Chicago Bears Official Discussion Thread (Cutler: replacement, typical, used)

[cubssoxfan]

Let me try this one more time.

The ref signaled AFTER he lost the ball, meaning, he actually lost the ball BEFORE the play was over, notwithstanding the call. That's why the call was reversed.

Get it now?

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

You're now having an argument with yourself, take a chill pill, hombre.

I am *not* arguing about when the whistle was blown, because that is irrelevant and not what is at question here - the TD call ends the play.

I'm talking about the same call several million people watched live on TV:

Calvin Johnson Touchdown Erased on Controversial Call -- NFL FanHouse

The referee closest to the play initially ruled it a touchdown, but it was reversed and called incomplete. A lengthy replay upheld that decision.

Right. This is not about when the whistle blew, it's about control. A referee called it a TD, which was later reversed. When the TD was called, the play was over.

The point is that it's a big deal for a ref to reverse a call, and it is supposed to be done only when there is a blatant mistake made by the ref on the field.

No matter how you slice and dice this whole thing, what I find unacceptable is that this rose to the level of being overruled.

The rule has an inherently subjective component to it, ie, what is "control."

It's not like the ref didn't see the guy step out of bounds, a ball bounce off the uprights, something that upon replay was a no-brainer, etc.

Capiche?

The horse was dead about 6 posts ago. Gone, turned into dog food
Move on.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

You're now having an argument with yourself, take a chill pill, hombre.

I am *not* arguing about when the whistle was blown, because that is irrelevant and not what is at question here - the TD call ends the play.

I'm talking about the same call several million people watched live on TV:

Calvin Johnson Touchdown Erased on Controversial Call -- NFL FanHouse

The referee closest to the play initially ruled it a touchdown, but it was reversed and called incomplete. A lengthy replay upheld that decision.

Right. This is not about when the whistle blew, it's about control. A referee called it a TD, which was later reversed. When the TD was called, the play was over.

The point is that it's a big deal for a ref to reverse a call, and it is supposed to be done only when there is a blatant mistake made by the ref on the field.

No matter how you slice and dice this whole thing, what I find unacceptable is that this rose to the level of being overruled.

The rule has an inherently subjective component to it, ie, what is "control."

It's not like the ref didn't see the guy step out of bounds, a ball bounce off the uprights, something that upon replay was a no-brainer, etc.

Capiche?

No, not "capiche." Even when explained in the simplest manner possible, you still refuse to get it. At that point there's nothing anyone can do to help you get it.

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

The horse was dead about 6 posts ago. Gone, turned into dog food
Move on.

If you think you're in charge of what I do and don't post, you might as well put me on ignore right now.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Even when explained in the simplest manner possible, you still refuse to get it. At that point there's nothing anyone can do to help you get it.

If you think you're in charge of what I do and don't post, you might as well....

I'm going to guess you don't see the irony/hypocrisy in these two statements.

anyhoo, I do have one remaining question on the rules in question (not for Drover specifically) - does a ref calling a TD signal the end of a play, or not? I understand refs can overrule each other, etc., but if the argument is that it was a proper call but a bad rule, that's the crux of it right there.

football is pretty intrinsically complicated as far as rules go (they seem to change a lot more than in other sports, likely due to the realities of personal injuries/it being a contact sport) - I don't see any reason to get one's undies in a bunch over analyzing them.

either way, it was the effin' Lions, and it never should have been that close. I'd hope that in our next meeting we can beat them a lot more convincingly.

[cubssoxfan]

If you think you're in charge of what I do and don't post, you might as well put me on ignore right now.

Of course not. But I am entitled to my opinion just as you are. I have gone on my "rants", but choose to think that if enough posters told me to move on, I would because many times these rants hi-jack threads and gum up getting more opinions and ideas. I don't want you on ignore because your posts typically add much to the conversations whether I agree or dis-agree with you. Typically my MO is if I add even a bit of humor/sarcasm the intent is to come across "nicer" than just saying shut up already! I don't like the second approach because it's rude.

[Chi-town Native]

All I'll say is at its worst this forum is loads better than the mumbo-jumbo I usually hear on the sports talk radio. GO BEARS!

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I'm going to guess you don't see the irony/hypocrisy in these two statements.

It's not hypocritical or ironic because I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can or cannot post, whereas cubssoxfan is.

anyhoo, I do have one remaining question on the rules in question (not for Drover specifically) - does a ref calling a TD signal the end of a play, or not? I understand refs can overrule each other, etc., but if the argument is that it was a proper call but a bad rule, that's the crux of it right there.

football is pretty intrinsically complicated as far as rules go (they seem to change a lot more than in other sports, likely due to the realities of personal injuries/it being a contact sport) - I don't see any reason to get one's undies in a bunch over analyzing them.

either way, it was the effin' Lions, and it never should have been that close. I'd hope that in our next meeting we can beat them a lot more convincingly.

Yes, signaling a touchdown (or a completion, or an incompletion) ends the play. But once again, he lost the ball before the end of the play was signaled.

Here's an even simpler explanation of the rule that maybe even you can understand (here's to hoping anyway): if you can't show the ball to the ref at the end of the play and hand it to him, you didn't catch it. He couldn't do that. That's why the call was overruled.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Here's an even simpler explanation of the rule that maybe even you can understand (here's to hoping anyway): if you can't show the ball to the ref at the end of the play and hand it to him, you didn't catch it. He couldn't do that. That's why the call was overruled.

I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if I'm missing something, but we're not on the same page & since you're challenging me, the onus is on you to prove it.

The game I was watching (and as I showed in a link, many others were as well) featured a Lions player who caught the ball in the end zone, and a ref who called it a touchdown.

That call was reversed.

So please forgive this poor simpleton and explain, preferably in two or three syllable words so I can understand, what your point is (besides "I have nothing better to do than split hairs on City Data").

Here's what I have so far from you:

You acknowledge that a ref signaled the TD.

You also acknowledge that signaling a TD ends the play.

Ergo, play ended.

All this talk about how the guy needed to hold on to the ball until the play ended is irrelevant - the play ended when the referee signaled a touchdown.

I do not see how that play rose to the level of another referee overruling the first one (my original point). Overruling a TD call is a big deal, IMO, this wasn't justified.

Yes, this is just my opinion. Yes, I understand it's a done deal (and I'm not complaining, breaks go both ways).

I understand it's water under the bridge now. But as the rule in question is apparently new, I'd like to go through the season having an understanding of it.

But to get back to my original point (I bet you've forgotten I had one), the Bears are a paper tiger 3 - 0 team right now. They squeaked by a horrible football team, regardless of that play.

But they're on a roll for the moment, and I'm more than happy to see them exceed our expectations.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Here's an even simpler explanation of the rule that maybe even you can understand (here's to hoping anyway): if you can't show the ball to the ref at the end of the play and hand it to him, you didn't catch it. He couldn't do that. That's why the call was overruled.

If you can back that up with verbiage from the NFL rulebook, rock on.

I'm not disagreeing with you in theory, sure, you should be able to do that - but that's still just your simplification/opinion.

I mean good grief dude, by your logic anyone who throws the ball down could have their TD overruled.

[Drover]

Yes it's a simplification because trying explain it to you in anything but a most basic understanding seems to confuse you. And no, my logic does not lead to the conclusion that "anyone who throws the ball down could have their TD overruled." I've already explained several times the specific circumstances in which it can and likely will be overruled. If you expect to have a pass ruled as a completion and/or have that ruling stand up to review, you'd better have the ball in your hands when the play is signaled as over. It's really that simple.

[Drover]

And if that explanation isn't good enough for you coming from me, hopefully it will be good enough for you if it comes from a member of the Competition Committee which is responsible for the rules. I presume that's a high enough authority for you so as put this matter to rest once and for all.