I will say the steelers played better most of the game and were the team more likely to be deserving of the win. But I also wish that when the steelers win,they could do so without a controversial call.

The Bengals may not have pulled that game out, there were a lot of "ifs" still left even if they did retain possession, but they still should have had the opportunity to stay on offense.

In this game, 3 knees made all the difference:

1. Uzomah's knee was down in the back of the endzone....1 knee = 2 feet. Should have been a TD.

2. Boyd's knee was clearly down before...

3. ...harrison's knee knocked the ball out.

If those three knees are called properly, when last we looked, the Bengals are deep in steeler territory down by 4 and driving.

I still think the outcome of the game was correct. So congrats to the steelers on the win, but for everyone's sake, whoever wins the next meeting, let's do it without controversy!

(09-18-2016, 06:20 PM)Beaker Wrote: I will say the steelers played better most of the game and were the team more likely to be deserving of the win. But I also wish that when the steelers win,they could do so without a controversial call.

The Bengals may not have pulled that game out, there were a lot of "ifs" still left even if they did retain possession, but they still should have had the opportunity to stay on offense.

In this game, 3 knees made all the difference:

1. Uzomah's knee was down in the back of the endzone....1 knee = 2 feet. Should have been a TD.

2. Boyd's knee was clearly down before...

3. ...harrison's knee knocked the ball out.

If those three knees are called properly, when last we looked, the Bengals are deep in steeler territory down by 4 and driving.

I still think the outcome of the game was correct. So congrats to the steelers on the win, but for everyone's sake, whoever wins the next meeting, let's do it without controversy!

That's actually two calls, not three.  The push out absolutely looked like an oob play in real action.  If you want to blame anyone on this play blame the Bengals coaching staff.  As for the 'fumble', I personally don't think it was a fumble but I don't know that there was enough to overturn the initial call.  Definitely close, in any event, as you admit, the Steelers played a better game and the better team won.

I was watching randomly on an iPhone so I either missed or didn't get a good look at all 3 knees. Didn't see the non TD call but shouldn't your coach challenge that call?

I thought Boyd as down, but I think that you could not conclusively tell from any angle if the ball was moving before the knee touched.

But I was watching on a 3" screen so there's that.

(09-18-2016, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's actually two calls, not three.  

I said 3 knees....2 calls. And I did acknowledge the outcome was likely proper.

(09-18-2016, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's actually two calls, not three.  The push out absolutely looked like an oob play in real action.  If you want to blame anyone on this play blame the Bengals coaching staff.  As for the 'fumble', I personally don't think it was a fumble but I don't know that there was enough to overturn the initial call.  Definitely close, in any event, as you admit, the Steelers played a better game and the better team won.

How was there not enough evidence? If you slow it down you can clearly see the ball in his hands when his knee hit the ground. Dont give me that crap. 

(09-18-2016, 07:18 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: How was there not enough evidence? If you slow it down you can clearly see the ball in his hands when his knee hit the ground. Dont give me that crap. 

If a knee is responsible for knocking a ball out and another knee hits the ground before the first knee makes contact...why is it necessary to even see the ball?

(09-18-2016, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's actually two calls, not three.  The push out absolutely looked like an oob play in real action.  If you want to blame anyone on this play blame the Bengals coaching staff.  As for the 'fumble', I personally don't think it was a fumble but I don't know that there was enough to overturn the initial call.  Definitely close, in any event, as you admit, the Steelers played a better game and the better team won.

Yep.  Marvin said he "was told he was out".  In a close game like that they should have challenged.

(09-18-2016, 07:18 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: How was there not enough evidence? If you slow it down you can clearly see the ball in his hands when his knee hit the ground. Dont give me that crap. 

(09-18-2016, 07:42 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If a knee is responsible for knocking a ball out and another knee hits the ground before the first knee makes contact...why is it necessary to even see the ball?

Every single person I have talked to agrees that was not a fumble.  If replay cannot overturn that there is no need for replay.

Other than that the Bengals deserved to lose.

Oh and the officiating was pretty horrible both ways.  There was one play in the end zone where the officials cold/should have called DPI twice on the same player.  But hey, "let them play" I guess. 

(09-18-2016, 08:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  Marvin said he "was told he was out".  In a close game like that they should have challenged.



Every single person I have talked to agrees that was not a fumble.  If replay cannot overturn that there is no need for replay.

Other than that the Bengals deserved to lose.

Oh and the officiating was pretty horrible both ways.  There was one play in the end zone where the officials cold/should have called DPI twice on the same player.  But hey, "let them play" I guess. 

There's no hope for the officiating to ever get better. 

Those that get the benefit of the doubt will continue to and those that don't, won't. 

Simple physics shows just how bad of a call that "fumble" was.

For projectiles:

S = Vit + 1/2at^2

S is displacement, Vi is initial velocity, t is time, a is gravity.

Watching the play again you can see there is a decent amount of time the knee is down before the ball appears (and moving at a relatively fast velocity). If the velocity is high that means time is low to cover the distance it did in the video. I'd love to know what fps they were showing the slow-mo in just so I could actually calculate an estimate to when the ball comes loose.

Intuitively speaking, everyone knows it wasn't a fumble. But for some reason the refs called it a fumble on the field, and during a large portion of Boyds descent the ball's security is not discernible.

(09-18-2016, 08:33 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There's no hope for the officiating to ever get better. 

Those that get the benefit of the doubt will continue to and those that don't, won't. 

Both teams got plenty of benefit of the doubt today.  NFL officials have zero consistency from game to game or crew to crew.

(09-18-2016, 08:33 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There's no hope for the officiating to ever get better. 

Those that get the benefit of the doubt will continue to and those that don't, won't. 

Isn't the difference between those who get the benefit and those who don't the same as who won vs who lost? If you lose, you didn't get the benefit. If you win you did. I looked over a Steelers board and they were talking about missed calls that benefitted Cincinnati, but there wasn't much made of it because they won. It was mostly dismissed with an 'oh well'. I guarantee that if Cincinnati won today there would be a lot of discussion over those same calls. 

(09-18-2016, 08:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Both teams got plenty of benefit of the doubt today.  NFL officials have zero consistency from game to game or crew to crew.

Except when it came to a knee down in the endzone and a ball that was supposedly fumbled.

(09-18-2016, 08:50 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Isn't the difference between those who get the benefit and those who don't the same as who won vs who lost? If you lose, you didn't get the benefit. If you win you did. I looked over a Steelers board and they were talking about missed calls that benefitted Cincinnati, but there wasn't much made of it because they won. It was mostly dismissed with an 'oh well'. I guarantee that if Cincinnati won today there would be a lot of discussion over those same calls. 

No doubt it swings both ways "if".

When you win more, you seem to get more favorable calls. When you don't, you don't. It's not just Pitt. NE is the same way. 

You can't ignore facts. When a call is wrong, it's simply wrong. What it comes down to is who the call benefitted more. 

When it comes to knees down or not, Pitt benefitted twice to the Bengals zero today.

Holding, PI, all that shit, i don't care about. That's all just bad officiating. Game and momentum changing plays are what i'm talking about. 50/50 calls just don't go the Bengals way and it's amplified when it's against a team like Pitt.

(09-18-2016, 08:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Except when it came to a knee down in the endzone and a ball that was supposedly fumbled.

The endzone catch is on the coach and the people in the box supporting him.

Marvin said he was told the receiver was out.

The fumble call blows my mind.  Totally expected that to be overturned.

(09-18-2016, 09:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: The endzone catch is on the coach and the people in the box supporting him.

Marvin said he was told the receiver was out.

The fumble call blows my mind.  Totally expected that to be overturned.

Yep. Marv and his staff can't even get it right when they have it in their own hands.

(09-18-2016, 09:00 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: No doubt it swings both ways "if".

When you win more, you seem to get more favorable calls. When you don't, you don't. It's not just Pitt. NE is the same way. 

You can't ignore facts. When a call is wrong, it's simply wrong. What it comes down to is who the call benefitted more. 

When it comes to knees down or not, Pitt benefitted twice to the Bengals zero today.

Holding, PI, all that shit, i don't care about. That's all just bad officiating. Game and momentum changing plays are what i'm talking about. 50/50 calls just don't go the Bengals way and it's amplified when it's against a team like Pitt.

It only seems that you get more favorable calls because you won. If Pittsburgh would've lost, it wouldn't be that way.

I agree about holding/PI/ and all that shit. 

And as far as the first knee, shouldn't you be more pissed off at Marvin Lewis for not challenging the call than at the refs for missing it? 

The second knee, you've got a point. The only thing that I can think of is that the view of the ball is unclear on the way down and you cannot, without a doubt, say that it wasn't moving before the knee hit. 

(09-18-2016, 09:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: It only seems that you get more favorable calls because you won. If Pittsburgh would've lost, it wouldn't be that way.

I agree about holding/PI/ and all that shit. 

And as far as the first knee, shouldn't you be more pissed off at Marvin Lewis for not challenging the call than at the refs for missing it? 

The second knee, you've got a point. The only thing that I can think of is that the view of the ball is unclear on the way down and you cannot, without a doubt, say that it wasn't moving before the knee hit. 

Here's part of the point i'm making.

Take a second and think back to the last time Pitt lost to Cincy and there were a couple questionable calls that went against Pitt. 

Can't think of a single one, can you?

(09-18-2016, 09:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Here's part of the point i'm making.

Take a second and think back to the last time Pitt lost to Cincy and there were a couple questionable calls that went against Pitt. 

Can't think of a single one, can you?

Nothing off of the top of my head, but I guarantee that if I went back and watched it I could find plenty of "missed" holding calls and some questionable PI calls/non calls. 

(09-18-2016, 09:38 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Nothing off of the top of my head, but I guarantee that if I went back and watched it I could find plenty of "missed" holding calls and some questionable PI calls/non calls. 

That wouldn't have affected the outcome of the game and would be negated by the missed calls on Pitt. 

We already established the bad officiating. I'm talking about losing games with questionable calls.

Like i said, and you confirmed. You can't think of one, let alone more than one in less than a calendar year.