(01-19-2023, 05:12 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: When I watched it live I cringed as those DO get called but Markus Bailey clearly hit Mark Andrews in the side of the shoulder on review.

I disagree
https://twitter.com/nfl/status/1614828685848346625?s=46&t=dd7ZwhDr1vehnMDGRNa8Bw

(01-19-2023, 09:04 PM)Nepa Wrote: Coming from a guy who revels in being called a mafioso. 

Definition of mafioso:  "A mafioso is a mobster or specifically a member (i.e. a "made man") of the Sicilian Mafia, Italian-American Mafia, or other Italian criminal organizations."  (from Wikipedia)

I just thought of the first thing that came into my head. I don’t take usernames very seriously

Let me offer my perspective on this issue of the referees.

1. Game officials have tendencies and Carl Cheffers is no different. Certainly.

2. Cheffers' tendencies, as noted by various analysts (more calls favoring home team, etc.) are more advantageous to the Bills than the Bengals. Certainly.

3. But, and this is a "big but," those tendencies are been culled mostly from regular-season games, not playoff games. The reality is the NFL does not like to see playoff games that have a lot of penalties called. And, the spotlight on game officials is much more intense in playoff games.

My own expectation based on point 3 is that this will be a fairly called game. At least that is my hope.

(01-20-2023, 11:28 AM)Nepa Wrote: I don't know what Cheffers record in Bills game is. Don't even know how to verify claims being made. But this site has their analysis which states the following:

"After doing some further sleuthing, we also discovered the Bills are 6-0 in games Cheffers reffed. The Bengals are 1-3."

https://fansided.com/2023/01/19/nfl-ref-for-bengals-bills-has-insane-over-under-record/

He doesn't link his sources so I have no reason to believe what he's saying. Bills lost week 5 in 2020 to the Titans and have only had 5 games reffed by him since. Four of those games were on the road.

I used these 2 below:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/officials/ChefCa0r.htm

https://www.nflpenalties.com/referee/carl-cheffers?view=week&year=2022

(01-20-2023, 11:52 AM)Mafioso Wrote: I disagree
https://twitter.com/nfl/status/1614828685848346625?s=46&t=dd7ZwhDr1vehnMDGRNa8Bw

Why ignore the pictures already posted from a different angle? Bailey started his contact when he was side by side with Andrews and its obvious. 

(01-20-2023, 11:52 AM)Mafioso Wrote: I disagree
https://twitter.com/nfl/status/1614828685848346625?s=46&t=dd7ZwhDr1vehnMDGRNa8Bw

I have not heard an official NFL pronouncement on the play.

I do know the official rule book states it is not a block in the back "if the opponent turns away from the blocker when contact is imminent." It also requires pushing the opponent. 

If the referees cannot conclusively determine the person was pushed, or did not turn away from the blocker when contact is imminent, then it is best to let the play go. 

It is really hard to determine that the push caused the fall versus the would-be tackler lunging at Hubbard and it does seem that Bailey first contacted Andrews on the side first. I cannot even tell if there was solid contact with the back once Bailey's hand slid off the shoulder as Andrews lunged forward.

It seems given such uncertainty that it was best to let the play go. I would not have been surprised if a block in the back was called, but I think the officials made the right choice to not call a block in the back if they were not certain one occurred. Few things are more annoying in sports than game officials calling something because they believe it might have happened versus actually seeing it happen. Soccer can be unwatchable with all the theatrics to get calls.

Any game can be impacted by a possible error but I've not seen any evidence linking a officials ruling to purposely helping a team win. In the end 90% of games hinge on performance not officials

(01-20-2023, 11:52 AM)Mafioso Wrote: I disagree
https://twitter.com/nfl/status/1614828685848346625?s=46&t=dd7ZwhDr1vehnMDGRNa8Bw

YOU. ARE. WRONG. END. OF. STORY.
When contact was initiated, the players were SHOULDER-TO-SHOULDER.
It was only because Andrews stumbled and fell forward that made it look like a block in the back.

(01-20-2023, 01:23 PM)Tomkat Wrote: YOU. ARE. WRONG. END. OF. STORY.
When contact was initiated, the players were SHOULDER-TO-SHOULDER.
It was only because Andrews stumbled and fell forward that made it look like a block in the back.

I don't think it is as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be. The official NFL rule states...

"Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play."


Looking at that definition and then looking at this...







I can see why people are arguing it. For what it is worth, Dean Blandino said it was a good no-call. I'm not really sure either way. If it was called a penalty, I probably wouldn't argue much. I'm not going to argue much now that it wasn't called, but I would stop short of acting like it is so obvious that it wasn't. The rule doesn't state where contact begins, it just states that contact occurs. Andrews objectively was pushed in the back, it was a really close call with contact starting from the side and moving to the back. 


Sort of on topic, but this is why I think refs are fantastic at their job. This shit is hard. Imagine trying to call this play, live, without the benefit of replay. I'm sitting here watching the replay and thinking "****, this is close" and these guys have to sprint with these dues and get one look at it to make their call. 

(01-20-2023, 12:42 PM)Nepa Wrote: I have not heard an official NFL pronouncement on the play.

I do know the official rule book states it is not a block in the back "if the opponent turns away from the blocker when contact is imminent." It also requires pushing the opponent. 

If the referees cannot conclusively determine the person was pushed, or did not turn away from the blocker when contact is imminent, then it is best to let the play go. 

It is really hard to determine that the push caused the fall versus the would-be tackler lunging at Hubbard and it does seem that Bailey first contacted Andrews on the side first. I cannot even tell if there was solid contact with the back once Bailey's hand slid off the shoulder as Andrews lunged forward.

It seems given such uncertainty that it was best to let the play go. I would not have been surprised if a block in the back was called, but I think the officials made the right choice to not call a block in the back if they were not certain one occurred. Few things are more annoying in sports than game officials calling something because they believe it might have happened versus actually seeing it happen. Soccer can be unwatchable with all the theatrics to get calls.

I’m not going to get into a debate about it. We disagree. That’s fine.

(01-20-2023, 12:40 PM)TheFan Wrote: Why ignore the pictures already posted from a different angle? Bailey started his contact when he was side by side with Andrews and its obvious. 

I didn’t see the other angles. Care to post them?

(01-20-2023, 01:23 PM)Tomkat Wrote: YOU. ARE. WRONG. END. OF. STORY.
When contact was initiated, the players were SHOULDER-TO-SHOULDER.
It was only because Andrews stumbled and fell forward that made it look like a block in the back.

They were side by side for one moment because Andrews was passing him. Sure contract was made as they were next to each other….then he passed him and pushed him in the back.

What’s done is done and we disagree and won’t be convincing each other otherwise.

(01-20-2023, 12:42 PM)Nepa Wrote:  I cannot even tell if there was solid contact with the back once Bailey's hand slid off the shoulder as Andrews lunged forward.

If there was solid contact, it would be easy to see.
Andrews was already stumbling/lunging forward at that point, he wasn't pushed.

(01-20-2023, 01:45 PM)Mafioso Wrote: They were side by side for one moment because Andrews was passing him.  Sure contract was made as they were next to each other….then he passed him and pushed him in the back.  

What’s done is done and we disagree and won’t be convincing each other otherwise.

Willful ignorance is bliss, as they say. 

(01-20-2023, 01:51 PM)TheFan Wrote: Willful ignorance is bliss, as they say. 

You’re talking about a play that has been hotly debated for almost a week now……literally thousands of fans disagreeing. That’s one of the things that makes sports so special. We disagree. No big deal. That’s what I say. You say, it’s your way or the highway. Ironic.

Why can’t we ever just win. Everytime we win somebody has to cry about a weak ass call. The Boyd TD that fans wanted called dead because of a possible inadvertent whistle.

This block in the back play


I’m getting annoyed at ppl crying over our games. If the calls were more insanely bad I’d be ok with the crying but we talkin about a TD vs the Raiders where Boyd and Burrow simply beat their defense’s ass and now they are lying saying they heard a whistle and that made them stop like Tyler Boyd didn’t just find an open hole in their shitty zone

Now ppl are crying about an obvious TD run by Hubbard that was only even an issue because ppl hate Cincinnati and have a hard on for the Bills and they know we can beat the Bills

(01-18-2023, 09:32 PM)Emeritus Wrote:

They want so much to keep us out of the SB.
Lets just stay on the lookout for questionable calls that are game changers! I hate this political sh!$ in the game but its very real!   Score early damn it!!!

So, beyond watching out for it, what can i do about it? 

Is there a representative or legislator i can write or would some good ole cardboard protest signs work better?

I will say this. I'm gonna try my damndest to score as many touchdowns as possible. 

(01-20-2023, 09:40 AM)Gdale_Bengal Wrote: The NFL doesn’t want another rematch between Burrow and Mahomes. You already know that outcome.

Allen vs Mahomes is more desirable because of what happened last year. Much better story line. I bet some calls don’t go Cincys way and a few…”iffy” calls go buffalos way.

The NFL loves its narratives.  Last season, the Cinderella Bengals and their hot young gun QB was the best story around. The league seized on it. This season it is the feel good saga of Hamlin and the Mahomes-Allen Battle in Atlanta. There is no way the league is sacrificing that Atlanta bonanza for another Bengals playoff win. Not scripted outcome but absolutely influenced by penalties called as well as no-calls at strategic points.

I know someone who lives in Vegas(he moved there to bet on sports). Betting is what he does most of the time. He won't bet on NFL games. Says the games' outcomes can't be trusted. 

Anyone who fails to think the mob boss, Goodell, and his trusty band of goons don't have their fingers on the scales to influence and increase the liklihood of desired outcomes is woefully naive. Refs wear earpieces during games and have a direct line to Park Avenue. Wake up, folks, and smell what he Commish is cooking.

(01-20-2023, 01:45 PM)Mafioso Wrote: They were side by side for one moment because Andrews was passing him.  Sure contract was made as they were next to each other….then he passed him and pushed him in the back.  

What’s done is done and we disagree and won’t be convincing each other otherwise.

But see, here's the thing.  He was never PUSHED in the back.  Andrew's own momentum caused him to TURN HIS BACK to Bailey once they collided shoulder-to-shoulder.  You can't claim block in the back, when you're the one who turned your back to the blocker.

(01-18-2023, 11:19 PM)Interceptor Wrote: None of the refs were in position (or had the lungs to be at that end) to make that call. And the Hubbard run was CLEAN.

There was a ref on either side running right behind the play. It's not like they stand at the LoS. They're 10 yards in the backfield.