The call stank, but the League screwed the Chargers
by jibbons on Sep 14, 2008 10:19 PM MDT
22 comments
Not just the refs.
Both 'controversial' calls, stuck to the play called on the field, so the Chargers can't complain that the replay should have caught it. All that they can complain about is the rule deferring to the call on the field.
In the case of the first call, I personally do not think there was incontrovertible evidence for an overturn of the call on the field of an interception (both players displayed control, but one came away with it, and that was the call), but that does not matter. Because the equipment failed, and the fact that the rule defers to the call on the field in that case.
As for the empty hand, the ref called the play dead so Broncos could have given up on the play (I don't think they had a chance at the ball, but they don't write the rules for one situation, they write them for all situations). So again the rules deferred to the play on the field. And again the Chargers were a victim of the rules of the game, imperfect as they may be.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
0 recs |
22 comments
Email
Print
Comments
its not biased toward the call on the field
there is no other call to go by !
by RiG on Sep 14, 2008 11:09 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I used the wrong word,
the rule book defers to the call on the field may be better
"It's the first time that I've probably ever seen a 260 pound back run into a free safety and go flat on his back, I mean it was exciting." ~John Elway
by jibbons on Sep 15, 2008 12:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I changed it from biased to deferred
"It's the first time that I've probably ever seen a 260 pound back run into a free safety and go flat on his back, I mean it was exciting." ~John Elway
by jibbons on Sep 15, 2008 12:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
wat do u think the call would be if the replay worked?
by RiG on Sep 14, 2008 11:10 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
overturned INT
offense keeps the ball.
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 14, 2008 11:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like some rule book clarification, but
I think the interception looked more like a strip and fumble recovery, then again I have only seen a few replays.
"It's the first time that I've probably ever seen a 260 pound back run into a free safety and go flat on his back, I mean it was exciting." ~John Elway
by jibbons on Sep 15, 2008 12:15 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does dual possession always go to the receiver?
It looked like Chambers and Champ had an equal claim to it.
I miss Al
by birkheac on Sep 15, 2008 12:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats my question too,
Is it like when there’s a dog-pile, and the guy who emerges with it has possession?
"It's the first time that I've probably ever seen a 260 pound back run into a free safety and go flat on his back, I mean it was exciting." ~John Elway
by jibbons on Sep 15, 2008 12:49 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
but it wasn’t dual possession. Champ getting his hand on the ball isn’t dual possession, and Champ ripping the ball away after the receiver’s elbow touched the ground isn’t a fumble, either.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on Sep 15, 2008 8:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replay showed that the receiver still had possession
when his elbow touched the ground, so he was down by contact before Cahmp wested the ball away.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on Sep 15, 2008 8:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to put together
a post if I have time, discussing the basic question of to replay or not to replay.
IMO, either have it on every play, or don’t have it at all. I have a major problem with the redflag/timeout thing, where a fair playing field becomes an issue of strategy for opposing coaches…
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 14, 2008 11:38 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Every play would take too long.
Having it from the booth in the last two minutes, and giving the coaches leverage the rest of the game, seems fairest to me. But it’s a good debate.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Sep 15, 2008 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
they have it on every play in college. I have no idea how it works though. I think that an independent set of reviewers simply reviews each play for a select group of penalties or issues. If they can’t review it before the next play, everyone is out of luck. I believe that there is a special rule for the ends of halves and games, but I am really not sure.
But I do believe that technology could make it possible.
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 15, 2008 4:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok.
I buy that! It could work that way. I have to think more about what I think of that. Lots to consider!
But I see how it could work now.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Sep 15, 2008 4:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would it have been overturned?
How could the refs say there was incontrovertible evidence that Gates had caught the ball and had control when Bailey took it away immediately. Didn’t look like enough evidence of control by Gates (IMO) to overtrun the call on the field (if the equipment had been working).
I like a man who fights with a grin on his face. Winston Churchill.
by bradley on Sep 15, 2008 7:59 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The replay looked pretty convincing to me
that he had control until he was down by contact, and only then was Champ able to wrest it away.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on Sep 15, 2008 8:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
from I heard
dual possesion is not a reviewable play. But what could have aided the chargers on that play was when the dual possesion occured, If it was before Chambers elbow hit. But regardless, I am not gonna sit here a talk about something that cant be changed. Bottom line is Denver won
Though the end is near, Still I am not sorry
by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 15, 2008 12:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me either.
We won. It’s almost been 24 hours. I’m ready to win 52-49 against NO. Lets look towards next week.
Bic Mac, Casino Royale, and the Slot Machine.
Howard Dean? We went to oakland! We went to San Diego! We’re going to New Orleans! Then we’re taking Tampa in February! WOOOOO!! -FlaBroncoFan
by broncodude793 on Sep 15, 2008 12:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the AFC Champ game,
they ruled Parker was not down, but the ground cause the fumble. Plus, both had possession. Chambers has to play DB. That is Champs ball. The rules basically cancel each other out and put it soley on Ed Hercules.
Bic Mac, Casino Royale, and the Slot Machine.
by broncodude793 on Sep 15, 2008 8:54 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Next Game
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
