That whole game our D let an unknown QB abuse them for 400 yds and even catch a 2pt conversion.

That call sucked but this defense played like total crap.

Bad scheming and execution.

Now if this was a tight game and the defense was balling?

Then I'd be livid about refs screwing our team.

They need to go back to the napkin they drew on for the Jets game prep and throw it in the trash!

(11-01-2021, 01:50 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: That whole game our D let an unknown QB abuse them for 400 yds and even catch a 2pt conversion.

That call sucked but this defense played like total crap.

Bad scheming and execution.

Now if this was a tight game and the defense was balling?

Then I'd be livid about refs screwing our team.

They need to go back to the napkin they drew on for the Jets game prep and throw it in the trash!

best way to stop an offense thats moving the ball at will against you...

Controll the time of possession with YOUR offense

(11-01-2021, 01:50 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: That whole game our D let an unknown QB abuse them for 400 yds and even catch a 2pt conversion.

That call sucked but this defense played like total crap.

Bad scheming and execution.

Now if this was a tight game and the defense was balling?

Then I'd be livid about refs screwing our team.

They need to go back to the napkin they drew on for the Jets game prep and throw it in the trash!

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that it cost the Bengals the game.   It's a problem completely apart from the game situation.  It would be a problem if we were up three touchdowns (as we should have been).  The NFL is going to get another player paralyzed with this, "Wot?  We didn't see nothin'"  BS.  

The NFL will continue to play dumb and then offer a "rules clarification" or a "point of emphasis" during the off season.  That's not strong enough action to prevent the injury that's coming.

(11-01-2021, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think that's where most folks are. Crappy call but kinda like being mad about the fabric pattern of the chairs on the Titanic

Not 100% but I think all they review in college is the 'targeting" aspect of the play. The personal foul remains.

WTS, we must be careful what we want to be challenged. Because then I'd assume it could go both ways. A tackle not called for penalty could be reviewed and then we're headed down a slippery slope..

We didn't play good enough to win and to be honest: I'd felt a little bad for the Jets if we had won. They pulled out all the stops and beat us

If they call targeting on the field and after review it's deemed not targeting there is no penalty. My thought was it should be automatic review like turnovers and scoring plays that are questionable.

(11-01-2021, 01:27 PM)MileHighGrowler Wrote: BFine just mentioned that it's a slippery slope because the calls could be challenged either way.  Which is a potential.  

There's also the issue of slowing the game down even more with more challenges.  If the call gets overturned and a coach keeps his challenge flag, can you imagine how many times this could come up in games (especially with recurring calls like holding)?  

And finally, NFL refs are treated differently than college refs.  It's a very high profile job.  Those guys get graded on their games, but they get graded behind the scenes not on nationally televised games by being called out.  Not saying that's the driving factor, but considering the position I'm also not surprised the league hasn't opened them up to more criticism on their skills.  

It was a bad call, no doubt.  But I don't think it's even worth discussing unless it decided the game.  

Now i know we should never have been in the position to begin with, but it really did decide the game. That was a 3rd down play that we stopped them on forcing a punt. There was plenty of time to tie/take the lead. 

The whole idea of "we should not have been in said spot in the first place" does nothing but give refs cover to keep on making horrible calls. They need to be publicly disciplined so that they become scared to make bad calls.

(11-01-2021, 04:18 PM)Joelist Wrote: The whole idea of "we should not have been in said spot in the first place" does nothing but give refs cover to keep on making horrible calls. They need to be publicly disciplined so that they become scared to make bad calls.

if you leave the game in the refs hands.. youll likely lose

(11-01-2021, 01:15 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: doesnt matter...   That call isnt why they lost...

Can't say that with any real certainty.  It may very well have cost them a win.  2 minutes and 3 timeouts are pretty valuable commodities in a league where most games are decided in the final minutes of the 4th quarter.

(11-01-2021, 04:23 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: if you leave the game in the refs hands.. youll likely lose

Brilliant.  Do you really think any team intentionally approaches a game wanting to "leave the game in the hands of the refs?"  The officials are charged with calling the game according to an allegedly clear set of guidelines.  It doesn't make an ounce of difference if a team has played shitty or if they're up 21 in the 4th.  The rules are the same.  

By this logic, every team playing in a close game has "left it in the hands of the refs".  That accounts for more than half of the games played in the league.  

(11-01-2021, 04:03 PM)cinci4life Wrote: If they call targeting on the field and after review it's deemed not targeting there is no penalty. My thought was it should be automatic review like turnovers and scoring plays that are questionable.

Now i know we should never have been in the position to begin with, but it really did decide the game. That was a 3rd down play that we stopped them on forcing a punt. There was plenty of time to tie/take the lead. 

Thank you. That’s what I’m saying. It shouldn’t have come to that but it did. Teams don’t always play their best but can still pull out wins. It’s MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to overcome mistakes when the other team is helped by bad calls.

(11-01-2021, 11:33 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I received backlash for saying that the helmet-to-helmet hit was a bad call because Hilton was going at Johnson low and then Johnson lowered his head to initiate the helmet-to-helmet, and Yahoo! agrees with me:


Like I said, we had momentum and we at least had a very good shot to tie the game, if not win it, and the penalty should have been on them, which would have set us up even better.

This one bullshit call could have season-altering ramifications.  

That's our luck............

Who gave you backlash? It clearly wasn't a penalty and everyone thinks it was a bad call from what I saw.

Dungy called it out last night, was a great tackle by Mike that should of led to us getting the ball back with a chance to win.

(11-01-2021, 02:12 PM)Roland Wrote: I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that it cost the Bengals the game.   It's a problem completely apart from the game situation.  It would be a problem if we were up three touchdowns (as we should have been).  The NFL is going to get another player paralyzed with this, "Wot?  We didn't see nothin'"  BS.  

The NFL will continue to play dumb and then offer a "rules clarification" or a "point of emphasis" during the off season.  That's not strong enough action to prevent the injury that's coming.

Yes.

I agree with what most have said about it mattering and that it needs to be addressed.

If the rule is truly put in place to protect the players then it should apply to all players.

An offensive player running full speed who decides to initiate contact with his helmet to another player should get the penalty.

My personal feelings are disappointment in the call and the defenses play the entire game.

I blame the loss on the coaches/team more than an unclear call in this instance.

It shouldn't make the refs less accountable for making such a call or the NFL needing to clarify/fix the penalty.

It probably cost us the game, as Burrow most likely would have scored. The fact we should never have been in that situation doesn't change that. They just shouldn't be in that situation anymore.

(11-01-2021, 07:27 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Who gave you backlash? It clearly wasn't a penalty and everyone thinks it was a bad call from what I saw.

Dungy called it out last night, was a great tackle by Mike that should of led to us getting the ball back with a chance to win.

On Facebook, a few people were. I thought people on here also were but maybe it was just in the game day thread or maybe I was imagining it lol.

The tackle was perfect and, if anything, should have been a penalty on the offense.

(11-01-2021, 07:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It probably cost us the game, as Burrow most likely would have scored. The fact we should never have been in that situation doesn't change that. They just shouldn't be in that situation anymore.

Yeah, like I said, we were mounting the comeback and Burrow was playing lights out.

We should have been given the chance to win the game.  

The only thing more sickening than the call itself was that the A-hole officiating crew doubled down on stupid and tried to defend it.

I said on the game thread that it was actually a penalty against the ball carrier. Not allowed to do that either but never seen it called. So if nothing else keep the flag in your pocket. I’m one of the ones that says they should have never let themselves be in that position, but I still hope that ref with the stupid name is embarrassed by all the coverage.

Here is what the head ref said about that bad call:

https://www.si.com/nfl/bengals/allbengals-insiders-plus/craig-wrolstad-explains-unnecessary-roughness-penalty-bengals-jets

Quote:“The line judge had unnecessary roughness—it was Cincinnati #21 (Hilton) and the foul was for lowering his head to initiate contact. So that’s going to be a use of the helmet foul," referee Craig Wrolstad said after the game.

He went on to say there wasn't much debate about the call. The officials thought he was a clear foul on Hilton and they didn't think about penalizing Johnson for lowering his head.

"We had a short conversation on the field about it," Wrolstad said. "We’re not all looking at that [the offensive player]. I don’t think there was any discussion about the offense. The call was on the defense.”

What should Hilton have done to avoid the call?  

“I’m not here to verse you on how to tackle properly," Wrolstad said. "The rule is that you cannot lower your head to initiate contact on a player with your helmet. So, he can hit him with his shoulder, I suppose.”

But I also want to quote from the same article and what myself and I think most agree with:

Quote:Cincinnati lost the game because they couldn't stop Mike White and the New York offense. The Jets finished with over 500 yards on offense, as White threw for 405 yards and three touchdowns.

(11-01-2021, 11:33 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I received backlash for saying that the helmet-to-helmet hit was a bad call because Hilton was going at Johnson low and then Johnson lowered his head to initiate the helmet-to-helmet, and Yahoo! agrees with me:


Like I said, we had momentum and we at least had a very good shot to tie the game, if not win it, and the penalty should have been on them, which would have set us up even better.

This one bullshit call could have season-altering ramifications.  

That's our luck............

Liar.

Most, if not everyone, agreed that it was a bad call. 

You said, definitively, that the Bengals would have won the game if that call had not been made. 

(11-01-2021, 04:29 PM)samhain Wrote: Can't say that with any real certainty.  It may very well have cost them a win.  2 minutes and 3 timeouts are pretty valuable commodities in a league where most games are decided in the final minutes of the 4th quarter.

True. The only thing you can say with a certainty is that it cost them an opportunity to tie or win. 

They could have still lost if that call had not been made. 

(11-01-2021, 11:29 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Liar.

Most, if not everyone, agreed that it was a bad call. 

You said, definitively, that the Bengals would have won the game if that call had not been made. 

You call me a liar and then in the very next sentence admit that not everyone agreed that it was a bad call.

I said or at least tie, and it seemed very likely because of our momentum and the fact that we wouldn’t have been pinned deep in our own territory.

(11-01-2021, 11:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You call me a liar and then in the very next sentence admit that not everyone agreed that it was a bad call.

I said or at least tie, and it seemed very likely because of our momentum and the fact that we wouldn’t have been pinned deep in our own territory.

I said "most, if not all" because i don't know the exact number of people who agreed or disagreed. I don't recall seeing one person who disagreed but i'm not going to make a definitive statement without knowing for sure. I called you a liar because, yesterday, you said they win the game. Full stop.

You said 

(10-31-2021, 06:04 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This costs us first place in the division and the conference because of a bullshit call.

The runner lowered his head to hit Hilton:





How can he do that better?

(10-31-2021, 06:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We played a bad game, but we win the game without that horrible call.

(11-01-2021, 01:52 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Besides for the fact that we had momentum, they would have had to punt, and we would have gotten the ball at the 40 with the ability to run anything in our playbook?

Plenty to base it on.  

You're disagreeing with me just to disagree.

(11-01-2021, 09:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: But we still win without that call.

And then this, from 2 hours ago. When you backed off the certainty of the win. 

(11-01-2021, 09:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Like I said, we responded and were going to have a good chance to win the game.  

Opening drive means nothing in the fourth quarter.

And then this typical bullshit that you always fall back on, even though what you posted was factually incorrect and you were told so numerous times. 

(11-01-2021, 10:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Exactly.  

People use false information, empty rhetoric, and personal attacks on me when they have nothing to counter what I post.

Horrible call cost us a chance to win the game.

P.S. Not one single person in that entire thread disagreed that it was a bad call.