(01-11-2016, 06:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Speaking of which...
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016010901/2015/POST18/steelers@bengals#menu=gameinfo|contentId%3A0ap3000000620467&tab=recap

The video there is "understanding how the Steelers beat the Bengals" and it's actually very pro-Bengals and anti-Refs/Steelers (Shek aside, who's a diehard Steelers fan). Still a 3-1 for Bengals.

Here's where it gets interesting though. It vanished from the Bengals video list (used to be there), I couldn't find it using the search window, and while it's on the Steelers video list, when I tried to click on it, it wouldn't play.

Shocked, right?

Yeah......absolutely floored.

Mike Pereria has no credibility with his opinions for me anyway. Back when he was head of officiating. His weekly segment defended virtually EVERY call the officials made. There was one he said was missed and then ended the conversation...no elaboration. Just missed next question. Now he comes on TV and gives his 2 cents and every other call is wrong. Same misgivings with Carey. I loved it when he flatly declared a replay irreversible....then was reversed. If Carey had been officiating that game, the flag would have been flying before Geno hit the ground. Then he spouts off that it was an "unfortunate but legal" hit?
I can guarantee you that if the was a Burfict his on Bell, there would have been six flags flying at 55.

(01-11-2016, 11:53 PM)dr tarzan Wrote: Mike Pereria has no credibility with his opinions for me anyway.   Back when he was head of officiating.  His weekly segment defended virtually EVERY call the officials made.   There was one he said was missed and then ended the conversation...no elaboration.  Just missed next question.    Now he comes on TV and  gives his 2 cents and every other call is wrong.   Same misgivings with Carey.    I loved it when he flatly declared a replay irreversible....then was reversed.   If Carey had been officiating that game, the flag would have been flying before Geno hit the ground.  Then he spouts off that it was an "unfortunate but legal" hit?    
I can guarantee you that if the was a Burfict his on Bell, there would have been six flags flying at 55.

Yeah Mike Carey is the same ass clown who called roughing the passer on a Justin Smith sack against TB in 06.  I will never forget it because it cost us the game and then we missed the playoffs by one game.  The guy was a joke as an on-field official and he is just as big a joke almost 10 years later as an "officiating expert."  The dude should never be allowed near the game of football again.

Pereira or Carey will not bash the refs. They tow the line to help them out and blame coaches and players.

(01-12-2016, 12:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pereira or Carey will not bash the refs.  They tow the line to help them out and blame coaches and players.

Just listened to the Pereira segment... This dude should have himself knocked unconscious by a crown of the helmet, head to head hit, then he can come and talk about how legitimate of a hit it was on Gio.  Then he wants to blame Marvin Lewis for losing control of his players and says nothing about Tomlin letting Porter amongst our guys, and further says Adam Jones contact of the official was "substantial???"  He barely bumped the official.  This guy is a piece of shit cut from the same corrupt cloth as all the others.  He had no problem saying that Burfict's hit was clearly a penalty and probably intentional... **** this jackoff.  He could get hit by a bus tomorrow and the world and NFL would probably be a better place.

Oh, and how could I forget to mention the talk about the Martavis Bryant non-catch TD. Pereira literally says that the ball slid a little when it was against his leg and that there is a "WOW" factor for officials. WTF!!!!!!??????? So he admits Bryant is bobbling the ball after his two feet were down and then basically admits that if a guy makes a crazy enough catch it doesn't matter if it is actually a TD or not... I reiterate what I said about the bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5WVoUyFaeY&sns=em

Here's a link to one of the ESPN shows talked about

(01-12-2016, 12:46 AM)InTheJungleNow9 Wrote: Oh, and how could I forget to mention the talk about the Martavis Bryant non-catch TD.  Pereira literally says that the ball slid a little when it was against his leg and that there is a "WOW" factor for officials.  WTF!!!!!!???????  So he admits Bryant is bobbling the ball after his two feet were down and then basically admits that if a guy makes a crazy enough catch it doesn't matter if it is actually a TD or not... I reiterate what I said about the bus.

I didn't see the ball move at all once it pinned to his ass and he got both feet down. This isn't one of the last things I have issues with. Crazy catch and it was one

(01-12-2016, 01:02 AM)BernLock Wrote: I didn't see the ball move at all once it pinned to his ass and he got both feet down. This isn't one of the last things I have issues with. Crazy catch and it was one

I haven't rewatched it but I swore watching the game, from one of the angles, that after he started summersaulting forward you can actually see the ball move (bobble) half an inch from resting against his hand to resting against his leg. I was actually pretty pissed. In hindsight, I would have been happy if that was the most controversial call of the game. 

(01-12-2016, 02:02 AM)treee Wrote: I haven't rewatched it but I swore watching the game, from one of the angles, that after he started summersaulting forward you can actually see the ball move (bobble) half an inch from resting against his hand to resting against his leg. I was actually pretty pissed. In hindsight, I would have been happy if that was the most controversial call of the game. 

Watch again. It doesn't move. Crazy catch and nothing you can do about it

(01-12-2016, 02:19 AM)BernLock Wrote: Watch again. It doesn't move. Crazy catch and nothing you can do about it

Well the bobble I was talking about does exist and it was incredibly close, but upon further review he had one foot down when it went from his hand to his leg and reestablished possession, then he took one more step in bounds before his before his somersault out of the back of the end zone. It was legit.

Edit: After looking at it again it's questionable to me about whether the ball actually is still in his possession after said transfer from hand to thigh but definitely not indisputable so you'd have to go with the call on the field either way.

(01-12-2016, 02:19 AM)BernLock Wrote: Watch again. It doesn't move. Crazy catch and nothing you can do about it

I imagine you have to have a lot of experience clenching real tight when you have to share a communal shower with a rapist QB.

(01-12-2016, 02:19 AM)BernLock Wrote: Watch again. It doesn't move. Crazy catch and nothing you can do about it

You are wrong.  I've rewatched it 100x in super slow motion on my 120" HD projector and it very clearly rolls the entire time it's behind his leg.  In fact it started coming out which is why I suspect he brought his leg up to pin the ball back.  When his leg comes up so does his foot and you can see the ball get pinned back.  Since it was still moving when he brought his leg up he never had control to get two feet in. 

The fact that Pereira saw it moving confirms it for me.  The refs should have seen the ball rolling and called this incomplete.  This just gets lost from everything else going on.  

(01-12-2016, 02:44 AM)treee Wrote: Well the bobble I was talking about does exist and it was incredibly close, but upon further review he had one foot down when it went from his hand to his leg and reestablished possession, then he took one more step in bounds before his before his somersault out of the back of the end zone. It was legit.

Edit: After looking at it again it's questionable to me about whether the ball actually is still in his possession after said transfer from hand to thigh but definitely not indisputable so you'd have to go with the call on the field either way.

The point at which he controlled the ball happened only when he brought his leg up and pinned the ball to the area behind his knee. You can see it clearly rolling until his leg came up. His foot which happens to be attached to that leg came off the ground and was off the ground when he finally got possession. He only had one foot in after he gained possession. This was clear and Pereira admitted he saw it rolling.

(01-12-2016, 04:13 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: The point at which he controlled the ball happened only when he brought his leg up and pinned the ball to the area behind his knee.  You can see it clearly rolling until his leg came up.  His foot which happens to be attached to that leg came off the ground and was off the ground when he finally got possession.  He only had one foot in after he gained possession.  This was clear and Pereira admitted he saw it rolling.

I just watched it again. You can believe whatever you want, but there's 2 important factors. The first is that is was ruled a TD on the field. I don't fault the ref for this ruling because it's super close even in super slow-mo. The second factor is that even with the slow-mo replay there's no indisputable evidence either way. There's no way a ref worth his salt overturns the call on the field. Hypothetically, if it was ruled incomplete they couldn't overturn it the other way, either. That's how borderline the catch was.

(01-12-2016, 04:09 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: You are wrong.  I've rewatched it 100x in super slow motion on my 120" HD projector and it very clearly rolls the entire time it's behind his leg.  In fact it started coming out which is why I suspect he brought his leg up to pin the ball back.  When his leg comes up so does his foot and you can see the ball get pinned back.  Since it was still moving when he brought his leg up he never had control to get two feet in. 

The fact that Pereira saw it moving confirms it for me.  The refs should have seen the ball rolling and called this incomplete.  This just gets lost from everything else going on.  

Im not wrong. It was called a touchdown. It was a touchdown. Let go of your Homerism bullshit for 2 seconds

(01-12-2016, 05:13 AM)BernLock Wrote: Im not wrong. It was called a touchdown. It was a touchdown. Let go of your Homerism bullshit for 2 seconds

So explain to me how one has possession when it's pinned between two objects and is visibly moving?  Taking it frame by frame you can see the rotation of the ball when he is holding it against his leg. You can see it coming separating from his leg as it is rotating at the same time his leg is coming up.  The leg came up because he was losing the football.  He had to flip because he couldn't put the leg down that was now securing the football.  When that leg came up so did the foot.  Possession was secured after the foot came up and just as his other foot hit the ground.

(01-12-2016, 04:40 AM)treee Wrote: I just watched it again. You can believe whatever you want, but there's 2 important factors. The first is that is was ruled a TD on the field. I don't fault the ref for this ruling because it's super close even in super slow-mo. The second factor is that even with the slow-mo replay there's no indisputable evidence either way. There's no way a ref worth his salt overturns the call on the field. Hypothetically, if it was ruled incomplete they couldn't overturn it the other way, either. That's how borderline the catch was.

There's been plenty of overturned calls regarding catches that were close to the ground based upon whether the ball moved or not. Surely they have the same ability to see this ball moving down his leg rotating until it's secured by the receiver raising his leg. If he had full control there would have been zero reason for him to flip. He secured only when he raised his leg and foot off of the ground. Had the official doing the review take their time and establish exactly when the ball was secured and not moving he would have seen that it was after he took his foot off the ground and pinned it with his leg. Pereira said he saw it spinning so I'm not crazy. The catch wasn't obscured by anyone or anything so there was disputable evidence.