- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 113
Mike Pereira explains why Tyler Boyd's fumble was upheld
- Thread starter Steelers1356
- Start date
I would like to hear why all the pass interference calls against the bungles were not called, the crown of the helmet hit on Ben, the face mask of D will and the phantom pass interference calls were made against the steelers. Splain that lucy.
They were letting them play... Probably hoping that the game would get nasty and ratings would go through the roof next game
Blandino also posted a video blog on this and stated that they could not see the ball when the knee went down so they stuck with the call on the field. ****** situation however this is the way they want things done. They did miss some facemasks and the hit on Ben as noted above.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,802
- Reaction score
- 6,781
- Points
- 113
That's what I started to think after they let obvious PI and H2H calls go...can you say grudge match? The playoff game between these teams was game of the year pretty much.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,360
- Reaction score
- 6,504
- Points
- 113
The indisputable evidence standard should be changed to a preponderance of the evidence. If the officials look at a replay and think the call was more likely than not wrong, they should reverse the call.
Why use high def, slow motion replay if you're not going to give it precedent over real time human judgement?
Why use high def, slow motion replay if you're not going to give it precedent over real time human judgement?
If they were letting them play it would have been the same for both teams. Those missed calls and phantom pass interference calls were only for one reason, to keep cinci in the game and to keep the ratings up. Doing that will increase the chances of a team retaliating and boost the crap these guys were spewing from the booth. These guys are beginning to make this game look more and more like professional wrestling.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 524
- Points
- 113
LOL my thought was that the fumble was a makeup call for all those missed calls -- ALSO I think the Refs wanted that game over -- they wanted NO chance it was going into OT LOL
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 113
A couple points here, that pass play was more designed for field positioning, so secure the ball, that's the number one priority in that situation. The fact is Boyd did fumble which puts you at the mercy of the refs and replay officials if nothing conclusive can be found to overturn. Had Boyd's knee been ruled down that would've been upheld.
The Bengals dug themselves a deep hole late in the 4th quarter so when you're forced into the air it out follies, things like that happen, like interceptions, close calls that can't be overturned, etc. The Steelers have had their share of games like that too. Don't dig yourselves into a deep hole, one where it's difficult to rebound from. And there's no guarantee that the Bengals would've scored a TD and the two piont conversion, so it's not like they were going in for the win. Tough break for them, but they dug themselves into a hole earlier in the quarter.
The Bengals dug themselves a deep hole late in the 4th quarter so when you're forced into the air it out follies, things like that happen, like interceptions, close calls that can't be overturned, etc. The Steelers have had their share of games like that too. Don't dig yourselves into a deep hole, one where it's difficult to rebound from. And there's no guarantee that the Bengals would've scored a TD and the two piont conversion, so it's not like they were going in for the win. Tough break for them, but they dug themselves into a hole earlier in the quarter.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,587
- Reaction score
- 4,350
- Points
- 113
It's easy and I said right away he probably had it knocked out after his knee hit BUT there was no video evidence let alone conclusive video evidence. The angles were bad and they had to stick with the ruling on the field.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 113
I actually like the indisputable evidence standard. Otherwise you are swapping one subjective "judgement call" for another. After hearing the explanation, I think they made the right call. Had they ruled him down (on the field), the call would have stood too.
Bungles are also whining about the TD that was ruled out of bounds. That was on Marvin Lewis. He could have challenged it, but I'm not sure that was indisputable evidence either. His knee seemed to be on the white line.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,278
- Reaction score
- 901
- Points
- 113
Reading those ******** cry conspiracy on their boards is genuine gold. They're complaining about missed holding calls but never mention any infraction that they did, indeed, commit. No mention of dansby and crackhead jones mugging of brown, or the bullshit PI that was gifted to them to get them inside the 10. According to them, the bungholes are the cleanest team in the league with there being no way in hell that they can commit a single penalty, and that goodell loves the steelers and the NFL is out to get the bungles.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,465
- Reaction score
- 1,164
- Points
- 113
Sure, I mean, I don't have to SEE the ******* ball, right, I can just use the replay to FEEL it wasn't moving and the knee was down. You're citing high def and slow motion replays, and then saying to use them to make a ******* guess. If you don't see the damn ball, you can't possibly change that call, if you do, the entire system is worthless. Why have it if you're just going to say "well, we couldn't see anything, but **** it, we changed the ruling on the field anyway".
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 11,072
- Reaction score
- 13,225
- Points
- 113
I completely disagree here. The entire point of instant replay is to ensure that the referees "get it right". In this case, there was no way of determining whether the knee was down definitively before the ball was moving. Thus the referee had no choice but to go with the letter of the rule and follow the "no indisputable evidence" clause.
It's the refs getting AWAY from the no indisputable evidence clause and making their own interpretation that gets everyone in trouble. In fact if you consider Periera's (however you spell it) explanation, there's no other way they COULD have done it. Since you couldn't see the ball at all at the point his knee was down there was no way to tell if it was loose. And from another angle it certainly looks as though the ball is moving out as soon AS the knee is hitting the ground which may well indicate it's loose by the time he hits the ground. Thus without clear visual evidence to the contrary, you have no indisputable evidence that he didn't fumble.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,360
- Reaction score
- 6,504
- Points
- 113
But the subjective judgement they give precedent to is the inferior one (one angle, real time speed vs multiple angles and slow motion).
The reason they started using replay is that it exposes officiating errors and undermines the officiating. By giving the call on the field precedent over replay, they haven't eliminated that, they are simply pretending they have.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,465
- Reaction score
- 1,164
- Points
- 113
If there isn't EVIDENCE to overturn what the guy on the field called, why would they overturn it? If we can debate if we saw or didn't see something in replay, ie "dispute" it, then why would anyone overturn a call on the field based on it.
It's indisputable for a reason, if the video doesn't show the original ref got it wrong, it needs to stand, or you're making the system worse, by adding more bullshit guesswork.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 11,072
- Reaction score
- 13,225
- Points
- 113
Actually, although the guy is a complete douche there was a segment with Tony Siragusa where he talked about the fact that smaller market games with fewer TV cameras make a big difference to coaches on whether or not they want to throw the challenge flag because they know there will be weaker TV coverage and thus they will have a slighter chance of getting a good angle on something to have it overturned.
It was actually pretty interesting.
It was actually pretty interesting.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 113
Here is the part I have not seen a single Bengal fan mention. He FUMBLED the ball. It is only a technicality as to whether his knee was down first. You don't want want referees deciding e game, secure e fricken ball! Balsecurity cost them the last game against us, and apparently they haven't learned anything... oh,yeah I forgot. The referees cost them that game too. SMH
Last edited:
Too me it looked like even before Harrison touched him he was going down, and as Harrison hit him the ball came out just as his knee hit, so it's a fumble, but I am probably wrong...good tough win either way
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 113
This one takes the cake. No personal responsibility:
"Another Steeler victory thanks to the refs. As if it wasn’t enough to orchestrate an on field playoff brawl to get the best defensive player suspended. Steelers then manipulated the schedule to make sure they played Cincy while the suspension was in effect and now the refs give them a fumble to top it all off! Unbelievable."
SMH
In real time, he looked to be clearly out of bounds. One idiot announcer - Eye-an Eagle - made a statement about the official "ruling that the defender pushed the receiver out of bounds."
Jesus ... do these clowns even know the rules? As in, the "force out" rule was changed in 2008.
The officials have been trained NOT to blow the whistle and stop the play. The theory is that blowing the whistle can prevent a big defensive play/return for TD, and if the guy was actually down, replay will fix it.
That is the way it should be.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 16,360
- Reaction score
- 6,504
- Points
- 113
What are you talking about no evidence? Calls are often wrong and replays aren't always 100% conclusive but they are almost always a much better look at the play because of slow motion and multiple angles.
If the replay suggests that the on the field call was wrong, why go against that just because it isn't 100% conclusive?
And it's not really indisputable - the current guesswork is at what point is the replay conclusive. I'm sure if Boyd had been a Steeler player, there'd be a lot of people saying the replay yesterday was conclusive. I sure thought it was.