Do You Fully Trust NFL Outcomes ?

[Betterread]

I like the Bengals. They had great year. They just suffered a tough loss, where it was definitely not clear the other team was better. Those losses are the worst.
But I don’t like the trash talking and disrespecting other teams and players and I don’t care for the whining about bad calls or no calls. Not because bad calls and no calls didn’t impact the Bengals and hurt their chances of winning, but because those things are a part of sports and something that affects all teams.

[WrongVerb]

Burrows already gets preferential treatment from officials. He intentionally grounds the ball a few times every game I see by slamming the ball into the ground a few feet in front of him. I was amazed the officials in this game called him on it once.

It’s cheating. And he gets to do it while other QBs get the penalty called. Bengals fans are no doubt pissed because their privilege was removed.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...nal-grounding/

It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that is thrown in the direction of and lands in the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.

That's what you're missing. Burrow standing in the pocket and throwing the ball to the ground without anyone close to sacking him is not intentional grounding.

[RedTeamGo!]

I honestly thought that one was intentional grounding. The RB wasn't really that close and ran back as he was throwing it.

[kaldaniels]

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...nal-grounding/



That's what you're missing. Burrow standing in the pocket and throwing the ball to the ground without anyone close to sacking him is not intentional grounding.

A quarterback in the pocket is pretty much defined as “facing an imminent loss of yardage” as the defense bears down on him. Having said that, the NFL rulebook is not something that is followed down to the letter in many circumstances. A quarterback in the pocket who drops back and fires the ball into the line is going to be called for grounding. Despite what the rule book says, everyone knows that’s the deal.

I thought the grounding call was fine.

[kaldaniels]

A quarterback in the pocket is pretty much defined as “facing an imminent loss of yardage” as the defense bears down on him. Having said that, the NFL rulebook is not something that is followed down to the letter in many circumstances. A quarterback in the pocket who drops back and fires the ball into the line is going to be called for grounding. Despite what the rule book says, everyone knows that’s the deal.

I thought the grounding call was fine.

I may be confused here - cause Burrow was getting wrapped up on yesterdays call. I guess this is referring to when he has done it and it is not called?

[757690]

I may be confused here - cause Burrow was getting wrapped up on yesterdays call. I guess this is referring to when he has done it and it is not called?

I think this discussion is not about the controversial call yesterday, but about when Burrows sees the play is broken right away, and throws it at the feet of the line. My recollection is that every QB does this, and is rarely called for intentional grounding

[Kingspoint]

As I pointed out, “NFLRIGGED” is trending on twitter and most of the posts are from people with no skin in the game. My non-Bengal fan friends have reached out to me to complain about the officiating of this game. Go to any site discussing football and the poor officiating from tonight’s game is dominating the discussion. And for the record, no one is complaining about penalty at the game that your are referencing. Everyone agrees that was a penalty.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is “clearly” in the minority, by a huge amount.

I turn on a National Sports Radio, and the only thing being discussed is this: The penalty that put them into FG range does not get made in that situation ever. Sources for this are Sean Payton's comments back at the time when the Rams got hosed on a blatant non-call of PI "because refs are not supposed to decide outcomes of games and that things get let go in that situation, and that it's why a team can hold all game long in a critical playoff game and not get called for most of them, and never get called at the end of a game that decides the outcome. The players have to decide the game."

Anyone who disagrees has to look at why there wasn't a 15-yard roughing the passer when Burrow was shoved to the frozen ground when he was hit in the chest long after the ball had left his hand.

The Mike Hilton PI call was a terrible call, agreed to by the on-air referee analyst at the time and was equivalent to a turnover taken away as the Bengals would have had the ball back the next play. The 4th Quarter was filled with agregious calls all in favor of the Chiefs.

I don't think the refs cared at all who won the game, but that the refs were simply incompetent in this game. While they got several calls right that they should have gotten right and other officials would have gotten wrong, they still did an extremely poor job because their decisions and non-decisions decided the Game, not the Chiefs, not the Bengals.

[Kingspoint]

I honestly thought that one was intentional grounding. The RB wasn't really that close and ran back as he was throwing it.

Yes, but as Romo mentioned, it was close enough to also not be called. Again, in the 4th Quarter, a ref needs to attempt at all costs to avoid effecting the outcome of the contest of a Conference Championship Game.

[Kingspoint]

Only naive and igorant people fall back to calling something a conspiracy theory. It masks their uninformed knowledge of Life and their lack of understanding how one thing effects another, in addition to their unwillingness to admit that they have no idea what the heck they are talking about, so they need to change the subject to something that's undefendable,...in other words, ignore a detail that can't be explained by their limited knowledge of Life.


Was this game rigged? I don't think it was. Did the refs have their fingers on the scales? Yes and no. Yes, in the way that every ref handles a hostile crowd situation that always ends up favoring the hostile crowd. No, in that I don't think they personally cared who won or were being paid or influenced by someone who did other than the crowd. I think the refs' incompetency decided the game. That seems to be the prevailing opinion nationally, and I agree. In their group effort to be fair and do the right thing, they went too far and gave too much weight to certain plays and not enough to others (perhaps the right amount, but it became imbalanced when combined with the plays they gave too much weight to).

[Boston Red]

Only naive and igorant people fall back to calling something a conspiracy theory. It masks their uninformed knowledge of Life and their lack of understanding how one thing effects another, in addition to their unwillingness to admit that they have no idea what the heck they are talking about, so they need to change the subject to something that's undefendable,...in other words, ignore a detail that can't be explained by their limited knowledge of Life.

This is the exact same speech that's been given by every conspiracy nutter in the history of the world.

By the way, agree with the rest. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence (I don't think it's stupidity at play).

[SteelSD]

I never saw an angle that showed the referee clearly running in before the ball was snapped. I saw the ref running in but it looked like the ball had already been snapped. And with the Chiefs on offense, the stadium would have been quiet enough for everyone to hear that whistle. It obviously didn't impact the play at all because the teams both had their punt squads ready for fourth down and the Chiefs looked as surprised as anyone that they'd be getting another down.

By the time the camera caught the official running into the frame, it showed him clearly waving the play off. If you use the officials at the bottom of the frame for reference, it looks like the guy ran 20+ yards, much of that before the ball was snapped. And it didn't matter if he impacted the play, because the play didn't exist at that point.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1619886534320357376

Since they correct the game clock constantly throughout the game, so could they have done here. Do overs are too fishy, regardless of the explanation. The clock started too soon, adjust the clock after the play since it had clearly already occurred without anyone stopping due to an alleged whistle.

I'm pretty sure you're not thinking that an official can't stop a play without a whistle, or with a non-functioning one. There was clear intent and action taken to stop the play, whether a whistle could be heard from that far away over the crowd noise or no. What the officials could have done is irrrelevant, because the play didn't happen. The official, who realized something his peers didn't notice, determined that he needed to stop it and took clear action to do so. Didn't matter what the outcome of the non-play was at that point, nor did the official's action consider it when he ran in from the sideline.

Lots to unpack here.

1. This started with an error by the crew, that they admitted to making. One more mistake by this crew to add to a long list.

2. There were many ways to deal with this after the fact, hence, the long discussion. There was no “correct decision” to this situation. It was a major screw up creating a unique situation with no clear answer that wouldn’t upset someone. The crew had to make a decision, based on what they considered to be the most fair. If they had decided to just let the play stand, nearly everyone would have been fine with that, and understood why that decision was made. They instead made a decision that confused and upset nearly everyone. They did not have to make that decision.

3. I was referring to more than just that one call. The next play involved a holding call against Apple. As was stated by others, they didn’t have to make that call either. Everyone knows that they can call holding on nearly every play. The entire game, they had been letting the players play, not calling these soft penalties on either team. Then they decide to make this call, which is especially egregious considering what had happened with the previous play.

4. All that said, while I think that series revealed a thumb on the scale by the refs, I don’t think it actually impacted the outcome. The Bengals still stopped the Chiefs, even with all the extra tries handed to them by the refs. There were other calls and non-calls that had a much bigger impact on the final score.

There's nothing to unpack. There absolutely was a correct decision for that situation, the official determined what that was when he ran in to stop the play, he conferred with the other officials, and that was that. And no, I'm not going down a rabbit hole involving what you consider "soft" calls, or what you think officials should have called or when you believe they should swallow their whistles.

[Old school 1983]

I like the Bengals. They had great year. They just suffered a tough loss, where it was definitely not clear the other team was better. Those losses are the worst.
But I don’t like the trash talking and disrespecting other teams and players and I don’t care for the whining about bad calls or no calls. Not because bad calls and no calls didn’t impact the Bengals and hurt their chances of winning, but because those things are a part of sports and something that affects all teams.

That’s all pretty valid.

[Kingspoint]

Incompetency becomes allowable when people aren't held accountable.

[757690]

By the time the camera caught the official running into the frame, it showed him clearly waving the play off. If you use the officials at the bottom of the frame for reference, it looks like the guy ran 20+ yards, much of that before the ball was snapped. And it didn't matter if he impacted the play, because the play didn't exist at that point.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1619886534320357376



I'm pretty sure you're not thinking that an official can't stop a play without a whistle, or with a non-functioning one. There was clear intent and action taken to stop the play, whether a whistle could be heard from that far away over the crowd noise or no. What the officials could have done is irrrelevant, because the play didn't happen. The official, who realized something his peers didn't notice, determined that he needed to stop it and took clear action to do so. Didn't matter what the outcome of the non-play was at that point, nor did the official's action consider it when he ran in from the sideline.



There's nothing to unpack. There absolutely was a correct decision for that situation, the official determined what that was when he ran in to stop the play, he conferred with the other officials, and that was that. And no, I'm not going down a rabbit hole involving what you consider "soft" calls, or what you think officials should have called or when you believe they should swallow their whistles.

You need to walk away from the idea that there was a “correct decision” in that situation.

[SteelSD]

You need to walk away from the idea that there was a “correct decision” in that situation.

No, you need to accurately identify that the decision was already made when the official attempted to stop play. That official made a ruling at that time; one that was well within his purview. At that point, the only choice the officiating crew had was to abide by that ruling, which was absolutely the correct thing to do. Same thing happens when an inadvertent whistle is blown (in any sport). It's just that in this case, there was nothing inadvertent about it.