Football is over for this season for the Chargers. NFL wanted Redskins to win.

[Wheels]

Don't buy the conspiracy theory. Poorly officiated game for sure. The KA offensive PI was just inexplicable. The call on Gachkar was unnecessarily ticky tack, and I hesitate to even use that term since it implies a degree of culpability. It looked like the kind of hit someone would do to try to avoid that type of penalty. It looked like he hit him pretty low, and not that hard. It seems you're just not allowed to make contact too quickly after a catch or the flag automatically flies.

[Den60]

Don't buy the conspiracy theory. Poorly officiated game for sure. The KA offensive PI was just inexplicable. The call on Gachkar was unnecessarily ticky tack, and I hesitate to even use that term since it implies a degree of culpability. It looked like the kind of hit someone would do to try to avoid that type of penalty. It looked like he hit him pretty low, and not that hard. It seems you're just not allowed to make contact too quickly after a catch or the flag automatically flies.

There was also the "phantom" holding call on Washington and we did get the call on the possible fumble by Woodhead (it was close and to me it looked as if the ball was coming out before his knee hit). The hit by Gachkar may or may not get called but the league is protecting WRs and I see plays like that get called week in and week out where I ask what the hell do they expect the defender to do, fall on the ground to avoid contact? I'm sure Washington fans are saying they got screwed on the Woodhead call and the "phantom" holding call.

[Bolt-O]

Calls even out for teams, but the performance of this crew was bad. Holding can be called on any play if they look hard enough, and we don't see the viewpoint of the officials.

If the Chargers played football on that goal line stand, vs. being cuties, this discussion is moot, but someone should be held accountable for the officiating.

[Boltjolt]

Huh? Are you saying he's come to the realization that we aren't going anywhere with this defense? Some of you may be focusing on the play calling at the one and who did or didn't not make the call to throw the ball on second down. I think we can all agree we didn't have our power running unit on first down. But here is what I was thinking while watching the game. We came out and we able to establish a fairly decent running game immediately with Mathews. The Redskins came out and really looked bad early on running the ball (but they were successful throwing it). We stop even trying to run the ball but the Redskins don't and they end up overcoming terrible field position in the first half and a blocked FG (you don't see a lot of short FGs
get blocked). Every time the Redskins got near the goal line they run it at us very successfully. But they were 2-5 for a reason, they don't have a good defense and they let us score way too quickly when we got the ball with some 4 or 6 minutes left in the game. They also didn't do a good enough job taking time off the clock when they could have the last couple of drives in regulation. I focus on why Mathews didn't play much in the second half when he was successful early on and has been for the previous two weeks. Washington isn't great at pressuring the QB but they were able to get pressure on Rivers in the second half today and when you do that Rivers is not as effective. Running the ball is a way to mitigate a pass rush but this team gets pass happy at times.

By golly, i agree with Den! Though Rivers was great on the last drive, i dont know why Mathews wasnt playing and why we didnt run more. And WHY wasnt Mathews in there at the half yard line?

[Formula 21]

There was also the "phantom" holding call on Washington and we did get the call on the possible fumble by Woodhead (it was close and to me it looked as if the ball was coming out before his knee hit). The hit by Gachkar may or may not get called but the league is protecting WRs and I see plays like that get called week in and week out where I ask what the hell do they expect the defender to do, fall on the ground to avoid contact? I'm sure Washington fans are saying they got screwed on the Woodhead call and the "phantom" holding call.

Woodhead's helmet came off. The play was dead before the skins recovered the ball. Why wasn't this called.

[LV Bolt Fan]

There was also the "phantom" holding call on Washington and we did get the call on the possible fumble by Woodhead (it was close and to me it looked as if the ball was coming out before his knee hit). The hit by Gachkar may or may not get called but the league is protecting WRs and I see plays like that get called week in and week out where I ask what the hell do they expect the defender to do, fall on the ground to avoid contact? I'm sure Washington fans are saying they got screwed on the Woodhead call and the "phantom" holding call.

First, the Woodhead play....runner is down by contact, once the helmet comes off. Gachkar made the tackle not a hit.

[Den60]

First, the Woodhead play....runner is down by contact, once the helmet comes off. Gachkar made the tackle not a hit.

Down by contact or helmet coming off? Not sure. The refs didn't say why they ruled it the way they did. Of course Chargers fans are going to agree with it but go to any Redskins board and you will get a different opinion. As for Gachkar the player got pushed into him and there was contact up high. That isn't allowed anymore the league just paid a billion dollars out on this so forgive them if they error on the side of "player safety." It sucks but you can always do what Merriweather proposed and go low there to take out the player's knees. As I have said before, I wouldn't want to be a defensive player - especially a safety - in this league anymore. They are much more apt to be called (and fined) for PFs simply by playing the game of football we all grew up with. If you don't like it then kill all the lawyers.

[Panama]

Down by contact or helmet coming off? Not sure. The refs didn't say why they ruled it the way they did.

Yes, they did. They said the play "stands." If they had seen something conclusive either way, they would have said the play was confirmed or overturned and explained why. When they say the play "stands," they are saying there is insufficient evidence to overturn the call.

[Den60]

Yes, they did. They said the play "stands." If they had seen something conclusive either way, they would have said the play was confirmed or overturned and explained why. When they say the play "stands," they are saying there is insufficient evidence to overturn the call.

Reread that and get back to me. As I said, the refs didn't SAY either.

[TTK]

When a ball carrier loses their helmet, the play is dead. There was no explanation as to why the refs said the play stands but it might have played a factor. I'm surprised it wasn't even brought up by Eagle and Fouts on the broadcast.

[LV Bolt Fan]

If you don't like it then kill all the lawyers.

I'm all for it!

[Rambler]

Retired Ref/FOX consultant Mike Perriera didn't see any offensive PI, and found nothing wrong with the call of non-fumble on Woodhead's earlier reception. He also did not think Woodhead crossed the goal line. http///twitter.com/MikePereira

FWIW, I thought the spot we got after the reversal was off. Instead of first and inches (which it should have been), it was first and almost a full yard. Still no excuse for the shockingly weak playcalling.