down in bounds. After about 5 replays I got the feeling he would have. The ref doesn't get to watch 5 replays before making the call. "

But the ref isn't watching live on TV like we are. He was 3 feet away from the play.

Braggadocioussss · 01-26-2003, 11:50 PM

I think the most important thing was that the officiating had nothing to do with the outcome of the game. The Buccaneers were clearly the better team. The best teams in the AFC have been far outmatched by the best teams in the NFC all year. Even some of the only slightly above average teams in the NFC have been able to take care of the top AFC teams this year. Today proved to be no different.

DolaBump · 01-26-2003, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
has there been a worse job of officiating in a Super Bowl?

that was just horrible, almost from the beginning.

1) the "fumble" on the first Tampa return; I've seen bang-bang plays that were close enough to understand a missed call, but that thing wasn't even remotely close. Replay got it right, but TB had to waste a challenge.

-- Clearly a bad call though it was probably made with the knowledge that it could only be overturned one way on replay -- the officialswere istructed early in the year to err on the side of the fumble (which seems to be why it was called a fumble here, since there was a conference about it before the call was made)

2) the Porter 2-point conversion when he cleary would have been inbounds and got knocked out. shouldn't have been a question, especially with the official standing right on top of that play!

Those two calls were simply dreadful, and inexcuseable.

-- To be honest, its a judgement call, one that I probably would have called in bounds, but who knows here -- and it ultimately had little effect anyway.

3) More borderline, but still a bad call - the pass interference call on Woodson in the 4th quarter when Johnson was literally throwing the ball away. There was no way that ball could have been caught. I could understand if they were calling a hold, but that wasn't a call.

-- again, judgement call -- I would have called holding, but if the holding occurs at any time while the ball is in the air, the rulebook requires an interference call -- I felt the ball was uncatchable, but since the contact occured so early in the route, its tougher to tell.

RPI-Fan · 01-27-2003, 05:42 AM

If it's so easy and you know all the rules, why don't you guys go through the steps and become refs yourselves?

scooper · 01-27-2003, 08:15 AM

Funny thing is, unlike the Fiesta Bowl, these calls really had little effect on the outcome of the game.

The refs were bad all year, though.

TroyF · 01-27-2003, 08:56 AM

RPI,

I don't think you need to have the desire to be a ref to know the rules of the game or have an appreciation for those rules.

TroyF

Easy Mac · 01-27-2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai
"When I saw it live, I didn't think he would have came down in bounds. After about 5 replays I got the feeling he would have. The ref doesn't get to watch 5 replays before making the call. "

But the ref isn't watching live on TV like we are. He was 3 feet away from the play.

Exactly, which means in the heat of the moment he can see the play better than you. Maybe next time Gannon should make a better throw and not put his receiver in the situation of ungodyly contorting his body to land in bounds.

RendeR · 01-27-2003, 09:33 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Draft Dodger
has there been a worse job of officiating in a Super Bowl?
Yes Super Bowls 14, 15, and 16 all had HORRIBLE officiating, above and beyond this year.

1) the "fumble" on the first Tampa return; I've seen bang-bang plays that were close enough to understand a missed call, but that thing wasn't even remotely close. Replay got it right, but TB had to waste a challenge.
I agree this was a really obvious call that should have been made right the first time, its a good thing Tampa didn't need that challenge.

2) the Porter 2-point conversion when he cleary would have been inbounds and got knocked out. shouldn't have been a question, especially with the official standing right on top of that play!
I have to disagree with you here, that is a judgement call and even after all the replays there was no way to say for certain that he would have gotten both feet in, personally I think he blew it himself by kicking the left leg out so far while trying to stay in, if he'd kept his feet together and close to the ground, I'd have given him the score.

3) More borderline, but still a bad call - the pass interference call on Woodson in the 4th quarter when Johnson was literally throwing the ball away. There was no way that ball could have been caught. I could understand if they were calling a hold, but that wasn't a call.
I disagree again, perfect call, the ball was in the air when Woodson mugged the reciever further up field, by the letter of the rule, that is pass interference, the catchability of the ball is irrelevent at that point. Even so, he COULD have caught the ball, would have been amazing, but it might have happened since he did manage to get his hand on it even with all the interference.

4) Late in the 4th with the Raiders driving, Rice caught a ball and was immediately knocked out of bounds. They kept the clock going, and I still can't figure out why that would be. Rice never even hit the ground, inbounds or out of bounds.
They got this right too, his forward progress was stopped in bounds, so the clock rolls. I was wonering about this myself until they showed the other angle where he was knocked backwards first then shoved out. Good call on the refs part.

Overall I thought the Raiders were just apathetic, its like, hello? are we alive? The Buccs came to town for a title and their Defense gave it to them.

Good game all around.

*yes I know some of what I said had already been said, but damnit, I don't post THAT much so I gotta make them work =)

Ren

Fido · 01-27-2003, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
Rice never even hit the ground, inbounds or out of bounds.

Are you saying that Rice is still floating around somewhere in San Diego?

sabotai · 01-27-2003, 10:30 AM

"Exactly, which means in the heat of the moment he can see the play better than you. "

Yes, exactly. When I saw it live, like TroyF said, I thought he was out. After the replay, I saw he could have landed in bounds, and that the ruling should have been that he was pushed otu and that the catch counted. Since the ref was 3 feet away, he should have saw that the first time.

Easy Mac · 01-27-2003, 10:38 AM

But we also got the play slowed down, something he didn't. To him it looked like he wouldn't, perhaps he was wrong, but I'd rather have a ref be certain about his call than to signal one thing then change his mind :cough: fiesta bowl :cough:

clintl · 01-27-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai
"Exactly, which means in the heat of the moment he can see the play better than you. "

Yes, exactly. When I saw it live, like TroyF said, I thought he was out. After the replay, I saw he could have landed in bounds, and that the ruling should have been that he was pushed otu and that the catch counted. Since the ref was 3 feet away, he should have saw that the first time.

I don't think the correct standard is "could have landed in bounds." I think the standard in the rule book is that he would have landed in bounds if he had not been pushed - in which case, I think the official's call is defensible. After seeing the replays, I thought the chance that he would have landed in bounds had he not been pushed is only 75% at best - not anything close to a certainty.

01-26-2003, 10:16 PM	#9
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	Agreed.. it may not have been PI, but it CERTAINLY was at least Defensive holding, whcih is an auto first down anyway __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

01-26-2003, 10:19 PM	#10
Marmel Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Manchester, CT	It really doesn't matter if he would have been in or out of bounds on the 2pt conversion. If he was in the air, and pushed, you have to call it a completion, that is the rules. There was some bad calls, but nothing that affected the game, I don't think. I would grade it as a B, which for the NFL lately, is pretty good. __________________ 81-78 Cincinnati basketball writer P. Daugherty, "Connor Barwin playing several minutes against Syracuse is like kids with slingshots taking down Caesar's legions."

01-26-2003, 10:26 PM	#11
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	On the pass interference, I'll use the same excuse that others used in the college championship - it was a penalty, they just called the wrong one. Worked then, why not now? Hold/ interference, either way a penalty. As for Rice being knocked out of bounds, that occurs every game within the last 2 minutes. If the player has any forward momentum in-bounds, the clock continues to roll. I've seen it called the same way numerous times during the regular season. The 2 point conversion I thought was a bad call, but the one foot was spread out farther from his other foot than it should have been to make that call a slam dunk. I think there's a chance that that foot comes down out of bounds if he isn't hit. But watching it in real-time, I would have given it to him. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

01-26-2003, 10:31 PM	#12
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Dola. I know it didn't end up affecting the outcome, but I hope coaches learn something about going for 2 points so early in a game. Since teams can score by 2, 3, 6, or 7 points, you never know when 1 or 2 points will get you the combination you need, unless the game is in the 4th quarter, deep into it depending on the game. I coulnd't understand Oakland going for 2 after their first TD, and as Madden pointed out, they're only down by 10 if they just kick 3 XPs instead of going for 2 each time. I wish it would have ultimately made a difference so there would have been a national discussion of the stupidity that is that 2 point conversion chart. It should also come with a "do not use until the 4th quarter" warning label. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

01-26-2003, 10:42 PM	#14
Mustang Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wisconsin	Ya well.. did anyone catch the play the Zebra screwed up for the Clydesdales.. geez.. talk about BLIND! __________________ You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its...

01-26-2003, 09:58 PM	#2
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	I was shocked to see that the head official only has six years' experience in the league. You'd think after the recent spate of officiating controversy that they'd have chosen an official with somewhat more tenure. I think the replay rule needs to be slightly tweaked - Tampa should not have had to waste a challenge on what was clearly a horrible officiating call. If replay evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the ruling on the field, the team shouldn't be penalized their challenge for the stupidity of the referee. Not saying that ALL successful challenges should mean the coach gets to keep 'em, just for clarification's sake. Just that if the ref looks at the evidence and says "Okay, that was seriously a waste of time," the team shouldn't be penalized.

01-26-2003, 10:03 PM	#4
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Points 2, 3, and 4 are right on. Had the call against Woodson went back, the Bucs would've punted and the Raiders would've likely had some decent field position to narrowed it to a six point game.

01-26-2003, 10:09 PM	#5
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Sack, The only problem is where you draw the line. I mean, how do you determine which were the really blown calls and which were not?

01-26-2003, 10:14 PM	#7
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	sabotai, If the ref can look at a single clip and reverse the call on the field in about 15 seconds, I think that's sufficient grounds for keeping the challenge. Seriously, that one was a no-doubter. Still, I really don't like the idea of saying "Okay, you're only allowed to prove the ref wrong once per quarter." I like the idea of taking it away and penalizing the team a timeout if the ruling on the field is upheld, but if it's overturned, taking away the challenge just seems to be more spiteful than anything else.

01-26-2003, 10:15 PM	#8
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	err, once per half, my mistake.

01-26-2003, 10:37 PM	#13
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	Marmel, I think the rule is it's only a completion if in the official's judgment he would have come down in bounds if he had not been hit. The Porter play was very close, and I think could have gone either way. Ksyrup, I agree with you. Callahan was a total idiot for going for 2 points every time, especially on the first TD. If he had just kicked the extra point, they would have been down 24, and within three scores possibly. Taking the chance on 2 at that point really wasn't worth it.

01-26-2003, 10:44 PM	#15
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Can you say, "Full time officials"? __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

01-26-2003, 10:51 PM	#16
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	The system needs a major overhaul. Personally, I'm still against replay because I don't believe that it makes the game any better. Yes, it can correct some horrible calls, but it doesn't fix all horrible calls and it just stops the game. If anything, I think that replay simply moves the horrible calls around and brings luck even further into play. I think that replay is directly responsible for many of the officiating problems because the league's policies force officials to second guess themselves and make rulings with replay in mind rather than simply making the right call. I think the current replay system was directly responsible for that fumble call. After the spate of "inadvertant" whistle calls a few years ago, the refs are now encouraged to let a play continue and not blow it dead. As a result, that encourages officials to let questionable fumble calls stand since they can be overturned, but if the player were ruled down by contact by the officials, then there can be no fumble since the play was over. The current system is ridiculous. It is simply a matter of time before a team gets screwed three times and can't challenge the third time because they are out of challenges. Then we'll get some action on the deal.

01-26-2003, 10:51 PM	#17
Patman n00b Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manchester, NH	I thought that Zebra was a jackass. __________________ Lock the door, kill the light No one's coming home tonight They bring news that must get through. Dying peace in me and you Locked in a place where no one goes.

01-26-2003, 11:34 PM	#18
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I think the reffing has been pretty horrific this year. I'm with Ksyrup on his two points. Woodson interfered with the WR. Call it holding, interference, illegal contact. . . whatever you want, it was still a penalty. The call with Rice WAS the correct call. His forward progress was stopped in bounds. Furthermore, Rice was not making a movement to go out of bounds. (he turned in toward the field of play) The right call was made there. The 2 pt. conversion was iffy. When I saw it live, I didn't think he would have came down in bounds. After about 5 replays I got the feeling he would have. The ref doesn't get to watch 5 replays before making the call. On a side note, why Callahan decided to challenge the call, I'll never know. Cowher blew up at a ref for not knowing the replay rules, here is a coach who decided to get stupid as well. Not a smart move. The TB fumble on the return? One of the worst calls I've seen in a long time. Really, really bad reffing there. Troy

01-26-2003, 11:49 PM	#19
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"When I saw it live, I didn't think he would have came down in bounds. After about 5 replays I got the feeling he would have. The ref doesn't get to watch 5 replays before making the call. " But the ref isn't watching live on TV like we are. He was 3 feet away from the play.

01-26-2003, 11:50 PM	#20
Braggadocioussss In The Penalty Box Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ	I think the most important thing was that the officiating had nothing to do with the outcome of the game. The Buccaneers were clearly the better team. The best teams in the AFC have been far outmatched by the best teams in the NFC all year. Even some of the only slightly above average teams in the NFC have been able to take care of the top AFC teams this year. Today proved to be no different. Last edited by Braggadocioussss : 01-26-2003 at 11:51 PM.

01-27-2003, 05:42 AM	#22
RPI-Fan Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Troy, NY	If it's so easy and you know all the rules, why don't you guys go through the steps and become refs yourselves? __________________ Quis custodiets ipsos custodes?

01-27-2003, 08:15 AM	#23
scooper College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cinn City	Funny thing is, unlike the Fiesta Bowl, these calls really had little effect on the outcome of the game. The refs were bad all year, though.

01-27-2003, 08:56 AM	#24
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	RPI, I don't think you need to have the desire to be a ref to know the rules of the game or have an appreciation for those rules. TroyF

01-27-2003, 09:33 AM	#26
RendeR Coordinator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Buffalo, NY	Re: Officiating? [quote]Originally posted by Draft Dodger has there been a worse job of officiating in a Super Bowl? Yes Super Bowls 14, 15, and 16 all had HORRIBLE officiating, above and beyond this year. 1) the "fumble" on the first Tampa return; I've seen bang-bang plays that were close enough to understand a missed call, but that thing wasn't even remotely close. Replay got it right, but TB had to waste a challenge. I agree this was a really obvious call that should have been made right the first time, its a good thing Tampa didn't need that challenge. 2) the Porter 2-point conversion when he cleary would have been inbounds and got knocked out. shouldn't have been a question, especially with the official standing right on top of that play! I have to disagree with you here, that is a judgement call and even after all the replays there was no way to say for certain that he would have gotten both feet in, personally I think he blew it himself by kicking the left leg out so far while trying to stay in, if he'd kept his feet together and close to the ground, I'd have given him the score. 3) More borderline, but still a bad call - the pass interference call on Woodson in the 4th quarter when Johnson was literally throwing the ball away. There was no way that ball could have been caught. I could understand if they were calling a hold, but that wasn't a call. I disagree again, perfect call, the ball was in the air when Woodson mugged the reciever further up field, by the letter of the rule, that is pass interference, the catchability of the ball is irrelevent at that point. Even so, he COULD have caught the ball, would have been amazing, but it might have happened since he did manage to get his hand on it even with all the interference. 4) Late in the 4th with the Raiders driving, Rice caught a ball and was immediately knocked out of bounds. They kept the clock going, and I still can't figure out why that would be. Rice never even hit the ground, inbounds or out of bounds. They got this right too, his forward progress was stopped in bounds, so the clock rolls. I was wonering about this myself until they showed the other angle where he was knocked backwards first then shoved out. Good call on the refs part. Overall I thought the Raiders were just apathetic, its like, hello? are we alive? The Buccs came to town for a title and their Defense gave it to them. Good game all around. *yes I know some of what I said had already been said, but damnit, I don't post THAT much so I gotta make them work =) Ren __________________ http://wotlabs.net/s...8/signature.png http://wotlabs.net/sig_dark/na/banichi18/signature.png

01-27-2003, 10:30 AM	#28
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"Exactly, which means in the heat of the moment he can see the play better than you. " Yes, exactly. When I saw it live, like TroyF said, I thought he was out. After the replay, I saw he could have landed in bounds, and that the ruling should have been that he was pushed otu and that the catch counted. Since the ref was 3 feet away, he should have saw that the first time.

01-27-2003, 10:38 AM	#29
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	But we also got the play slowed down, something he didn't. To him it looked like he wouldn't, perhaps he was wrong, but I'd rather have a ref be certain about his call than to signal one thing then change his mind :cough: fiesta bowl :cough:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)