How About These Refs & Goodell's League?

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, Flugel said:

Overtime #3 here we come.  Congrats NFL - this is what you want to do this franchise.

Nobody can overcome 10 penalties to 1 against a team like Baltimore so some of ticky tacky bs calls on us made it tough to beat 11 plus the zebras.

BUT Cleveland did it anyway!!!!!!!!!   😄

Oh, and let's ignore the couple of false starts the tackle had lining up against Garrett. and Flacco isn't in the grasp, and no intentional grounding when their  receiver isn't within 10 yards from the pass, and it doesn't get past the los. 

[jrb12711]

16 minutes ago, Mark O said:

It's not rigged.

Look, we won. But if a WR getting clean hit off his feet isnt a PI theres a fundamental problem. To suggest a WR cant make up 25 or so yards in the two seconds after he got leveled is a joke. 

When this nonsense happens to your team week in and week out, objectively, its supicisous. Do I think the Goddell is giving a reach around to replay ton impact calls? No. But how many weeks are you gonna see what keeps happening and wonder why? 

[Mark O]

1 minute ago, jrb12711 said:

Look, we won. But if a WR getting clean hit off his feet isnt a PI theres a fundamental problem. To suggest a WR cant make up 25 or so yards in the two seconds after he got leveled is a joke. 

When this nonsense happens to your team week in and week out, objectively, its supicisous. Do I think the Goddell is giving a reach around to replay ton impact calls? No. But how many weeks are you gonna see what keeps happening and wonder why? 

It's still not rigged.  

[hoorta]

2 minutes ago, Mark O said:

It's still not rigged.  

I'll let you believe in your mantra Mark. Rigged, no. totally incompetent- in several instances yes. We not only had to beat the Ravens but the Refs on top of it. 

[syd]

1 minute ago, Mark O said:

It's still not rigged.  

but it gives people here something to bitch about you know since we won they can't about that

 

side note: calloways block in the back penality the one after his first down catch and run was phantom 

[syd]

dumbf.u.c.k godell should make ref's fulltime none of this side job crap

[Mark O]

5 minutes ago, hoorta said:

I'll let you believe in your mantra Mark. Rigged, no. totally incompetent- in several instances yes. We not only had to beat the Ravens but the Refs on top of it. 

If it was rigged, the large TV markets would always win.   Are they making bad calls, of course but the games are not rigged.

[hoorta]

13 minutes ago, Mark O said:

If it was rigged, the large TV markets would always win.   Are they making bad calls, of course but the games are not rigged.

Here's the deal Mark. when we start winning- we start getting the better Reffing crews. That's a fact. somebody posted somewhere the Ref Crew was 1-8 when they had the Browns- Raiders game. we might ave sucked, but we also got no breaks on the calls.   

[calfoxwc]

what happened to "hitting a defenseless receiver?"

he clocked him, and they wouldn't call pi because the ball was uncatchable ...

seriously?

[runyon27]

I wouldn't say its rigged, its almost like there is some bias against Browns because of how we have played so long. And it usually happens to the Browns in key situations. There is laundry list of them going on for years. When I watch other games, I see bad calls too, but nothing that matches watching a Browns game. Its uncanny. The league has already admitted to screwed up two calls this year, wouldn't surprise me if the admit to more after today.

[gumby73]

2 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

Look, we won. But if a WR getting clean hit off his feet isnt a PI theres a fundamental problem. To suggest a WR cant make up 25 or so yards in the two seconds after he got leveled is a joke. 

When this nonsense happens to your team week in and week out, objectively, its supicisous. Do I think the Goddell is giving a reach around to replay ton impact calls? No. But how many weeks are you gonna see what keeps happening and wonder why? 

^^^could not be said any better***plus 100%..  defenders only look was to take out the receiver..squarely high in the chest plate..defender had no clue where the ball was at.. 

[flyingfooldoug]

I've been watching tons LESS of the NFL the past few years. Why?  Yellow Sheet littering the field every other play. Makes watching paint dry exciting again.

[Flugel]

11 hours ago, runyon27 said:

I wouldn't say its rigged, its almost like there is some bias against Browns because of how we have played so long. And it usually happens to the Browns in key situations. There is laundry list of them going on for years. When I watch other games, I see bad calls too, but nothing that matches watching a Browns game. Its uncanny. The league has already admitted to screwed up two calls this year, wouldn't surprise me if the admit to more after today.

Precisely!   Bias of there's a whole lotta "it's only Cleveland so who cares" perspective among the flag happy.  

Occasional bad calls - we're not having this conversation. Trend?  Here we are - what it is....

For those that didn't GET it - this thread got started during the game only 1 team seemed to be getting flagged consistently.  It seemed like when Baltimore got flagged - we made the first down or a kick anyway. 

Did anyone have to look to hard to see the guy across from Garrett false starting?   Did anyone listen to Dieken on the radio when our RT got flagged for a phantom hold?  That's not a guy that likes to blame officials for the most part.  Again, why the sudden fuss in back to back week?   A TREND pulling the game away from the Browns and their chance to win a close game hanging on 1 call or 1 play.  

 

[TexasAg1969]

2 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

I've been watching tons LESS of the NFL the past few years. Why?  Yellow Sheet littering the field every other play. Makes watching paint dry exciting again.

•  Depends on what you paint.😍
• 

[Flugel]

23 hours ago, Mark O said:

If it was rigged, the large TV markets would always win.   Are they making bad calls, of course but the games are not rigged.

You mean like the Raiders current market that also has to appeal to a Vegas market (after their brand new NHL team made the Stanley Cup Finals in their 1st year as a franchise)?  I'd say that's a pretty high barometer set - so, is a league needing to please 2 different states/markets today okay with an 0-3 Raiders team losing to 1 more episode of "it's only Cleveland?"  Telling us they got the Carr fumble they didn't allow wrong took the game winning points off the board.  Did Haslam's church mouse quiet all week change how our home crowd and many fans felt about the officiating THIS WEEK?

This week the Raiders played against the LA market so they didn't get nearly as many favors. 

I don't feel like I've ever complained about the officiating the way this year has given me countless reasons to do so...

Just out of curiosity, how many small markets have won SBs beside GB? 

 

[Tour2ma]

21 hours ago, Flugel said:

Nobody in this thread said anything about it and Gene Saratore also explained it almost immediately that a hold must occur before the ball is in the air.

I know he said "illegal contact". I do not remember him talking about "holding", but he might have...

[Mark O]

2 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

I know he said "illegal contact". I do not remember him talking about "holding", but he might have...

It was hard to hear when I watched but I believe that he did say both illegal contact and holding before the ball was in the air.

[Tour2ma]

 

19 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

Look, we won. But if a WR getting clean hit off his feet isnt a PI theres a fundamental problem. To suggest a WR cant make up 25 or so yards in the two seconds after he got leveled is a joke.

Did you watch the game? Our WR was running a square out... Baker threw a deep fade. No way in hell is that ball can be caught up with, let alone caught.

18 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

what happened to "hitting a defenseless receiver?" he clocked him, and they wouldn't call pi because the ball was uncatchable ... seriously?

It wasn't a collision of players headed in opposite directions... or even a 90 deg angle. Both the WR and the DB were heading to the slide line which makes the "clocking" less violent. PLus it wasn't a shot to the head or neck area so there's that.

And since "uncatchable" is in the rules...

[jrb12711]

1 hour ago, Tour2ma said:

 

Did you watch the game? Our WR was running a square out... Baker threw a deep fade. No way in hell is that ball can be caught up with, let alone caught.

It wasn't a collision of players headed in opposite directions... or even a 90 deg angle. Both the WR and the DB were heading to the slide line which makes the "clocking" less violent. PLus it wasn't a shot to the head or neck area so there's that.

And since "uncatchable" is in the rules...

Here's the replay: https://www.sbnation.com/2018/10/7/17948798/browns-vs-ravens-ot-win-game-winning-kick-baker-mayfield

If Jarvis Landry is running a square out route he's doing a terrible job. I'm not sure where you're possibly seeing him running that. He was running a straight line to the sideline. By my basic view, he was on about the 27 yard line when he  got clobbered. The ball was in the air by my very inaccurate measure about 1.5 seconds after the hit and landed about 5 yard line. Could Jarvis had realistically gone 20 ish yards? No. But is that uncatchable? Absolutely not.

[Tour2ma]

32 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

Here's the replay: https://www.sbnation.com/2018/10/7/17948798/browns-vs-ravens-ot-win-game-winning-kick-baker-mayfield 

If Jarvis Landry is running a square out route he's doing a terrible job. I'm not sure where you're possibly seeing him running that. He was running a straight line to the sideline. By my basic view, he was on about the 27 yard line when he  got clobbered. The ball was in the air by my very inaccurate measure about 1.5 seconds after the hit and landed about 5 yard line. Could Jarvis had realistically gone 20 ish yards? No. But is that uncatchable? Absolutely not.

Got me there... I had Willies in my mind's eye... who was curling in.

Still... NFW the ball is catchable.

Watching the gif I came away thinking it was a pick play for Willies. And it looks like the DB who hit Landry had Willies in coverage and was trying to get to his man.

 

[Gunz41]

To answer a few questions here, and not going to quote each one.

He wasnt running a square out. If you want to use the out part, he was running and Out and go. More realistic would be a wheel route. The ball was going where it was intended.

There was illegal contact and holding, no question. Both of those could have been called. But where Landry was and where the ball ended up it was uncatchable, so there can be no PI.

As for the question about defenseless player, nothing happened to it. Landry wasnt defenseless. It is not even close to being defenseless. I think you may be confused on what defenseless means by rule or definition?

[Tour2ma]

5 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

He wasnt running a square out.

Piling on!

5 yard penalty and repeat 2nd down...

[jrb12711]

42 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

To answer a few questions here, and not going to quote each one.

He wasnt running a square out. If you want to use the out part, he was running and Out and go. More realistic would be a wheel route. The ball was going where it was intended.

There was illegal contact and holding, no question. Both of those could have been called. But where Landry was and where the ball ended up it was uncatchable, so there can be no PI.

As for the question about defenseless player, nothing happened to it. Landry wasnt defenseless. It is not even close to being defenseless. I think you may be confused on what defenseless means by rule or definition?

Just never going to agree with that. To assume Landry in approximately 1.5 to 2 seconds couldn't have been close to that ball if he didn't get leveled just doesn't make sense. I'm not going to disagree that getting leveled aside he was going to be 3-4 yards short of the ball when it came down. Is that truly far enough to be uncatchable? Again, absolutely not. Had that contact occurred later in the play it gets called 100%. It looked worse than it actually was in terms of how far away he was because, ya know, he got leveled. 

Tomlin got it right yesterday. This league has a HUGE problem right now with reffing. 

[Flugel]

4 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

I know he said "illegal contact". I do not remember him talking about "holding", but he might have...

Thanks Tour!  That is correct - it wasn't holding he said.  It was "illegal contact."

 

 

[Tour2ma]

1 hour ago, jrb12711 said:

Just never going to agree with that. To assume Landry in approximately 1.5 to 2 seconds couldn't have been close to that ball if he didn't get leveled just doesn't make sense. I'm not going to disagree that getting leveled aside he was going to be 3-4 yards short of the ball when it came down. Is that truly far enough to be uncatchable? Again, absolutely not. Had that contact occurred later in the play it gets called 100%. It looked worse than it actually was in terms of how far away he was because, ya know, he got leveled.

Just did one of my (in)famous photo essays. And while I won't be as vehement as I've been that the ball was uncatchable, I will maintain that it was highly unlikely. Here's the case in summary:

• The collision with Carr occurred at the 28 yard line.
• The ball landed at the 7 yard line, it was at "catch height" about the 8... with a jump maybe the 9.
• So Landry has to travel ~20 yds... but in how long?
• In my HD broadcast there are 30 frames per second... in total the ball was in the air for 79 frames.
• The ball hits the ground 56 frames after contact... at 53 frames it's at the 8.
• So Landry has 53/30 = 1.77 seconds to run the 20 yds.
• At his Combine Landry's best time was 4.61 with a 20-yd split of 2.84...
• So he covered the last 20 yd in 1.77 seconds...
• ... in shorts and a tee...
• ... rested...
• ... and younger...
• ... with no one jostling him.

I'll only note that Landry wasn't nearly at full speed when the collision with Carr occurred making the likelihood of "catchable" very, very low... IMO. That said... the reason he was not a full speed is a whole 'notha kettle o' fish...

While the DB covering Landry, Young, initiated contact within the 5 yd limit, it extended beyond that for a little over a yard before Baker released the ball. So illegal contact was technically still callable, but the miss wasn't egregious. HOWEVER...

Upon further review Landry grabbed Young's facemask and pushed on it... turning Young's head back toward Baker. So our crafty, vet WR got away with one as well.

As for the collision? What I thought was an intentional blow turns out to just be a collision. Carr was focused on our new BFF, Willies, who ran a curl-in, the whole time. I don't think Carr saw Landry coming at him until a split second before the collision when Carr raises his hands and turns his head away from Landry to cushion their impact just before they hit.

 

But it all ended with a laugh as Landry embellished the contact with a flop of which any mid fielder would be proud...

 

Dinner time... maybe I'll post the pics later.

 

 

[jrb12711]

13 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Just did one of my (in)famous photo essays. And while I won't be as vehement as I've been that the ball was uncatchable, I will maintain that it was highly unlikely. Here's the case in summary:

• The collision with Carr occurred at the 28 yard line.
• The ball landed at the 7 yard line, it was at "catch height" about the 8... with a jump maybe the 9.
• So Landry has to travel ~20 yds... but in how long?
• In my HD broadcast there are 30 frames per second... in total the ball was in the air for 79 frames.
• The ball hits the ground 56 frames after contact... at 53 frames it's at the 8.
• So Landry has 53/30 = 1.77 seconds to run the 20 yds.
• At his Combine Landry's best time was 4.61 with a 20-yd split of 2.84...
• So he covered the last 20 yd in 1.77 seconds...
• ... in shorts and a tee...
• ... rested...
• ... and younger...
• ... with no one jostling him.

I'll only note that Landry wasn't nearly at full speed when the collision with Carr occurred making the likelihood of "catchable" very, very low... IMO. That said... the reason he was not a full speed is a whole 'notha kettle o' fish...

While the DB covering Landry, Young, initiated contact within the 5 yd limit, it extended beyond that for a little over a yard before Baker released the ball. So illegal contact was technically still callable, but the miss wasn't egregious. HOWEVER...

Upon further review Landry grabbed Young's facemask and pushed on it... turning Young's head back toward Baker. So our crafty, vet WR got away with one as well.

As for the collision? What I thought was an intentional blow turns out to just be a collision. Carr was focused on our new BFF, Willies, who ran a curl-in, the whole time. I don't think Carr saw Landry coming at him until a split second before the collision when Carr raises his hands and turns his head away from Landry to cushion their impact just before they hit.

 

But it all ended with a laugh as Landry embellished the contact with a flop of which any mid fielder would be proud...

 

Dinner time... maybe I'll post the pics later.

 

 

As usual, a tip of the cap to you my good man. You put together in words exactly what I was trying to say. Just to discuss though, the illegal contact/facemask/holding stuff doesn't bother me. Was it there? Yes, but you're absolutely right IMO it was "egregious" especially in the context of the play.

To a few of your points though. Firstly, yes it was just a collision but a collision none the less. Embellished or not, there was significant contact that impeded Landry's progress to the football. Secondly, using your own words doesn't "very, very low" still amount to a potential catch? If so, how is that not pass interference.

Look, when I used the word "rigged" perhaps I was a bit in the heat of the moment. Calmed down though, I still won't back an inch on my belief the NFL has a significant, pressing referring problem. You won't ever convince me that flag doesn't get thrown if that's Tom Brady throwing the football, etc. You don't ever convince me that the call of a 1st down gets overturned on that Hyde run if that team was the Steelers instead. We see it week in and week out. Tomlin pointed it out and hell, he's one the organizations who get the benefit of the doubt most of the time. As I mentioned before, I don't think those sorts of plays are part of some underground crazy scheme (hell, we won the game). But at the end of the day there's only two ways to consider how God awful the situation is currently. Either refs have been told in no uncertain terms to make hold the flag for competition (i.e. screwing the lower teams), OR gross incompetence. Which one is it?

[Tour2ma]

Hyde was down short of the line to gain.

Sunday Landry was not interfered with.

 

On to LAC...

[The Gipper]

19 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Hyde was down short of the line to gain.

Sunday Landry was not interfered with.

 

On to LAC...

All true.     But Carr did fumble.    And Landry did suffer illegal downfield contact.