Todays' Chiefs v Patriots game

Not claiming to know all or most of the rules of the NFL, but too bad the official(s) didn't err on the side of calling it*** a TD for the game today.

***: the play I am talking about is the one that was a "certain NE TD" in the 4th quarter, going by the replay.

On the play in question, there was an estimated 34.1% "turnaround" according to the "win probability^^^" graph on espn, the Patriots would have been about a coin-flip to win the game, if that play was accurately "called" (instead the Chiefs jumped out to about 84.6%, because the Pats had to eventually settle for a field goal).

^^^: whether you believe the espn "win probability" figure is accurate or not is beside the point, I just used it to show how big a difference that call probably made to the Patriots chances of winning the game.

Also, I know the officials can't make 100% perfect calls every-time, and I don't expect them to, but I think in cases like this (where two officials "seemed to confer with each other ) that they should have called it a touch down and then let the "official review" overturn them if they are wrong.

I don't know if there were any other "bad calls"^*^ in the game, as I only started watching early in the 4th quarter, while waiting for the ' hawks/ rams game.

^*^: I didn't have any money on the game and in general I don't care about bad calls if i don't have any money on the game (bad calls are supposed to "even out", as each team should get about the same number of bad calls against them in the long-run).

In summary:

I understand the refs have "time-constraints" and there are other factors to worry about, but I think officials should call more TD's in situations where there is: a clear view of the player/football breaking the plane and two (or more) officials SEEM to need to "clarify what happened" with each other.

-----
The spelling/grammar has not been checked carefully, but think I this post is "understandable" ( I want to watch the Rams game now, so that is why I am not double checking it).

Quote: ksdjdj

Not claiming to know all or most of the rules of the NFL, but too bad the official(s) didn't err on the side of calling it*** a TD for the game today.

***: the play I am talking about is the one that was a "certain NE TD" in the 4th quarter, going by the replay.

On the play in question, there was an estimated 34.1% "turnaround" according to the "win probability^^^" graph on espn, the Patriots would have been about a coin-flip to win the game, if that play was accurately "called" (instead the Chiefs jumped out to about 84.6%, because the Pats had to eventually settle for a field goal).

^^^: whether you believe the espn "win probability" figure is accurate or not is beside the point, I just used it to show how big a difference that call probably made to the Patriots chances of winning the game.

Also, I know the officials can't make 100% perfect calls every-time, and I don't expect them to, but I think in cases like this (where two officials "seemed to confer with each other ) that they should have called it a touch down and then let the "official review" overturn them if they are wrong.

I don't know if there were any other "bad calls"^*^ in the game, as I only started watching early in the 4th quarter, while waiting for the ' hawks/ rams game.

^*^: I didn't have any money on the game and in general I don't care about bad calls if i don't have any money on the game (bad calls are supposed to "even out", as each team should get about the same number of bad calls against them in the long-run).

In summary:

I understand the refs have "time-constraints" and there are other factors to worry about, but I think officials should call more TD's in situations where there is: a clear view of the player/football breaking the plane and two (or more) officials SEEM to need to "clarify what happened" with each other.

-----
The spelling/grammar has not been checked carefully, but think this post is "understandable" ( I want to watch the Rams game now, so that is why I am not double checking it).

I have heard announcers say the same thing you just said. AND I CAN'T DISAGREE MORE!!!!!!!!! Call the game as you see it! If you start officiating a game trying to have your decision made factoring in what way it can be reversed without a coach using a challenge then just retire from officiating.
My point is to ask the official, since he never stepped out of bounds why did you mark him as if he did? Since he did not step out, do you just make a guess? Or only mark someone out if you actually see him step out? Then fire that official of course.
Wasn't as bad as missing the BLATANT, OBVIOUS pass interference call a little later, by the way.

(Not really complaining..... I DID have KC in the WoV picks game!)

Quote: SOOPOO

I have heard announcers say the same thing you just said. AND I CAN'T DISAGREE MORE!!!!!!!!! Call the game as you see it! If you start officiating a game trying to have your decision made factoring in what way it can be reversed without a coach using a challenge then just retire from officiating.
My point is to ask the official, since he never stepped out of bounds why did you mark him as if he did? Since he did not step out, do you just make a guess? Or only mark someone out if you actually see him step out? Then fire that official of course.
Wasn't as bad as missing the BLATANT, OBVIOUS pass interference call a little later, by the way.

(Not really complaining..... I DID have KC in the WoV picks game!)

I generally agree with officials calling "the game as they see it", this is the only exception I can think of, for calls where they are "unsure what they saw" and where it would be fairly easy to "adjudicate" with the "automatic review" (specifically calls like this call, or one that are nearly identical in terms of how quick/easy the "review" would be).

BTW I DON'T know with 100% certainty what the officials were talking about, but to me it seemed liked they were checking if he was out of bounds or not

I had the sound turned down, and didn't watch the game after that play so I didn't know what the announcers said (maybe I am "smart" enough to become a football announcer, since we said almost the same thing, lol)

Again, since I didn't watch much of the game at all, I didn't get to see the "...OBVIOUS pass interference call a little later", so I can't really comment on that one, sorry.

Hope you are going well in the "WoV picks game" (I like KC as well)

---
On a lighter note, I am hoping for a good game with the 'hawks / rams.
I had the Rams and over 47.5 at $3.80, a few hours ago, so I am tossing up whether to back the Sea-hawks^^^ to win the second half and the under^^^.

^^^: Too late , the 2nd half has started already, so won't be having this bet now.

I also forgot abysmal call against Patriots that cost them gobs of yards AND a challenge! Fumble called 'down by contact'. Patriot picks up ball immediately and starts racing for TD (he may not have made it as there were Chiefs that would have had a chance to tackle him). Of course ball was out well before player was down, and the 30+ yards of the return were nullified, plus the possibility of a TD.

It has seemed over the course of my football watching career that the Patriots usually get those calls, not have them go against them....

Quote: SOOPOO

I(snip) It has seemed over the course of my football watching career that the Patriots usually get those calls, not have them go against them....

I agree with this 100% as well, at least from what I have watched.
I don't watch/follow as many games as I would like, part of the reason is because I live in Australia, most of the games start at 3 am in the morning for me and I like to watch the game(s) live.