[Vague Title] Officiating

[Paul Costa]

6 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

This:

 

 

That was Romo’s take. They never showed an angle that showed this as fact. The official said the ball was fumbled out of bounds. It was not,  a clear recovery. The helmet point was not what was called on the field nor did they use it to explain the call. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

33 minutes ago, Paul Costa said:

Seemed as though the officials were openly trying to help the Steelers stay in the game. The Pickens fumble  was a pretty easy play to overturn. But then the next fumble along the sideline was clearly a recovery by Spector in bounds. The official ( Carl Cheffers)said the ball was fumbled out of bounds. The replay clearly showed it was never touched by the Pittsburgh player who fumbled while being out of bounds. Horrible officiating, but what really bothered me was the lack of explanation coming out of the challenge. It really hurt the Bills as they couldn’t challenge again. Totally irresponsible of the officials to do this to one team. I feel the officials need to explain why they called the play the way they did. I know the officials have a post game press conference did anyone see or hear their explanation of that call? With all the legalized gambling the officiating needs to be 100% transparent. 

Officiating league wide is a problem. Every week any team that plays can point to a handful of plays and say "The refs screwed us" while simultaneously ignoring all the calls that went in their teams favor.

 

It's really just a built in excuse (in most cases) to let people feel like they and their team is some sort of victim rather than they simply lost. That's life in 2024. No one can admit they lost fair and square and it has to be some sort of elaborate scam. For the most part ( again, not always) the bad calls even out through the course of a game.

 

Add into the fact that a large number of fans and even many players THINK they know the rules much better than they actually do. GameDay threads are chalked full of examples of this.

Edited January 16 by BuffaloBillyG

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I think the fumble out of bounds was a call on field stands washout clear irrefutable evidence.  I think they called the ball touched the TE when he was out of bounds but after the fumble.  I was never convinced that happened but there might not have been clear evidence it did not touch anyone who was out of bounds and therefore call on field stands.

I actually thought they showed a replay that made it clear the ball didn't touch the helmet. 

Edited January 16 by Shaw66

[Paul Costa]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

If the ball touches his helmet while he was out of bounds, then the fumble is out of bounds.  That's the rule.  That would make what Cheffers said true.  

Agree 💯. But there was no evidence of that. 

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I actually thought they showed a replay that made it clear the ball didn't touch the helmet. 

They did. 

[Matt_In_NH]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I actually thought they showed a replay that made it clear the ball didn't touch the helmet. 

I know what you mean but I think you might have needed to slow it down some, it is not uncommon for different angles to show potentially different results.  Just a thought, maybe the ref saw in real time it glanced off the helmet.  I guess it would be nice to have a formal detailed explanation on that one.  The review was very quick if I remember correctly.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

As Gene S the rules expert stated on the air, don't get hung on the exact words of "the ball was fumbled out of bounds." Did the Steeler players helmet glance off it.  Did I clearly see it hit the helmet no, but can't say it didn't wither.   The replay wasn't clear enough to say for certain, so without being able to answer that question it goes back to has to be clear evidence to overturn.  It's one of those plays where if they had ruled Bills ball, it never would have been over turned the other way either.

 

Should they have given a better explanation, yes I agree there and probably in a couple days will read somewhere what it was.

 

But there were also a number of calls that went against Pitt that could have easily been called.  If I were a Steeler fan II'd be furious on that DH call that went against them late.  The announcers were all saying, the ball was un-catchable.  So the refs talked for about two minutes and figured out, lets change it from PI to DH, then the Steelers can't argue it couldn't be caught. To me the ball was in the air when contact was made which means the right call would be PI.

[YattaOkasan]

21 minutes ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

I think that the replay rules are silly.  If you challenge, and your challenge is successful, why should that be held against you?

 

Refs are afraid to call what they see on the field, knowing that the challenge system is in place to overturn some of their egregious calls or missed calls.  However, by making or not making a call, the referees' call or non-call is presumed correct, with the threshold for overturning via replay (assuming that (1) the play is reviewable, and (2) a team has the ability to challenge the call) being quite high.

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).  

[ImpactCorey]

There are plenty of games to complain about officiating.  This isn't one of them.

[WhoTom]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I actually thought they showed a replay that made it clear the ball didn't touch the helmet. 

 

Looked like it touched the helmet to me. I guess that's why it was too close to overturn. I agree with your earlier premise, though, that a turnover/TD auto review needs to happen on plays that could turn into turnovers and TDs, not just the ones that are called that way initially.

 

[TNBills]

7 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

As Gene S the rules expert stated on the air, don't get hung on the exact words of "the ball was fumbled out of bounds." Did the Steeler players helmet glance off it.  Did I clearly see it hit the helmet no, but can't say it didn't wither.   The replay wasn't clear enough to say for certain, so without being able to answer that question it goes back to has to be clear evidence to overturn.  It's one of those plays where if they had ruled Bills ball, it never would have been over turned the other way either.

 

Should they have given a better explanation, yes I agree there and probably in a couple days will read somewhere what it was.

 

But there were also a number of calls that went against Pitt that could have easily been called.  If I were a Steeler fan II'd be furious on that DH call that went against them late.  The announcers were all saying, the ball was un-catchable.  So the refs talked for about two minutes and figured out, lets change it from PI to DH, then the Steelers can't argue it couldn't be caught. To me the ball was in the air when contact was made which means the right call would be PI.

That DH was absolutely a penalty. The refs just had to decide if it was going to be PI or DH. They made the right call as the ball was so far out of bounds, but it doesn't negate the holding or illegal contact after 5 yards. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Pretty clear the league officials got the second fumble incorrect. The replay conclusively showed he possessed the ball in bounds and nothing else.

[YattaOkasan]

Just now, Calidiehard said:

That DH was absolutely a penalty. The refs just had to decide if it was going to be PI or DH. They made the right call as the ball was so far out of bounds, but it doesn't negate the holding or illegal contact after 5 yards. 

can't find this replay but yeah this is what i thought happened and then josh air mailed it.

[K-9]

44 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

The NFL, 2023-24:  When Officiating Became 'Rashomon'.

Outstanding.

[pennstate10]

25 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

This:

 

 

I

29 minutes 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.

I assumed the rule is that if the fumbling player touches the ball while he is OOB, then ball is considered OOB and play is dead. 
 

If that’s the rule, it’s a stupid rule. 
 

it should be if the player possess the ball and he is OOB, then ball is OOB. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 minutes ago, Calidiehard said:

That DH was absolutely a penalty. The refs just had to decide if it was going to be PI or DH. They made the right call as the ball was so far out of bounds, but it doesn't negate the holding or illegal contact after 5 yards. 

 

Agree it was a penalty, but then why did it take so long to figure out?  My thinking was the official planned to call PI, but they realized that wasn't going to go over well so came up with plan B.

[strive_for_five_guy]

Both sides can gripe about calls by the refs in this one.  Ultimately, we were the better team and it didn’t matter for us, this week.  Hopefully we don’t get screwed in a closer game the rest of the way.

[mjt328]

The fumble by Pat Freiermuth that was not reversed was terrible.  But the Steelers ended up throwing a pick in the endzone on that drive anyway, so it really made no difference in the score.

 

It was weird to see the officials stop the game and discuss a couple flags... the hit when Josh Allen was sliding, and the PI/holding in the 4th Quarter.  You don't usually see that, and it was frustrating.  But they ended up getting both calls correct.  The hit was late, and the ball was uncatchable.

 

Steelers fans probably have a legit complaint about the non-called PI at the end.  That does usually get called.  But they were down by 2 touchdowns with about 3 minutes left.  It would have given them less than 10 yards and a new set of downs.  Not sure they can argue this play was the difference in a game they lost by 14.

 

The complaint about Allen's big run and supposedly faking a slide is just weird.  From my vantage point it looks like a juke move, not a fake slide.  And even if it was a fake slide, there is nothing in the NFL rulebook that makes it a penalty.

 

[TNBills]

3 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Agree it was a penalty, but then why did it take so long to figure out?  My thinking was the official planned to call PI, but they realized that wasn't going to go over well so came up with plan B.

They absolutely were going to call PI as the ref who threw the flag wasn't watching where the ball went. So they huddled and had to discuss exactly what happened and didn't come up with plan b but settled on holding as the right call.

[pennstate10]

4 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Agree it was a penalty, but then why did it take so long to figure out?  My thinking was the official planned to call PI, but they realized that wasn't going to go over well so came up with plan B.

A play can be both DH and PI. 
If the player starts holding before the ball is thrown, and continues the hold while ball is in the air, it is both DH and PI. In this play, the refs got it right. The uncatchable ball negated the PI but not the DH. 
 

[Neo]

40 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

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

The “stopped and nuked” is a spectacular typo.   He most certainly did.