(10-07-2015, 02:04 AM)2ndHalfAdjustment Wrote: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000551505/Blandino-breaks-down-batted-ball-ruling

Blandino breaks down the play and why it was not reviewable.  States the fact that penalties such can not be added to plays like this.  

That's all fine and dandy, but if thats the case Blandino, why were refs allowed to add a personal foul penalty after Marvin's challenge last week that was not called on the field until after they saw the replay?...

You don't expect the NFL to do things consistently, do you?

Reviewable or not they blew the call.  And they have no excuse other than "Well, it happens.  Sorry."

(10-06-2015, 11:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There needs to be real consequences for these officials.

Hochuli should have been fired for blowing the Chargers game years ago. Then his antics with Cam this wouldn't have even happened.

They were better off with the replacements. They should have just let the refs stay on strike and let the replacements get better.

I remember when ESPN would make a montage of every wrong call from every game with the replacement refs. Of course, as soon as the regular refs returned they went back to covering for the league. Plenty of game deciding bad calls happen every season, ESPN ignores them all unless one really picks up steam - like this one.

(10-06-2015, 11:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They were better off with the replacements.   They should have just let the refs stay on strike and let the replacements get better.

I understand criticizing refs.  But this comment is ridiculous.

(10-06-2015, 02:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes and no. 

It would have rolled out for a touchback, HOWEVER, Wright messed up and the penalty should have been called. It doesn't matter if the flag had nothing to do with what would have happened. If you break the rules, it should be called. We are assuming the trajectory of the ball. We are most likely correct, but we do not know because Wright messed up.

There's a reason for the phrase "that's the way the ball bounces."  Because it can be unpredictable.  And the thing is - now we won't really know that.  Should've been flagged.

(10-06-2015, 12:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He should have just grabbed it.

I had the Seahawks D in my big money league and I kept flipping out thinking that I was going to lose by one point because I would have gotten two if he had recovered the fumble.b 

That's a screwed up rule all the way around. A Redskin running back fumbled the ball just short of the goal out of bounds(this year) as it passed through the endzone. In that case, it's a turnover spotted on the 20, just as it would have been if either the Seahawk defender recovered the fumble which he could have easily done, or the ball rolled out of bounds on it's own. I think the whole rule is screwed up, if it's fumbled short of the goal (even if it rolls through the endzone) it should go back to the offensive team at the spot of the fumble; I can see not advancing it to a TD , but a touchback....really??? People are crying about this decision, and rightfully so; but they're really crying about the wrong thing, the rule itself needs changed. In other news, they asked some Patriots player about it, and he knew it was an illegal bat; said they practiced that very play. I'll bet good ole Marvin would have been pretty clueless had it happened to us.

(10-08-2015, 09:12 PM)Bengalsrob Wrote: That's a screwed up rule all the way around. A Redskin running back fumbled the ball just short of the goal out of bounds(this year) as it passed through the endzone. In that case, it's a turnover spotted on the 20, just as it would have been if either the Seahawk defender recovered the fumble which he could have easily done, or the ball rolled out of bounds on it's own. I think the whole rule is screwed up, if it's fumbled short of the goal (even if it rolls through the endzone) it should go back to the offensive team at the spot of the fumble; I can see not advancing it to a TD , but a touchback....really??? People are crying about this decision, and rightfully so; but they're really crying about the wrong thing, the rule itself needs changed. In other news, they asked some Patriots player about it, and he knew it was an illegal bat; said they practiced that very play. I'll bet good ole Marvin would have been pretty clueless had it happened to us.

I disagree with it going back to the offense because the end zone is the other team's property, so fumbling it into their territory and it going out-of-bounds (if it would have on its own) means that it's the defense's ball.  Protect what's yours and protect the ball, that's football.

A player messes up and fumbles the ball to the defense, and fumbling it into their territory should be treated the same as fumbling it to a defender.

(10-09-2015, 03:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I disagree with it going back to the offense because the end zone is the other team's property, so fumbling it into their territory and it going out-of-bounds (if it would have on its own) means that it's the defense's ball.  Protect what's yours and protect the ball, that's football.

A player messes up and fumbles the ball to the defense, and fumbling it into their territory should be treated the same as fumbling it to a defender.

So if a player fumbles the ball and it goes out of his own end zone then the offense should get it back instead of it being a safety because that end zone belongs to the offense?

does it seem possible that the seahawks got no OL holding calls? lol i though the refs were gonna make this game a lot harder for us after 1 qtr but they calmed down.

(10-12-2015, 12:07 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: does it seem possible that the seahawks got no OL holding calls? lol i though the refs were gonna make this game a lot harder for us after 1 qtr but they calmed down.

They were called for it once...in OT.

http://www.nflpenalties.com/game/seattle-seahawks-at-cincinnati-bengals-10-11-2015