Sports Fixes?

[Guest]

So now you are good with the refs calling the game one way the entire game and then changing it at the last minute to favor one team? That does not make sense.

I would have been fine with offsetting penalties on that pass as well.

Oh and no way was the officiating in favor of the Bengals the entire game. Did you watch the game? or just the last seconds of that one pass play?

The refs absolutely screwed the Rams on the Higgins/Ramsey play. The Rams got the benefit of the doubt on a close call that routinely could go either way on the holding call against Wilson. Then, on the next play, the Rams got completely screwed again, losing a TD (a TD they would have earned whether or not the defensive holding was called) when Havenstein was called for a bogus holding call, which negated the TD the Rams scored. Eli Apple then committed plain as day pass interference, so the Rams got to move up closer to try to get the TD they already earned and they ultimately scored.

The refs not only favored the Bengals in the game, they favored the Bengals in the very series of plays about which you are complaining. The refs gave CIN one TD and took away one scored by the Rams that they ended up scoring anyway. So, the refs only cost the Rams 7 net points.

And there was nothing to offset on the Higgins/Ramsey play. That talk in nonsense. There was only one foul on that play, committed by Higgins against Ramsey. The failure to call the facemask on Higgins was one of the worst calls in Super Bowl history--it was flagrant, obvious, and stood to decide the game. If you think otherwise, read some on the Jungle Noise Bengals forum. Even the hard core Bengals fans knew that was a ridiculous non-call and that Higgins had clearly committed a foul.

[Guest]

The difference in the non/missed call is that it fit the flow of the game. The refs can call fouls on almost any play and some games they do and others they don’t. This was a great old school called game. They were allowing physical play the whole time. I’m much less worried about consistently keeping the flag in their pocket than I am on them deciding that on a critical missed 3rd down late in the game that it’s time to change how they were calling the game.

It’s akin to an umpire calling the outside strike and then bottom of the 9th with 2 out squeezing the pitcher to walk the bases loaded.

It’s not the value of the call it’s the timing.

The difference was that the missed call on the obvious facemask by Higgins gave the Bengals 7 points. Had the refs not called a bogus holding call on Havenstein, negating a legitimate TD by the Rams on the next play (on what would have been 4th down absent the defensive holding call), the close defensive holding call would have been rendered meaningless. But, instead, the refs screwed the Rams again.

The officiating benefitted the Bengals on the whole and they still lost.

[Budsman]

The difference was that the missed call on the obvious facemask by Higgins gave the Bengals 7 points. Had the refs not called a bogus holding call on Havenstein, negating a legitimate TD by the Rams on the next play (on what would have been 4th down absent the defensive holding call), the close defensive holding call would have been rendered meaningless. But, instead, the refs screwed the Rams again.

The officiating benefitted the Bengals on the whole and they still lost.

I think you’re missing the fact that the bengals also benefited from the refs not calling the game tight. The difference is you’re seeing a couple of obvious examples but not taking the whole game into account. When the refs don’t call everything then that benefits both teams.

Sure the world and the nfl slow mo replayed the Ramsey play to death but I guarantee that if you slow mo each play you will see plenty of opportunities for the refs to call flags. During most of the season refs were hunting for those but they didn’t in the super bowl… until they last critical few plays. I wonder if we had slow mo replay of the line in that last Rams drive if there wasn’t multiple holds that could have been called. My guess is many refs in the regular season would have found a few.

Anyway that’s my take. If you think it was different no worries, I can agree to disagree. Either way we aren’t going back and the Rams won the super bowl, the end.

[jamrock]

Wonder how much Ramsey got paid to flop all over the field?

[Guest]

I think you’re missing the fact that the bengals also benefited from the refs not calling the game tight. The difference is you’re seeing a couple of obvious examples but not taking the whole game into account. When the refs don’t call everything then that benefits both teams.

Sure the world and the nfl slow mo replayed the Ramsey play to death but I guarantee that if you slow mo each play you will see plenty of opportunities for the refs to call flags. During most of the season refs were hunting for those but they didn’t in the super bowl… until they last critical few plays. I wonder if we had slow mo replay of the line in that last Rams drive if there wasn’t multiple holds that could have been called. My guess is many refs in the regular season would have found a few.

Anyway that’s my take. If you think it was different no worries, I can agree to disagree. Either way we aren’t going back and the Rams won the super bowl, the end.

I do not think any slow motion replay was necessary to see the Higgins personal foul. That was just a horrible miss. Some complain about the defensive hold, but the Bengals got repaid on the very next play when Havenstein was called for an even more questionable hold.

The big difference remains that poor officiating gave the Bengals 7 points and did not give the Rams anything, so the game was ultimately called in favor of the Bengals..

[FoutsFan]

The refs absolutely screwed the Rams on the Higgins/Ramsey play. The Rams got the benefit of the doubt on a close call that routinely could go either way on the holding call against Wilson. Then, on the next play, the Rams got completely screwed again, losing a TD (a TD they would have earned whether or not the defensive holding was called) when Havenstein was called for a bogus holding call, which negated the TD the Rams scored. Eli Apple then committed plain as day pass interference, so the Rams got to move up closer to try to get the TD they already earned and they ultimately scored.

The refs not only favored the Bengals in the game, they favored the Bengals in the very series of plays about which you are complaining. The refs gave CIN one TD and took away one scored by the Rams that they ended up scoring anyway. So, the refs only cost the Rams 7 net points.

And there was nothing to offset on the Higgins/Ramsey play. That talk in nonsense. There was only one foul on that play, committed by Higgins against Ramsey. The failure to call the facemask on Higgins was one of the worst calls in Super Bowl history--it was flagrant, obvious, and stood to decide the game. If you think otherwise, read some on the Jungle Noise Bengals forum. Even the hard core Bengals fans knew that was a ridiculous non-call and that Higgins had clearly committed a foul.

So why are you ok with the refs calling the game one way the entire game then changing on the last drive to calling it incredibly tight/phantom calls?

[FoutsFan]

I do not think any slow motion replay was necessary to see the Higgins personal foul. That was just a horrible miss. Some complain about the defensive hold, but the Bengals got repaid on the very next play when Havenstein was called for an even more questionable hold.

The big difference remains that poor officiating gave the Bengals 7 points and did not give the Rams anything, so the game was ultimately called in favor of the Bengals..

Ok that makes sense, you did not watch the game, only the final 2 seconds of the long pass TD to Higgins.

Yes the refs did give the Rams the game winning drive for a TD. You can probably watch the game in its entirety on many sights now. That would help adjust your argument immensely.

[FoutsFan]

The difference in the non/missed call is that it fit the flow of the game. The refs can call fouls on almost any play and some games they do and others they don’t. This was a great old school called game. They were allowing physical play the whole time. I’m much less worried about consistently keeping the flag in their pocket than I am on them deciding that on a critical missed 3rd down late in the game that it’s time to change how they were calling the game.

It’s akin to an umpire calling the outside strike and then bottom of the 9th with 2 out squeezing the pitcher to walk the bases loaded.

It’s not the value of the call it’s the timing.

Agree when the refs make it about them the game suffers. I would rather see a missed call once or twice a game than brutal ticky tack calls that can never be balanced out through the course of the game.

[Nunc Coepi]

It's always the same teams who get the benefits from referees. The referees use their power to create victories for certain, select teams. That's why the same teams are in the Super Bowl year after year. If you look at the AFC Super Bowl representatives for the last twenty years, it's the same teams again and again: The Patriots, The Steelers, sometimes the Ravens, and a few times Peyton Manning's team was helped into the big game. All of these teams are the NFL's favored teams, and the referees seem to love them.

The last couple of years has been a break from this cycle. Some less popular teams--- the Bengals and the Chiefs--- got into the Bowl. But this was less because of anything that they did right than something which happened beyond their control. The cycle was broken. When Robert Kraft got busted for having sex with Chinese prostitutes, he became an embarrassment to the NFL. It would've been bad publicity for him to be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy while under indictment. So the NFL quit paving the way for the Patriots into the playoffs---- otherwise Kraft's team would have won another one since then.

I contend that Brady saw the writing on the wall. He knew that the Patriots weren't going to keep getting a free ride---- so he took his reputation elsewhere for awhile

[FoutsFan]

It's always the same teams who get the benefits from referees. The referees use their power to create victories for certain, select teams. That's why the same teams are in the Super Bowl year after year. If you look at the AFC Super Bowl representatives for the last twenty years, it's the same teams again and again: The Patriots, The Steelers, sometimes the Ravens, and a few times Peyton Manning's team was helped into the big game. All of these teams are the NFL's favored teams, and the referees seem to love them.

The last couple of years has been a break from this cycle. Some less popular teams--- the Bengals and the Chiefs--- got into the Bowl. But this was less because of anything that they did right than something which happened beyond their control. The cycle was broken. When Robert Kraft got busted for having sex with Chinese prostitutes, he became an embarrassment to the NFL. It would've been bad publicity for him to be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy while under indictment. So the NFL quit paving the way for the Patriots into the playoffs---- otherwise Kraft's team would have won another one since then.

I contend that Brady saw the writing on the wall. He knew that the Patriots weren't going to keep getting a free ride---- so he took his reputation elsewhere for awhile

Hell this ref looks more happy than the Patriots that they scored. He probably worked as hard to get them in the endzone.

ref.jpg

[Guest]

So why are you ok with the refs calling the game one way the entire game then changing on the last drive to calling it incredibly tight/phantom calls?

I was not okay with the holding call against Havenstein. I thought they screwed the Rams out of a TD with that call after they had already given the Bengals a TD on the missed call against Higgins. I had no problem with the call against Logan Wilson for holding Kupp as that call could have gone either way.

It ended up not mattering because the Rams won anyway, but the Bengals definitely had the better result from the officiating.

[Guest]

Ok that makes sense, you did not watch the game, only the final 2 seconds of the long pass TD to Higgins.

Yes the refs did give the Rams the game winning drive for a TD. You can probably watch the game in its entirety on many sights now. That would help adjust your argument immensely.

Are you on drugs? I said there was no contact at all between Higgins and Ramsey for the vast majority of the route. The defenders initially switched the crossing receivers with Ramsey in off coverage. There was not PI all the way down the field as you initially suggested. There was no contact at all down the field for almost the entire route.

I think another poster, equivocation, did a good job of describing what happened after the non-contact when he stated that Ramsey touched Higgins to track him with Higgins not being moved off the route at all. That is exactly what happened and I could not describe it any more accurately than that.

Also, how on earth were the Rams given the game winning TD? The refs called a defensive holding call that could have gone either way in favor of the Rams. Suppose that call is not made. Then, it is 4th down and if the refs had called the game correctly, the Rams would have earned a TD on the very next play, which was negated due to offsetting penalties. The penalty against the Bengals was as plain as day helmet to helmet contact on the hit in the end zone. But the holding call against Havenstein? That was a pure fiction screw job against the Rams.

In that final drive, the Rams had the worst of the officiating, not the Bengals, which was only a further insult to the Rams getting screwed over by one of the worst calls in Super Bowl history on the missed Higgins facemask that even Bengals fans admitted was a clear penalty against the Bengals. On the final drive a 50/50 call went in favor of the Rams, and non-penalty was wrongfully called against the Rams as a penalty.

As I have stated previously, the Bengals definitely got the benefit of the calls in the game.