Sports Fixes?

[jamrock]

I did not think that play was mysterious at all. The Bengal defender committed defensive holding twice on the play, but both times it was very minor. The call was not consistent with how the game was officiated on the whole today, but it was by no means a phantom call. That kind of contact has been called many times in other games even though it was ticky tacky. And, of course, it comes nowhere close to the gift TD the Bengals were given on the long pass to Higgins at the beginning of the second half, which was an obvious personal foul against Higgins.

Nah, you’re wrong. Touching isn’t holding. You wanted a make up call you got it but it looked like Ramsey took a flop on that one anyway. He got torched today.

[richpjr]

There were crappy and missed calls both ways. Hard to see any conspiracy out there.

[Guest]

I guess I’ll agree to disagree, contact is allowed if it’s not initiated by the defender and not meant to redirect (for example the cb can have their hand touch a wr while running down field with them). I didn’t think any sort of illegal contact was created but that’s cool.

I also don’t love the idea that it’s justice for one missed call that was obviously a foul if calling the game tight. The whole game both sides were allowed to play physical. It’s not as if the bengals go away with one there, everyone was getting away with things because the refs (and I think it made it a better game) we’re holding their flags and letting them play.

the timing of the decision to switch that philosophy to call it tight is questionable at best.

Yeah, we just disagree. It's cool.

I think the contact was clearly illegal and can be called. It would have been a no call for me, but the long pass to Higgins would have been a 15 yard penalty for me against CIN, so I think that made the game closer to being a fairly called game as, at worst, there were missed calls in both directions instead of just the huge missed call that allowed a CIN TD.

The TD to Higgins was a clear offensive foul that has to be called every time. Even if it were just a push that caused Ramsey to fall, it should be called, but a pull forward by the facemask? That is an awful no call.

I am glad the refs did not completely take the game away from the LAR even though the game as called was still in CIN's favor.

[jamrock]

I guess we’re ignoring the no call on Ramsey’s obvious hold on Higgins shirt on the slant at the goal line?

[Budsman]

I guess we’re ignoring the no call on Ramsey’s obvious hold on Higgins shirt on the slant at the goal line?

I actually liked the non calls. I like letting them play. I just find it sus that they decided to change how they were calling the game when it came down to the Rams not making the critical 3rd down.

[Guest]

Nah, you’re wrong. Touching isn’t holding. You wanted a make up call you got it but it looked like Ramsey took a flop on that one anyway. He got torched today.

Higgins grasped and pulled Ramsey's facemask. I am no Ramsey fan, but that is a facemask penalty every time. I agree that Ramsey did not play well.

Also, I am not concerned at all about holding versus illegal contact on the penalty against CIN. It is technically illegal contact and that is all that is necessary for there to be a chance for a penalty to be called. As I have said, that is a no call for me, especially with how the game was officiated today, but it was not a phantom call. There was plenty of technically illegal contact.

[Guest]

I guess we’re ignoring the no call on Ramsey’s obvious hold on Higgins shirt on the slant at the goal line?

I think it was about the same in severity as what got called against the Bengals. Of course, the Rams did not get a TD out of a flagrant penalty that they committed.

[SDBORN]

I actually liked the non calls. I like letting them play. I just find it sus that they decided to change how they were calling the game when it came down to the Rams not making the critical 3rd down.

Right. That really is the issue. It was the timing of it all

With the game on the line and rams about to go to do or die play, the laundry started hitting the field. They had let the boys play all day until that point so it makes it very suspicious.

[jamrock]

I think it was about the same in severity as what got called against the Bengals. Of course, the Rams did not get a TD out of a flagrant penalty that they committed.

Again youre dead wrong. Replays showed Ramsey clearly tugging Higgins T shirt. Duh, the Rams didn’t get a touchdown from the non call??? It was the Bengals who didn’t get a touchdown because of the no call.

no point in talking about the penalty Kupp drew at the end deep in Bengals territory. That was a phantom call.

[Guest]

Again youre dead wrong. Replays showed Ramsey clearly tugging Higgins T shirt. Duh, the Rams didn’t get a touchdown from the non call??? It was the Bengals who didn’t get a touchdown because of the no call.

no point in talking about the penalty Kupp drew at the end deep in Bengals territory. That was a phantom call.

Watch Keenan Allen's OPI call against the Redskins in 2013. That is what a phantom call is. You are clearly biased in your take as there absolutely was contact on the play. It was a questionable call, but nowhere close to being a phantom call.

Again, the Ramsey jersey tug was pretty incidental and not severe. It is the kind of play that could be called a penalty, but often is not unless the pull is more severe. CBs grab a fist full of jersey all the time. That is similar to the play that the Bengals did get called for in severity.

The foul committed by Higgins was absolutely blatant. That was an awful no call, maybe one of the worst ever in a Super Bowl.

What I am saying is that I do not really mind the Rams getting the better end of the deal when it comes to the goal line possible defensive penalties because the Rams absolutely got screwed on the long Higgins TD. That non-call was not questionable, it was horrible and was by far the worst call of the game.

I would have been more fine with the Bengals getting properly flagged on the Higgins TD and losing that TD and the Rams only getting a FG or TD on their last series to go up 6 or 10 with no penalty being called on either the Bengals or the Rams near the end zone.

[FoutsFan]

I think there were two instances of illegal contact on the play, but both were ticky tacky. The first was just after the break by the WR and the second was the ever so small hooking of the receiver with the defender's hand/wrist. While I think a no call would have been the best call in terms of that play standing alone, it was not a phantom call at all. Anyone could see that there was some contact at two different times on that play. A phantom call is like the famous 2013 OPI call against Keenan Allen versus Washington where Allen is nowhere near to even toughing the defender.

Also, there really was a certain poetic justice about the call after CIN had been given a TD when Higgins blatantly committed an obvious penalty that was not called on his long TD reception.

So you were OK with Ramsey PIing the whole way down the field then when the WR reacts to the PI then there should be hell to pay for the reaction? The non-call
was the right call.

[FoutsFan]

I actually liked the non calls. I like letting them play. I just find it sus that they decided to change how they were calling the game when it came down to the Rams not making the critical 3rd down.

Agree with this 100%. Its like an umpire that is giving the outside all gam as a strike but in the 9th with the tying run on he stops calling it. Be consistent. When the refs change at a crucial time in the game is when it starts to look fixed.