Questionable NFL officials?

[Runscott]

Jay, I have officiated soccer, basketball and softball (adults). In all cases, during training it was emphasized that if we are doing our job right, we should barely be noticed. We are not players in the game.

Unfortunately, the NFL has focused attention on the officials through use of instant replay, to the point that we know their names.

[Jayworld]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Jay, I have officiated soccer, basketball and softball (adults). In all cases, during training it was emphasized that if we are doing our job right, we should barely be noticed. We are not players in the game.

Unfortunately, the NFL has focused attention on the officials through use of instant replay, to the point that we know their names.

Scott, I totally agree. My father always told his crew, "If we are doing our job correctly, no one will notice we are there..." I firmly believe that. In fact, if the officials do their job at the highest level, then officiating does not even enter into the discussion. Officiating in the NFL and college football has decreased in quality over the past 20 years or so.

I personally don't like instant replay....

[Tabe]

Quite frankly, I have no problem with the rule. In fact, I think it makes it much clearer and easier to determine catches than what the rules were before. It's really simply - make the catch and either make a move (if you're not going to the ground) or hold on to it (if you are going to the ground).

In this case, Bryant was going to the ground. 2 steps, 3 steps, 12 steps, none of that matters - because he was going to the ground the whole time. Since he was going to the ground, he has to hold onto the ball. He didn't. No catch.

To me, this is an incredibly obvious overturn and I am amazed at the number of people arguing vehemently that it's a catch. It seems crystal clear to me that it wasn't a catch.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Quite frankly, I have no problem with the rule. In fact, I think it makes it much clearer and easier to determine catches than what the rules were before. It's really simply - make the catch and either make a move (if you're not going to the ground) or hold on to it (if you are going to the ground).

In this case, Bryant was going to the ground. 2 steps, 3 steps, 12 steps, none of that matters - because he was going to the ground the whole time. Since he was going to the ground, he has to hold onto the ball. He didn't. No catch.

To me, this is an incredibly obvious overturn and I am amazed at the number of people arguing vehemently that it's a catch. It seems crystal clear to me that it wasn't a catch.

Of course it is.

Was the first play I described just as incredibly obvious to you?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Of course it is.

Was the first play I described just as incredibly obvious to you?

The Broncos/Colts punt return? In that case, I think the replay officials blew it. Dude got crushed as soon as he touched the ball. That was a fumble all the way and the refs blew it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The Broncos/Colts punt return? In that case, I think the replay officials blew it. Dude got crushed as soon as he touched the ball. That was a fumble all the way and the refs blew it.

That too. But I was referring to the Cobb (I think it was Cobb) catch that should have been overturned.