Stevie's Johns0n Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 On the show PTI on espn they have an email section and I wanted to find out if there is anyway to sen out an e-mail to them so they can discuss the refs from today's game, and see if we are the only one's that think the refs sucked rhino dick????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 On the show PTI on espn they have an email section and I wanted to find out if there is anyway to sen out an e-mail to them so they can discuss the refs from today's game, and see if we are the only one's that think the refs sucked rhino dick????? 768687[/snapback] pti@espn.com I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Washington Post columnists Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon face off on the day's hot topics. Airs weekdays on ESPN at 5:30 ET and ESPNEWS at 6:30 ET. Send e-mail to: PTI@espn.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 On the show PTI on espn they have an email section and I wanted to find out if there is anyway to sen out an e-mail to them so they can discuss the refs from today's game, and see if we are the only one's that think the refs sucked rhino dick????? 768687[/snapback] I don't care about the refs- we lost. If they make bad calls, you have to overcome it- its not like they try to make bad calls. They made a bad one against Ohio State on Saturday with the roughing the passer. Good teams overcome that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I would like to see someone try to write a coherent enough email to them to get them to talk about it. I agree with Adam that good teams overcome bad calls, but it bothers me that it always seems to be overemphasized when it happens to other teams than when it happens to the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 The Bills did attempt to overcome a sh------- call (the blocking in the back call) which nulllified a touchdown by Donte Whitner. They were then put into the position of having to overcome an equally sh------- "illeagel block in the back" against Robert Royal just a few plays later which nullified a first down, and ended a drive... they were also asked to overcome a very poor spot on a 4th & 1, and a safety that, if it had been Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Drew Bledsoe, Steve McNair, Brett Favre, or about 15 other vetran QB's in the leauge, would have been spotted at the one yard line. You are right, the Bills are not good enough to overcome so many errors by the officials, when they have to overcome the ones that they are actually responsible for. I am not a conspiracy theorist...I see plenty of bad calls/non-calls in near every game I watch. The Colts/Giants game was chocked full of them as well...I just think the NFL really has to take some measures to keep officiating from directly effecting the outcomes of games. The call on Whitners' fumble and the one on Royal were just brutal. It is true, in both cases, a Bills player made contact with the Patriots player, but in neither, did that contact constitute an intentional block. In the case of the Whitner play, Nate Clements had his hands on the back of the Patriots player, he didn't push, the guy was falling to the ground, and in fact, had enough time and space to get back on his feet, to try to make a play on Whitner. What Clements did to the Patriot, is the equivalant of an NBA player putting his hand on the waste of a guard from the opposing team, as he is trying to back his way toward the net. A hand check. In Clements case, the contact was more incidental, the result of a sudden shift in the direction of the action on the field, which occurs whenever there is a turnover. I think this type of thing should be left up to the officials, to determine if the intent of the contact was to shove, or merely incidental... The call on Royal was just as bad. The contact that Royal made with the Patriot defender's back, was initiated by the defender, as he made his play to drive Price out of bounds. Royal was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think the contact had any affect on the result of the play....it was almost as if the defender used Royal to set a pick on himself.... Either way, another bad day for officials in the NFL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 It is true, in both cases, a Bills player made contact with the Patriots player, but in neither, did that contact constitute an intentional block. 769019[/snapback] Refs can't be expected to interpret a player's "intent". Come on. "Gee, sorry sir, I didn't intend to go off sides. I was thinking about my baby's momma(s) and forgot the snap count. But I fully intended to stay onsides. What'ya say, let it slide this once?" There were bad calls today, but the blocks in the backs were not them. The spots were suspect, true. And the 14-2 discrepency in penalties is indeed alarming. But in the end, it was not the penalties that cost the Bills the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Refs can't be expected to interpret a player's "intent". Come on. 769047[/snapback] Why not? They already are left to interpret so many things...it seems as though they should be able to determine what is incidental contact, and what is not...if they can't, they shouldn't be tossing flags all of the time...it wasn't just the Buffalo game either...there were terrible calls in nearly every game I watched yesterday, all involved contact...the pass interference call against the Colts last night, was another terrible call... You really thought the call against Royal was a legit call? No matter that it was the defender, with his back, who made contact with Royal? In the end, if the Bills were a better team, they could have still won this game, and I agree, they didn't lose specifically because of these calls. The bad calls certainly didn't help their cause any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 On the show PTI on espn they have an email section and I wanted to find out if there is anyway to sen out an e-mail to them so they can discuss the refs from today's game, and see if we are the only one's that think the refs sucked rhino dick????? 768687[/snapback] Bills fans are the only one's that care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Why not? They already are left to interpret so many things...it seems as though they should be able to determine what is incidental contact, and what is not...if they can't, they shouldn't be tossing flags all of the time...it wasn't just the Buffalo game either...there were terrible calls in nearly every game I watched yesterday, all involved contact...the pass interference call against the Colts last night, was another terrible call... You really thought the call against Royal was a legit call? No matter that it was the defender, with his back, who made contact with Royal? In the end, if the Bills were a better team, they could have still won this game, and I agree, they didn't lose specifically because of these calls. The bad calls certainly didn't help their cause any. 769523[/snapback] It wasn't just those calls, it was the non-calls like the holding on Schoebel, the false start on the center (flinching his hand) when they called offsides on us. There was one play when our lineman was tackled by theirs as Losman was running away. The officials were simply not going to pull any flags out of their pockets for the Patsies. Everytime a Bill made a big play, I knew the flag was coming out before they threw it and that's what happened. In fact I knew the bills would have no chance yesterday because of the refs and I was right. And I don't have the power of premonition. SO, it must be something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 It wasn't just those calls, it was the non-calls like the holding on Schoebel, the false start on the center (flinching his hand) when they called offsides on us. There was one play when our lineman was tackled by theirs as Losman was running away. The officials were simply not going to pull any flags out of their pockets for the Patsies. Everytime a Bill made a big play, I knew the flag was coming out before they threw it and that's what happened. In fact I knew the bills would have no chance yesterday because of the refs and I was right. And I don't have the power of premonition. SO, it must be something else. 769534[/snapback] Sometimes, it seems, the "Jordan Rules" apply to entire teams in the NFL...the Pats may be one of them right now...some would argue that our Bills of the early 1990's got away with a few during their run as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bflojohn Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I sent one, just this minute!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Refs can't be expected to interpret a player's "intent". Come on. "Gee, sorry sir, I didn't intend to go off sides. I was thinking about my baby's momma(s) and forgot the snap count. But I fully intended to stay onsides. What'ya say, let it slide this once?" There were bad calls today, but the blocks in the backs were not them. The spots were suspect, true. And the 14-2 discrepency in penalties is indeed alarming. But in the end, it was not the penalties that cost the Bills the game. 769047[/snapback] They are when put viewed in relation to the NON-calls when Schobel was held on a couple of occasions. When the flags weren't thrown on those, it showed the refs weren't calling the marginal ticky-tack stuff...untill the Bills committed marginal ticky-tack stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They are when put viewed in relation to the NON-calls when Schobel was held on a couple of occasions. When the flags weren't thrown on those, it showed the refs weren't calling the marginal ticky-tack stuff...untill the Bills committed marginal ticky-tack stuff. 770002[/snapback] Exactly! It is like the refs said "lets' just let 'em play ball...the Patriots I mean!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They are when put viewed in relation to the NON-calls when Schobel was held on a couple of occasions. When the flags weren't thrown on those, it showed the refs weren't calling the marginal ticky-tack stuff...untill the Bills committed marginal ticky-tack stuff. 770002[/snapback] Yes...BUT the marginal calls for the Bills happened RIGHT in front of the refs. They had no choice. A block in the back is a block in the back. A hold is a hold. But when it happens two feet from a ref who is staring at you, it doesn't matter the intent. The ref has to call that. The cliche is that holding can be called on every play if the refs want to. And that's true. So holding calls are always wishy-washy...I won't argue with those. There are times when it's called when it shouldn't be and times when it's missed. But that goes both ways. A block in the back, infrotn of a ref though will get called EVERY time. And you can't expect a ref to throw it based on the blockers intent. That is just never going to happen. Royal messed up. He has to know better. It was a stupid play on HIS part. Not the refs. Not the Pats. Same goes for Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts