Blown call costs Fatfford and the Lions the ballgame

[TheDouglas78]

That one non-call at the end of the game DID lose that game. Down 3 with under 2 minutes on the clock with a first and goal from the 6 inch line, I'd say that call is basically the epitome of a non-call costing a team the game. It's not even a questionable call at that. Oh and fuvk the Lions, I don't have a dog in that fight.

So **** the other 59:50 seconds of the game. that one call was the whole game. If they were the better team it wouldn't come down to one call. that is how football works, if you leave the game down to one call by the officials you deserve to lose. If there is an obviously bias officiating crew like where the bad calls/non calls go on all game then they have an argument. But Calvin Johnson fumbled that ball, this doesn't even come into question if he took care of the football. The only one to blame for that loss is themselves.

 

[ItsDookie87]

So **** the other 59:50 seconds of the game. that one call was the whole game. If they were the better team it wouldn't come down to one call. that is how football works, if you leave the game down to one call by the officials you deserve to lose. If there is an obviously bias officiating crew like where the bad calls/non calls go on all game then they have an argument. But Calvin Johnson fumbled that ball, this doesn't even come into question if he took care of the football. The only one to blame for that loss is themselves.

Of course the rest of the game matters but they obviously did enough to get themselves in position to win in Seattle. It's not just the call but the timing that makes it so bad. If that exact call happens in the 2nd quarter say, the Lions have time to recover if they can and the effect of that call is greatly diminished. I saw and article talking about how that call swung the likelihood of winning by 70%. Here's a quote:

"Overall: The officials' missed call on the batted ball was a plus-.702 win probability added event, as we might say in the football analytics world. In other words, it swung each team's chances by about 70 percent. It's very rare that single events in football even approach that big of a swing.
The difference between the 80.7 percent chance following the hypothetical illegal batting penalty and the Lions' 10.5 percent chance following the touchback makes that missed call a 70.2 percent error.
That might not be as big as the "Fail Mary" call in the Green Bay-Seattle Monday night game three years ago, which was a clear-cut 100 percent swing, but it's close."

Again, it's VERY RARE for a single play to approach that big of a swing. That's why that call was basically the difference in the game. Seattle would have had the chance to score with about 1:40 left after so it's not a sure thing that the Lions even pull it out but that doesn't forgive the missed call.
​

 

[TheDouglas78]

Of course the rest of the game matters but they obviously did enough to get themselves in position to win in Seattle. It's not just the call but the timing that makes it so bad. If that exact call happens in the 2nd quarter say, the Lions have time to recover if they can and the effect of that call is greatly diminished. I saw and article talking about how that call swung the likelihood of winning by 70%. Here's a quote:

"Overall: The officials' missed call on the batted ball was a plus-.702 win probability added event, as we might say in the football analytics world. In other words, it swung each team's chances by about 70 percent. It's very rare that single events in football even approach that big of a swing.
The difference between the 80.7 percent chance following the hypothetical illegal batting penalty and the Lions' 10.5 percent chance following the touchback makes that missed call a 70.2 percent error.
That might not be as big as the "Fail Mary" call in the Green Bay-Seattle Monday night game three years ago, which was a clear-cut 100 percent swing, but it's close."

Again, it's VERY RARE for a single play to approach that big of a swing. That's why that call was basically the difference in the game. Seattle would have had the chance to score with about 1:40 left after so it's not a sure thing that the Lions even pull it out but that doesn't forgive the missed call.
​

If Calvin Johnson didn't fumble are we talking about the call, yes or no? If the answer is no, then there is no one to blame but themselves.

One bad call doesn't make a game, and the alarmist are going to make a big deal out of the call, but it was just one call in a game of many calls. If they didn't want to be in a position for that call to matter, they should have played better in the rest of the game. I said the same thing about the Lions in the playoffs and the Cowboys also in the playoffs. If you allow the officials to dictate the game with one call, you put yourself in that position.

This isn't taking the blame from the official who should know the rule book, and it's a bad rule in my opinion. You let the game go the officials hands, then that is on you not the official.

 

[MJMGator]

Looks like Dougie found someone to argue with today.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Looks like Dougie found someone to argue with today.

MJM, your just jealous it isn't you.

 

[Zambo]

Wow Dougie, you are disconnected from reality bro. The fact is simply that the call was wrong, and that the right call would have probably changed the game. Of course the rest of the game counts too. What fn difference does it make? Calls change the game all the time. What about a bogus PI call or non-call in the endzone right at the end of the game? I suppose those don't matter either since there were 120 other plays in the game? Geez, get a grip. The call doesn't change what anybody did, but if the call is made correctly is certainly changes the result.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Wow Dougie, you are disconnected from reality bro. The fact is simply that the call was wrong, and that the right call would have probably changed the game. Of course the rest of the game counts too. What fn difference does it make? Calls change the game all the time. What about a bogus PI call or non-call in the endzone right at the end of the game? I suppose those don't matter either since there were 120 other plays in the game? Geez, get a grip. The call doesn't change what anybody did, but if the call is made correctly is certainly changes the result.

Zambo, everyone is acting like that is the call that caused them to lose the game. It's not. You put the game in a position for the refs to influence the outcome that is one you as a team.

If Calvin Johnson takes care of the ball, is this even an issue?
If the play is called correctly (which is on the NFL and the officials) the lions should get at least 3 points, should. Stranger things have happened.

“At the end of the day, you’ve got to hang onto the ball,” Johnson said. “You can’t put the game in the referees' hands.”

 

[ItsDookie87]

If Calvin Johnson didn't fumble are we talking about the call, yes or no? If the answer is no, then there is no one to blame but themselves.

One bad call doesn't make a game, and the alarmist are going to make a big deal out of the call, but it was just one call in a game of many calls. If they didn't want to be in a position for that call to matter, they should have played better in the rest of the game. I said the same thing about the Lions in the playoffs and the Cowboys also in the playoffs. If you allow the officials to dictate the game with one call, you put yourself in that position.

This isn't taking the blame from the official who should know the rule book, and it's a bad rule in my opinion. You let the game go the officials hands, then that is on you not the official.

If you let the game go into the officials hands then it's on you are not on the officials? This isn't the fuvking UFC where they go to a score card if you leave it in the officials hands. Make the damn correct call on the field ​because from time to time, especially in the NFL where so many games are decided by a play or two, one bad crystal clear no-call at the end of the game does decide the game. This is one of those games.​

 

[TheDouglas78]

If you let the game go into the officials hands then it's on you are not on the officials? This isn't the fuvking UFC where they go to a score card if you leave it in the officials hands. Make the damn correct call on the field ​because from time to time, especially in the NFL where so many games are decided by a play or two, one bad crystal clear no-call at the end of the game does decide the game. This is one of those games.​

Your right Dookie87, Calvin Johnson didn't fumble the ball which put this all in motion. There is no accountability for his actions because the ref improperly handled the loose ball. The game could have potentially be a tie or a win if the official did his job correctly (no one is excusing that). The call isn't what lost them the game, if called correctly the probably of them winning was higher. But if Calvin Johnson doesn't fumble the probably is higher too.

As Calvin Johnson said after the game

“At the end of the day, you’ve got to hang onto the ball,” Johnson said. “You can’t put the game in the referees' hands.”

 

[Zambo]

Zambo, everyone is acting like that is the call that caused them to lose the game. It's not. You put the game in a position for the refs to influence the outcome that is one you as a team.

If Calvin Johnson takes care of the ball, is this even an issue?
If the play is called correctly (which is on the NFL and the officials) the lions should get at least 3 points, should. Stranger things have happened.

Nobody is saying that if Johnson doesn't fumble that the game doesn't turn out differently. The argument is completely flawed however. He did fumble. And the ball was batted and the incorrect call was made. What if the pass was intercepted but a Seahawk had clearly been offsides, or they had 12 men on the field and the call wasn't made? None of your if this's or if that's are relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the rulebook, which was not correctly applied. Hell, IF Stafford had done a better job earlier they would have won. IF the defensed doesn't let Wilson run amok then they would have won. You can go on and on with these IF scenarios but none of them change the FACT that the call was incorrect and it changed the game.

 

[ItsDookie87]

Your right Dookie87, Calvin Johnson didn't fumble the ball which put this all in motion. There is no accountability for his actions because the ref improperly handled the loose ball. The game could have potentially be a tie or a win if the official did his job correctly (no one is excusing that). The call isn't what lost them the game, if called correctly the probably of them winning was higher. But if Calvin Johnson doesn't fumble the probably is higher too.

As Calvin Johnson said after the game

Doug, go get your meds checked. It's great that Johnson is taking accountability for his fumble and no one is saying that it wouldn't have been easier if Johnson didn't fumble. It was less on Johnson and more on an excellent play by Kam to knock it out at the 6 inch line. All of that isn't in question, fumbles happen and Johnson has probably done enough in the league to be forgiven for the fumble considering he's carried Stafford for all of these years. The point that you continue to fail to grasp is that that singular non-call basically decided the outcome of the game. Calvin should have been more careful with the football and the fumble is what should have decided the game but it isn't. What decided the game was a ref deciding to not throw a flag on a play that was a foul as clear as could be. You think that we are discounting what happened in the previous 58 minutes while you seem to be discounting the last 2 minutes.​

 

[TheDouglas78]

Nobody is saying that if Johnson doesn't fumble that the game doesn't turn out differently. The argument is completely flawed however. He did fumble. And the ball was batted and the incorrect call was made. What if the pass was intercepted but a Seahawk had clearly been offsides, or they had 12 men on the field and the call wasn't made? None of your if this's or if that's are relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the rulebook, which was not correctly applied. Hell, IF Stafford had done a better job earlier they would have won. IF the defensed doesn't let Wilson run amok then they would have won. You can go on and on with these IF scenarios but none of them change the FACT that the call was incorrect and it changed the game.

No one is saying it was called correctly, but that one call isn't why they lost the game. It was one play in a 60 minute game, that went against them. The official should be reprimanded. In that as you said, Stafford had a better chance of winning the game. The game isn't put into the official's hands if they do a better job protecting the ball. As a player and team you can only control what you can control. The Lions lost the game, because they lost the game. Not because of one call out of 60 minutes, it is just unfortunate when that call was made. As Dookie pointed out, if it was in the 2nd quarter no one would care but it would have had the same impact. The Lions lost because of the Lions, not because of the officials.

There are only a few games where you can really point to the officials as making the real impact in the game, like the Florida vs FSU game in 2003 with all the fumble miss calls. When an official crew screws up 6 change in possessions, then they have truly changed the outcome of a game.

 

[Zambo]

Dude, in almost any close game, a call that negates a touchdown is going to have a huge impact on the game no matter when it happens. The story here is that a blown call changed the outcome of a game. It is undebatable. If the correct call is made, the Lions more than likely win that game. Period, dot, end of story.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Doug, go get your meds checked. It's great that Johnson is taking accountability for his fumble and no one is saying that it wouldn't have been easier if Johnson didn't fumble. It was less on Johnson and more on an excellent play by Kam to knock it out at the 6 inch line. All of that isn't in question, fumbles happen and Johnson has probably done enough in the league to be forgiven for the fumble considering he's carried Stafford for all of these years. The point that you continue to fail to grasp is that that singular non-call basically decided the outcome of the game. Calvin should have been more careful with the football and the fumble is what should have decided the game but it isn't. What decided the game was a ref deciding to not throw a flag on a play that was a foul as clear as could be. You think that we are discounting what happened in the previous 58 minutes while you seem to be discounting the last 2 minutes.​

Nice personal attack. But it doesn't change the fact that the no call isn't the only reason they lost that game. How many judgement calls and no calls happen through out a game. Like you said if this was in the second quarter no one cares. Being this is the only drive they got into the redzone all game, maybe that is more of a concern. There is a lot of blame to go around for why they lost this game, to blame it all on an official who obviously had a bad night (should be reprimanded for it) it a little questionable. How about 1/10 drives getting to the red zone, 2/10 drives end on Seattle's side of the field. I feel like that could be more of the reason for the loss, than just an officials call.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Dude, in almost any close game, a call that negates a touchdown is going to have a huge impact on the game no matter when it happens. The story here is that a blown call changed the outcome of a game. It is undebatable. If the correct call is made, the Lions more than likely win that game. Period, dot, end of story.

If they score a touchdown, if they kick the field goal it goes to overtime (potentially). Seattle's defense was pretty stout and Detroit's offense pretty $hitty. So it potentially changed the outcome.

 

[Zambo]

Forget it Dookie. Doug is of the opinion that if Seattle had 12 men on the field for that play and one of them intercepted Stafford, that it wouldn't matter. Stafford shouldn't have thrown the pass and he had 59 other minutes to win the game. It totally doesn't matter if the refs make critical errors on critical plays, the outcome will still be the same.

Another great example would be the Elevenessee game back in 04 I believe, where not only did they miss the hillbilly hitting Dallas Baker of what should have been offsetting fouls, but they forgot to run the clock afterward, which allowed them enough time to get in FG range and win the game. No excuses there, we had 59 other minutes to play better and win the game.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Forget it Dookie. Doug is of the opinion that if Seattle had 12 men on the field for that play and one of them intercepted Stafford, that it wouldn't matter. Stafford shouldn't have thrown the pass and he had 59 other minutes to win the game. It totally doesn't matter if the refs make critical errors on critical plays, the outcome will still be the same.

Another great example would be the Elevenessee game back in 04 I believe, where not only did they miss the hillbilly hitting Dallas Baker of what should have been offsetting fouls, but they forgot to run the clock afterward, which allowed them enough time to get in FG range and win the game. No excuses there, we had 59 other minutes to play better and win the game.

Zambo, there no excuses. Baker put himself in a position to be called a penalty on. If you can accept players making mistakes because they are human, you have to assume refs can too. The ref for that game was reprimanded as well (as he should have been), but that didn't give us the WIN. If you play any sport with referees or officials, you know not to put it in their hands.

According to you, if the ref makes a bad call in any point of the game, then a loss is the refs fault. I guess you have never seen an game with the proper outcome.

 

[ItsDookie87]

Nice personal attack. But it doesn't change the fact that the no call isn't the only reason they lost that game. How many judgement calls and no calls happen through out a game. Like you said if this was in the second quarter no one cares. Being this is the only drive they got into the redzone all game, maybe that is more of a concern. There is a lot of blame to go around for why they lost this game, to blame it all on an official who obviously had a bad night (should be reprimanded for it) it a little questionable. How about 1/10 drives getting to the red zone, 2/10 drives end on Seattle's side of the field. I feel like that could be more of the reason for the loss, than just an officials call.

Joking about medication is bad, my bad lol. I didn't say no one cares if it happens in the second quarter, everyone still cares and if the Lions lose by 3 it's still going to be a huge issue when all is said and done. Even if they won it would still be a problem because it seriously hurt their chances but it didn't impact the final result. What I said is that if it happens in the second quarter then the Lions have time to recover from the call. If they play two more quarters and don't do anything then people can legit say that they didn't deserve it. When the call happens and ​the other team can just run out the clock then you're talking about a game deciding non-call. Timing is the major difference here, a horrible call in the second quarter will never be as bad as a horrible call in the final 2 minutes of the game. A horrible call in the 2nd quarter will never really be considered game deciding but a horrible call inside of the last 2 minutes of the game can be. It was in this case.

 

[ItsDookie87]

I'll just leave this here, maybe the ref didn't see it?

 

[Zambo]

According to you, if the ref makes a bad call in any point of the game, then a loss is the refs fault. I guess you have never seen an game with the proper outcome.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. For example, lets say there is a PI no call on a long pass. If they do call the penalty, then all it means is that you get the ball down the field. It doesn't guarantee points and only has a marginal effect on the game, especially when those types of call average themselves out. Another great example would be the Gaffney TD/drop controversy. Not that big of a deal because its a judgment call AND we still had plenty of time to score if they rule it a drop.

However, there is a big difference between a call like that and the one in question. In our game against UT, the Baker foul was only part of the question. Judgment call there, or they didn't see the initial provocation. The real mistake there was the clock, which was officially a wrong call, just like the Seattle call. The chances of UT winning that game if the clock were operated correctly were exponentially less than what actually transpired. Getting a call incorrect due to a misapplication of a rule when the game is coming down to the line IS a huge deal, whether you like it or not. Unless of course you think the UT call was no big deal? In that case we obviously differ.