Blown call costs Fatfford and the Lions the ballgame

[TheDouglas78]

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.

Dookie, do you feel that was more of a deciding factor than them not crossing 50 yards line by three times (once being called back by a personal foul). The offense scored a total of 3 points. The call while unfortunate, no more cost them the game than their own ineptitude. Whose to say they even score from the 1. Their offense was horrible last night especially with all the talent at the skill positions. If it was a bad and forth game where they were the Lions were playing clean ball, I would say the impact would be more justified. But the lions continually couldn't stay out of their own way, and played bad football for 58 minutes. If called correctly (which it should have been) I don't even know if they get more than a field goal.

 

[TheDouglas78]

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.

I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, just it's not the reason we lost. because its' not the only reason we were in the position we were in. It changes the probably, but that's it. It doesn't guarantee the win.

 

[lagator]

Sat here watching it as well. Interesting that no one, not Steve or Ray or Trent or anyone has ever heard of said call. We've all seen Punters and QBs do it but doesn't mean it's not a rule.

I'm more pisses Seattle didn't cover.

Don't feel bad, I had the lions on the ML +400.

 

[Zambo]

I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, just it's not the reason we lost. because its' not the only reason we were in the position we were in. It changes the probably, but that's it. It doesn't guarantee the win.

If your whole point is that nothing guarantees anything, then you'll never lose an argument. No duh. Hell, teams have lost games when leading, 30 seconds left on the clock, they have the ball, its first down, and the other team is out of timeouts! It doesn't happen often but it changes the "probably." Ya think?

 

[NVGator]

Don't feel bad, I had the lions on the ML +400.

That hurts but obviously a much bigger risk. Tough loss though. I also lost by taking the Over.

 

[lagator]

That hurts but obviously a much bigger risk. Tough loss though. I also lost by taking the Over.

Those offenses are terrible.
Yeah, it really sucked for me because you don't expect to hit those too often, if you get 1 out of 3 you're ahead, 1 out of 4 to break even, so to have one stolen (yes, that missed call determined the outcome of the game) makes it all the more annoying. Luckily I bet small so can never get too excited about it one way or the other.

 

[ItsDookie87]

Dookie, do you feel that was more of a deciding factor than them not crossing 50 yards line by three times (once being called back by a personal foul). The offense scored a total of 3 points. The call while unfortunate, no more cost them the game than their own ineptitude. Whose to say they even score from the 1. Their offense was horrible last night especially with all the talent at the skill positions. If it was a bad and forth game where they were the Lions were playing clean ball, I would say the impact would be more justified. But the lions continually couldn't stay out of their own way, and played bad football for 58 minutes. If called correctly (which it should have been) I don't even know if they get more than a field goal.

The Seahawks have a good defense and the Lions haven't looked good this year but it was a 3 point game, it's not like the Seahawks were playing lights out. If it were a blowout then you wouldn't hear a peep out of me at least because although it's a bad call it would have had no impact on who won the game. I feel it was much more of a factor than them not crossing the 50, that's part of the game. They crossed the line at the 50 when it mattered, down 3 with minutes left in the game. What happened to that point doesn't really matter, how many teams play like crap and then turn it on at the end to pull out a win? It happens often enough. They may not have scored a TD but I'd say the chances were rather high, probably a 99% chance they at least tie. ​That's all besides the point, I don't care if they would have fumbled at the 1 on first down and it was picked up and returned for a TD by the Seahawks, they would have had the chance instead of it being taken out of their hands by the official.

 

[MJMGator]

In case you guys haven't figured it out, Dougie has tunnel vision and will keep on arguing with you until the end of time. He's already convinced himself that he's right and there's no changing his mind.

 

[Captain Sasquatch]

Who f*cking cares? It's not like the sh*tty Lions are going to make the playoffs, they're 0-4 and have Matthew F*cking Stafford as their QB. When have they ever won sh*t with that douche?

 

[TheDouglas78]

The Seahawks have a good defense and the Lions haven't looked good this year but it was a 3 point game, it's not like the Seahawks were playing lights out. If it were a blowout then you wouldn't hear a peep out of me at least because although it's a bad call it would have had no impact on who won the game. I feel it was much more of a factor than them not crossing the 50, that's part of the game. They crossed the line at the 50 when it mattered, down 3 with minutes left in the game. What happened to that point doesn't really matter, how many teams play like crap and then turn it on at the end to pull out a win? It happens often enough. They may not have scored a TD but I'd say the chances were rather high, probably a 99% chance they at least tie. ​That's all besides the point, I don't care if they would have fumbled at the 1 on first down and it was picked up and returned for a TD by the Seahawks, they would have had the chance instead of it being taken out of their hands by the official.

I agree with the chance of winning was higher for them to win if the official did his job. But same could be said at the exactly same play it Johnson doesn't fumble. I have more sympathy for plays like the Packer vs Seahawks a few years ago, where the receiver did everything they were supposed to do, and the ref ripped it from them. But then you have to look at all the other plays where they shot themselves in the foot. They had a drive (believe 2nd quarter) started deep in their own territory and entered Seahawks side of the field, then got a 15 yard personal foul that killed that drive. But when we are discussing a split second moment in a 60 minute game, it's hard to put the whole game on that split second moment.

 

[TheDouglas78]

If your whole point is that nothing guarantees anything, then you'll never lose an argument. No duh. Hell, teams have lost games when leading, 30 seconds left on the clock, they have the ball, its first down, and the other team is out of timeouts! It doesn't happen often but it changes the "probably." Ya think?

Zambo, I think I said it changes the probability (multiple times). But that split second decision by the official and his mistake does mean the whole loss was based on that one play. There were plenty of mistakes to go around. We blame the refs because it's convient (especially if your a lions fan). Fatford seems a lot like when you have Wade Phillips or Muschamp as coach, you play it too close to the vest, so when bad things happen they are killers. But in the end when you play like that, little things cost you a game. And in the grand scheme of a 60 minute game is not the end all be all.

 

[TheDouglas78]

In case you guys haven't figured it out, Dougie has tunnel vision and will keep on arguing with you until the end of time. He's already convinced himself that he's right and there's no changing his mind.

MJM, actually I have changed my mind on multiple agruments on this board. Now you are just spreading lies, it appears someone is obviously butthurt.

 

[MJMGator]

MJM, actually I have changed my mind on multiple agruments on this board.

I'd argue that point, but...

 

[TheDouglas78]

I'd argue that point, but...

 

[Zambo]

Multiple times now you've referred to the call in question as a "split second" call. This is simply not the case. This wasn't a judgment call about helmet to helmet, or PI, or any number of bang-bang plays. This was the refs looking right at an obvious act and making an incorrect application of the rules. Your "split second" scenario would be understandable if it were the case, but it simply wasn't. The league doesn't issue statements about how they blew the call on split second bang bang plays. The refs could have easily talked it over and applied the rule of a batted ball correctly because it was a clearly seen play. You can argue otherwise till the cows come home but it doesn't change what obviously happened.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Multiple times now you've referred to the call in question as a "split second" call. This is simply not the case. This wasn't a judgment call about helmet to helmet, or PI, or any number of bang-bang plays. This was the refs looking right at an obvious act and making an incorrect application of the rules. Your "split second" scenario would be understandable if it were the case, but it simply wasn't. The league doesn't issue statements about how they blew the call on split second bang bang plays. The refs could have easily talked it over and applied the rule of a batted ball correctly because it was a clearly seen play. You can argue otherwise till the cows come home but it doesn't change what obviously happened.

So you are saying that the decision between throwing a flag and not throwing a flag isn't a split second call? It actually is the case, the game is moving so fast you have a split second to see what is going on. Regardless of the type of call, it is whether or not in that officials view it is a violation.

"The back judge was on the play. In his judgment, he didn't feel it was an overt act, so he didn't throw the flag. In looking at the replays, it did look like a bat. So the enforcement would be, basically we'd go back to the spot of the fumble, and Detroit would keep the football."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ahwks-kam-chancellor-calvin-johnson/73429524/

In the officials split second judgment he made a decision. When a official watches a holding do they get 5 minutes to watch the play before throwing the flag. Once Johnson fumbled he put it in the officials hands. The official made a judgment call, it was wrong. But that doesn't change the fact the official made a split second judgment and no other official disputed it. I'm sorry the officials aren't perfect, and they didn't make the right call. I guess without the officials having instant replay where things are slowed down (remember the act in question wasn't reviewable) and no other officials questioning his judgment all he has to go on is that split second judgment.

 

[WillGetIn]

Personally, I agree that this one call did cost Detroit the game. While it was not a sure score if Detroit got the ball on the 2 inch line, it was a sure thing that Detroit didn't even get the chance.

Conversely, there were several other plays that cost Detroit the game as well.

 

[Zambo]

So you are saying that the decision between throwing a flag and not throwing a flag isn't a split second call? It actually is the case, the game is moving so fast you have a split second to see what is going on. Regardless of the type of call, it is whether or not in that officials view it is a violation.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nson/73429524/

In the officials split second judgment he made a decision. When a official watches a holding do they get 5 minutes to watch the play before throwing the flag. Once Johnson fumbled he put it in the officials hands. The official made a judgment call, it was wrong. But that doesn't change the fact the official made a split second judgment and no other official disputed it. I'm sorry the officials aren't perfect, and they didn't make the right call. I guess without the officials having instant replay where things are slowed down (remember the act in question wasn't reviewable) and no other officials questioning his judgment all he has to go on is that split second judgment.

If excuses were like a$$holes you'd be crapping in every direction. It was plainly an overt act, plainly seen, and plainly wrong. That ref wasn't the only one who saw it. The Seahawk player was either doing 1 of 3 things: He was reaching to catch the ball, he didn't see the ball and it just hit him, or he reached out and smacked it on purpose. Any conference where they talked about it for a second would have invariable reached the proper conclusion. They simply didn't think of the rule and therefor didn't apply it. Had the question of illegal batting even entered the ref's mind at the time, he would have called the penalty, but they blew it and forgot to apply the rule. Once again, an error in knowing the rules vice an error of getting a bang bang play wrong.

You can argue this till you're blue in the face if you want. I never get tired. The refs know they blew it. The league knows they blew it. The players know they blew it. The coaches and GMs and owners know they blew it. The fans know they blew it. And everybody reading this thread except you knows they blew it. Actually, you know it too, you're just arguing for sport.

 

[TheDouglas78]

If excuses were like a$$holes you'd be crapping in every direction. It was plainly an overt act, plainly seen, and plainly wrong. That ref wasn't the only one who saw it. The Seahawk player was either doing 1 of 3 things: He was reaching to catch the ball, he didn't see the ball and it just hit him, or he reached out and smacked it on purpose. Any conference where they talked about it for a second would have invariable reached the proper conclusion. They simply didn't think of the rule and therefor didn't apply it. Had the question of illegal batting even entered the ref's mind at the time, he would have called the penalty, but they blew it and forgot to apply the rule. Once again, an error in knowing the rules vice an error of getting a bang bang play wrong.

You can argue this till you're blue in the face if you want. I never get tired. The refs know they blew it. The league knows they blew it. The players know they blew it. The coaches and GMs and owners know they blew it. The fans know they blew it. And everybody reading this thread except you knows they blew it. Actually, you know it too, you're just arguing for sport.

No one is arguing they blew the call? I think we have all said they blew the call, that's not even the argument. I've said multiple times he official should be reprimanded. So go back read the thread you started and catch up. Hell I even said it in the text you quoted. Because at this point, you other points were shot down, and now are just looking for an excuse.

So lets recap, We both agree the officials blew the call, from POST #23 of this thread:

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.

So if that isn't what we are arguing about, then you just replied a whole bunch of bull$hit. You can't argue the other points, because you know they are invalid. Please read what you quote before you start going off on a argument that makes no sense to what you quoted.

 

[NVGator]

I believe the refs made the right call. I commend them for getting it right, for once.