Jump to content

In regard to whistle gate


Recommended Posts

When there is a fumble, and a whistle has blown prior to recovery, isn’t there some verbiage regarding a “clear and obvious recovery” that allows for the recovery to happen instead of just saying that the ball is considered to be “down” at the whistle…and going to the team that last had possession.

 

IMO, the inadvertent whistle on this TD should be viewed the same way.  The ball was six feet away from being caught and there were no defenders close enough to prevent the completion. 

 

[Perhaps the officials did view it that way.  They may have realized that there would have been no change in the outcome if the whistle had NOT been blown…and recognized that “going by the book” would have been a tremendously unfair disservice to the Bengals.]

 

:shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SF2 said:

Did the whistle affect the play.  Absolutely not.  Is the rule that the play has to be played over?  Well, yeah.  
 

Is the ref a dumbass?  Obviously.  

 

100% here, i saw a tweet do the timestamp of the whistle sound and the ball being caught, and it was something like .2 seconds. no one stoped, no one slowed up, they got torched which is why the defense looked aloof, not because they heard a whistle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cricket said:

When there is a fumble, and a whistle has blown prior to recovery, isn’t there some verbiage regarding a “clear and obvious recovery” that allows for the recovery to happen instead of just saying that the ball is considered to be “down” at the whistle…and going to the team that last had possession.

 

IMO, the inadvertent whistle on this TD should be viewed the same way.  The ball was six feet away from being caught and there were no defenders close enough to prevent the completion. 

 

[Perhaps the officials did view it that way.  They may have realized that there would have been no change in the outcome if the whistle had NOT been blown…and recognized that “going by the book” would have been a tremendously unfair disservice to the Bengals.]

 

:shrug: 

 

i could see a rule change in coming year(s) where if the whistle doesnt change the plays outcome it stands, but they could also ignore it, as this happens like once every 5 years..  someone track down the fucking official and ask him what the fuck he was blowing the whistle for

looking at all the replays, he didnt blow it from joe stepping out, joe ran out and turn around before the whistle blew... what. the. fuck. happened. what did he think happend, did he breath too hard and it blew the whistle. what the fuck refs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GoBengals said:

 

i could see a rule change in coming year(s) where if the whistle doesnt change the plays outcome it stands, but they could also ignore it, as this happens like once every 5 years..  someone track down the fucking official and ask him what the fuck he was blowing the whistle for

looking at all the replays, he didnt blow it from joe stepping out, joe ran out and turn around before the whistle blew... what. the. fuck. happened. what did he think happend, did he breath too hard and it blew the whistle. what the fuck refs.

No...no more rules! 

 

For once, if they fuck up...let them pay the price for it. They lean way too much on rules and replays as it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, each team would feel like they got screwed.

By letter of the law, the play shouldn't have counted

By common sense, it should have.

 

In the end, the true failure was with the officials.

 

In the end, if this had benefited a team like the Cowboys or Stealers, nobody in the media could care.

 

And of course Raiders fans will feel like their team got screwed because the NFL does that all the time.  The whole leaking of Chucky emails but covering everything else up stinks to high heaven.  Don't you think there are emails that show Snyder or Jerry Jones are racist pricks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tibor75 said:

In the end, each team would feel like they got screwed.

By letter of the law, the play shouldn't have counted

By common sense, it should have.

 

In the end, the true failure was with the officials.

 

In the end, if this had benefited a team like the Cowboys or Stealers, nobody in the media could care.

 

And of course Raiders fans will feel like their team got screwed because the NFL does that all the time.  The whole leaking of Chucky emails but covering everything else up stinks to high heaven.  Don't you think there are emails that show Snyder or Jerry Jones are racist pricks? 

 

eli apples mom sure agrees.

 

Screen Shot 2022-01-17 at 3.33.08 PM.png

https://twitter.com/SurvivinAmerica/status/1482886304497029120?s=20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I was at the game I missed what was said about some of the other officiating issues

 

1. Did the Raiders really call a timeout?  I have never seen a situation where a play went from beginning to end, a referee huddle happened, and then they said "you know what, a team called a timeout."  Maybe you see that on a field goal attempt, but never on a regular play

 

2. There was a play where the Raiders player made a diving catch.  Officials signalled no catch.  The Raiders lined up for the next play.  Official stops them, and moves the ball forward, saying "The previous play was a catch."  I assume that was the result of the in-game reviews that are allowed now without a challenge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, GoBengals said:

 

100% here, i saw a tweet do the timestamp of the whistle sound and the ball being caught, and it was something like .2 seconds. no one stoped, no one slowed up, they got torched which is why the defense looked aloof, not because they heard a whistle.

 

Agree.  People think it looks weird because the Raiders stopped when the whistle happened.  Nope.  It looks weird because of how they reacted and how Boyd reacted after he caught the ball.  When they heard the whistle they turned back towards Burrow and assumed that he must of stepped out of bounds.  Even Boyd doesn't really celebrate.  When you watch it in real time it looks strange for that reason.  But when you slow it down, it was obvious that it had no impact on the play pre-catch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tibor75 said:

Since I was at the game I missed what was said about some of the other officiating issues

 

1. Did the Raiders really call a timeout?  I have never seen a situation where a play went from beginning to end, a referee huddle happened, and then they said "you know what, a team called a timeout."  Maybe you see that on a field goal attempt, but never on a regular play

 

2. There was a play where the Raiders player made a diving catch.  Officials signalled no catch.  The Raiders lined up for the next play.  Official stops them, and moves the ball forward, saying "The previous play was a catch."  I assume that was the result of the in-game reviews that are allowed now without a challenge? 


On the #2, I assumed the same thing…and it initially looked like it was correct to call it a catch as he had his hand under the ball.  The problem is that I’m not sure that he maintained possession as he rolled over..and they didn’t take the time to look at it closer.  😡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cricket said:


On the #2, I assumed the same thing…and it initially looked like it was correct to call it a catch as he had his hand under the ball.  The problem is that I’m not sure that he maintained possession as he rolled over..and they didn’t take the time to look at it closer.  😡

 

I think the officials need to say what happened.  I don't know what this review process is called but they could have said "Review by central office indicates the previous play was a catch."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tibor75 said:

Since I was at the game I missed what was said about some of the other officiating issues

 

1. Did the Raiders really call a timeout?  I have never seen a situation where a play went from beginning to end, a referee huddle happened, and then they said "you know what, a team called a timeout."  Maybe you see that on a field goal attempt, but never on a regular play

 

2. There was a play where the Raiders player made a diving catch.  Officials signalled no catch.  The Raiders lined up for the next play.  Official stops them, and moves the ball forward, saying "The previous play was a catch."  I assume that was the result of the in-game reviews that are allowed now without a challenge? 

 

1. yea so the CORNER called the timeout, it was a dead ass tie to the ball being snapped, the problem i have, the official nearest him, the only offiical who could see him calling it, DIDNT SEE IT and even threw a flag for 12 men on the field. so that play should have stood.

 

#2 as others mentioned, yes thats what happened, the communication of that sucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoBengals said:

 

1. yea so the CORNER called the timeout, it was a dead ass tie to the ball being snapped, the problem i have, the official nearest him, the only offiical who could see him calling it, DIDNT SEE IT and even threw a flag for 12 men on the field. so that play should have stood.

 

#2 as others mentioned, yes thats what happened, the communication of that sucked.

 

Yeah, that sucks.  Because if you signal timeout at the same time as the ball is being snapped, no way should a timeout be granted.  Same way that you allow a play to happen when the snap occurs at the same time the play clock strikes zero. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tibor75 said:

Since I was at the game I missed what was said about some of the other officiating issues

 

1. Did the Raiders really call a timeout?  I have never seen a situation where a play went from beginning to end, a referee huddle happened, and then they said "you know what, a team called a timeout."  Maybe you see that on a field goal attempt, but never on a regular play

 

2. There was a play where the Raiders player made a diving catch.  Officials signalled no catch.  The Raiders lined up for the next play.  Official stops them, and moves the ball forward, saying "The previous play was a catch."  I assume that was the result of the in-game reviews that are allowed now without a challenge? 

 

1. If it's the one I think, Heyward was signaling timeout as they were just about to line up/snap it.  Nobody blew a whistle, they just decided they "should have" let the timeout happen, and decided post-facto that they WOULD.  Again, this to me is similar to the supposed controversy with the Boyd TD - I wasn't overly upset because if he called a TO and they screwed up badly by not calling it and decided it really was one, then whatever... they got it right in the end.  If the Raiders had intercepted the ball we'd be begging for the TO to count, so it goes both ways.

 

2. The announcers said it was one of those that the league office called them and told them outright it was a good catch and to count it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is disputing that the whistle changed the play.  No defender quit on the play, the ball was going to be (and was) caught by a wide open receiver.  The QB was in bounds when he threw it.

 

The linesman fucked up, and the rules state that the play should be a do-over.  But I think Boger got it right - the play standing is much more defensible and less controversial than enforcing the whistle - and is more in line with the spirit of the rule if not the letter of the rule.  Even the Raiders coach agreed during the post-game presser.

 

Here's Florio and Simms on PFT talking about it.  Some decent points made:

 

 

Do I wish it hadn't happened this way?  Sure.  Would I understand if they did the do-over?  Sure.  Do I think they made the right call.  Yep.  Would -I- have made that call if I were Boger?  Probably not.  Just being honest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SF2 said:

Did the whistle affect the play.  Absolutely not.  Is the rule that the play has to be played over?  Well, yeah.  
 

Is the ref a dumbass?  Obviously.  

Did the refs do the right thing in this instance? Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AmishBengalFan said:

Nobody is disputing that the whistle changed the play.  No defender quit on the play, the ball was going to be (and was) caught by a wide open receiver.  The QB was in bounds when he threw it.

 

The linesman fucked up, and the rules state that the play should be a do-over.  But I think Boger got it right - the play standing is much more defensible and less controversial than enforcing the whistle - and is more in line with the spirit of the rule if not the letter of the rule.  Even the Raiders coach agreed during the post-game presser.

 

Here's Florio and Simms on PFT talking about it.  Some decent points made:

 

 

Do I wish it hadn't happened this way?  Sure.  Would I understand if they did the do-over?  Sure.  Do I think they made the right call.  Yep.  Would -I- have made that call if I were Boger?  Probably not.  Just being honest.

 

 

Why do they keep showing the single screen cap of Joe just releasing the ball and the ref with the whistle in his mouth?  Are they trying to pretend that's the moment he blew it (because it's not)?  

 

Anyway, someone in the comments of the video finally had the right take.  Florio is trying to act like they made all this up waaay after the fact about believing they had blown the whistle just as the receiver caught it  Just watch the replay of Boger talking to the side judge and you can tell he's asking him *something*, and that side judge nods and says "yes, yes".  That question could quite obviously be "could you have blown it after the receiver caught it?".  Florio has no clue.  Anyway, if that was in fact what Boger and the crew agreed on, all they did was "get it wrong", again, on the same play.  Result?  The correct outcome.  People keep talking like they could have reviewed it, but they couldn't, it's not reviewable.  So... they got it wrong.  Twice.  Yet, the correct outcome was met.  You can argue getting it wrong about timing was as bad as blowing the whistle erroneously, go ahead, but acting like they IGNORED the original mistake is just conjecture and click-baiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I don't care, I have lost count the number of times we have gotten screwed by bad calls

2. As Florio said, even if the rule is applied by the letter of the law and you have a do over, the play was not effected by the whistle the guys were still playing when Boyd caught the ball. 

3. We were in scoring range, if they forced us to do a do over and we didn't get the TD on what would have been a repeated 3rd down we kick a very makeable FG and are still up by 3 when Carr throws the INT at the end of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...