Referee bias for KC has to stop

[Nepa]

(09-17-2024, 06:04 PM)Timanky12 Wrote: After watching the DPI against Anthony, it looked to me that he was jumping up to catch the ball, and the receiver has backing into to him to get in position to catch the ball. The defensive player has just as much right to catch the ball, why was it not offensive PI. Or at least they shouldn’t have called any PI since both players have a right to catch the ball.

Interesting take. I've heard some non-Bengals fans make the same point, that both players had the right to a play on the ball. I thought it was pass interference, but haven't had the heart to watch it again.

[casear2727]

?INSANE STAT?#Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes has had 17 interceptions overturned in his 6-year career.

Tom Brady only had 17 interceptions overturned in his 23-year NFL career.#Ravens QB Lamar Jackson reportedly has only had three interceptions overturned.

(h/t @macbradymuse) pic.twitter.com/XoggBTnumT

— MLFootball (@_MLFootball) September 17, 2024

[KillerGoose]

(09-17-2024, 06:04 PM)Timanky12 Wrote: After watching the DPI against Anthony, it looked to me that he was jumping up to catch the ball, and the receiver has backing into to him to get in position to catch the ball. The defensive player has just as much right to catch the ball, why was it not offensive PI. Or at least they shouldn’t have called any PI since both players have a right to catch the ball.

Part of the rule for PI is that a player “cannot play through the back of another player in an attempt to make a play on the ball;”

I think if Rashee Rice was turned around, we may have gotten a no call as incidental contact can happen if both players are playing the ball. However, Anthony playing through the back of Rice is what got the penalty.

[Timanky12]

(09-17-2024, 07:42 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Part of the rule for PI is that a player “cannot play through the back of another player in an attempt to make a play on the ball;”

I think if Rashee Rice was turned around, we may have gotten a no call as incidental contact can happen if both players are playing the ball. However, Anthony playing through the back of Rice is what got the penalty.

Only because the the player backed into Anthony, he was in position, first.

 How is that any different than someone running forward at you and colliding with you. The defensive player was in position for the INT.  It shouldn’t make any difference if one player is stationary and the other player runs into him, He caused the PI, not the other way around. You can’t cause PI by not moving, if you are contacted by the other player. 

[sloSTI]

I seen a video this morning talking about the PI call, and they were saying, if the roles were reversed and it was a WR jumping on the back of a DB to make a catch, it wouldn't be considered PI.

[KillerGoose]

(09-17-2024, 08:14 PM)Timanky12 Wrote: Only because the the player backed into Anthony, he was in position, first.

 How is that any different than someone running forward at you and colliding with you. The defensive player was in position for the INT.  It shouldn’t make any difference if one player is stationary and the other player runs into him, He caused the PI, not the other way around. You can’t cause PI by not moving, if you are contacted by the other player. 

I don’t agree with your assessment of the play. Anthony wasn’t stationary, he came from about 15 yards back to make the play. They ran into each other and the contact was incidental. However, Anthony plays through his back. You can’t do this before the ball gets there. If he gets there half a step later it’s no big deal, but him playing through the back early is what drew the penalty.

[Destro]

Going out sad.

[Sled21]

I don't really have an issue with the DPI call, my issue is the no call on the offensive line holding, which should have offset the DPI

[*PhilHos*]

(09-17-2024, 07:05 PM)casear2727 Wrote:

?INSANE STAT?#Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes has had 17 interceptions overturned in his 6-year career.

Tom Brady only had 17 interceptions overturned in his 23-year NFL career.#Ravens QB Lamar Jackson reportedly has only had three interceptions overturned.

(h/t @macbradymuse) pic.twitter.com/XoggBTnumT

— MLFootball (@_MLFootball) September 17, 2024

I am not as upset at the DPI on Anthony at the end of the game. To me, it looked like standard DPI. It sucks, but it is what it is. And sure, I'm upset that holding wasn't called on the same play. But, what I'm more upset about was the supposed holding that was called on whomever was covering Kelce on the Mahomes INT. THAT was a bullshit call. Sure, I'm think the AWESOME INT by Cam came later on that now extended drive, but we should be calling out THIS play if we're going to be shitting on the officiating.

[PCB Bengal Fan]

(09-17-2024, 07:05 PM)casear2727 Wrote:

?INSANE STAT?#Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes has had 17 interceptions overturned in his 6-year career.

Tom Brady only had 17 interceptions overturned in his 23-year NFL career.#Ravens QB Lamar Jackson reportedly has only had three interceptions overturned.

(h/t @macbradymuse) pic.twitter.com/XoggBTnumT

— MLFootball (@_MLFootball) September 17, 2024

They want Mahomes to be the face of the league for the next 15 years, so he gets all the calls or lack of calls like the Jordan Rules. I honestly see a big dip in viewership coming in the next decade because of the NFL being so invested in gambling. Close games are what they want, bad officiating is what we get. It's borderline WWE.

[Timanky12]

(09-17-2024, 08:38 PM)sloSTI Wrote: I seen a video this morning talking about the PI call, and they were saying, if the roles were reversed and it was a WR jumping on the back of a DB to make a catch, it wouldn't be considered PI.

The PI rules also state that the defensive must be playing the ball, in order to not be PI. And he was trying to get the INT, so that should eliminate PI. He was playing the ball.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-17-2024, 08:38 PM)sloSTI Wrote: I seen a video this morning talking about the PI call, and they were saying, if the roles were reversed and it was a WR jumping on the back of a DB to make a catch, it wouldn't be considered PI.

I saw them talking about it on NFL Network, and I think it's a good point....and accurate. 

[KillerGoose]

(09-18-2024, 02:35 PM)Timanky12 Wrote: The PI rules also state that the defensive must be playing the ball, in order to not be PI. And he was trying to get the INT, so that should eliminate PI. He was playing the ball.

The defensive rules also state that even if the defensive player is playing the ball but he plays through the back of the receiver, it is PI. 

Quote:ARTICLE 2. PROHIBITED ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR

Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

1. Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch;
2. Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball;
3. Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass;
4. Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball;
5. Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;
6. Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving; or
7. Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating separation.
   

Link.

Simply playing the ball isn't a blanket defense for PI in any situation. 

[*rfaulk34*]

How are we even questioning whether that was a legit DPI?

He played right through the receiver, before the ball arrived, in the middle of the field with time left on the clock. We want that called 100% of the time on a Bengals receiver. 

[*ochocincos*]

It's easy for people to believe there's bias based on some timely calls that always seem to favor one team or another.
When Brady was in NE, it always felt like things went NE's way.
A timely penalty toward the opponent, a no-call for the Patriots.
Now the Chiefs are the new dynasty and fans of opposing teams wanna see them fall.
It doesn't help the media and especially announcers gush over Mahomes, Andy Reid, and the Chiefs.

With that said, there's going to be a way to force the bias to stop if there is actually bias.
There won't be enough decline in viewership to cause any changes to occur.

So I just go into every season in recent years expecting Chiefs (or Bills) to make the Super Bowl for the AFC and anything else is a pleasant surprise.

[PCB Bengal Fan]

(09-18-2024, 03:39 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How are we even questioning whether that was a legit DPI?

He played right through the receiver, before the ball arrived, in the middle of the field with time left on the clock. We want that called 100% of the time on a Bengals receiver. 

Like the 1 that was'nt called when Burrow threw to Chase in the endzone on their 1st drive. Clear hold/ pass interference & no call that lead to 3 points instead of 6 or 7.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-19-2024, 01:37 PM)PCB Bengal Fan Wrote: Like the 1 that was'nt called when Burrow threw to Chase in the endzone on their 1st drive. Clear hold/ pass interference & no call that lead to 3 points instead of 6 or 7.

If you're talking about the crosser that McDuffie knocked away, they're not even remotely close to the same. I wouldn't even call the DPI. Just a good play by the DB. My instant reaction to the play was that Chase needed to attack the ball harder because McDuffie is going to be in his pocket all game. Chase allowed the ball to come to him.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-18-2024, 04:35 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's easy for people to believe there's bias based on some timely calls that always seem to favor one team or another.
When Brady was in NE, it always felt like things went NE's way.
A timely penalty toward the opponent, a no-call for the Patriots.
Now the Chiefs are the new dynasty and fans of opposing teams wanna see them fall.
It doesn't help the media and especially announcers gush over Mahomes, Andy Reid, and the Chiefs.

With that said, there's going to be a way to force the bias to stop if there is actually bias.
There won't be enough decline in viewership to cause any changes to occur.

So I just go into every season in recent years expecting Chiefs (or Bills) to make the Super Bowl for the AFC and anything else is a pleasant surprise.

"Roughing the Brady"!

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

Never forget......

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/oRurTXAZSRe21ByP/?mibextid=xfxF2i

[SunsetBengal]

(09-18-2024, 04:35 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's easy for people to believe there's bias based on some timely calls that always seem to favor one team or another.
When Brady was in NE, it always felt like things went NE's way.
A timely penalty toward the opponent, a no-call for the Patriots.
Now the Chiefs are the new dynasty and fans of opposing teams wanna see them fall.
It doesn't help the media and especially announcers gush over Mahomes, Andy Reid, and the Chiefs.

With that said, there's going to be a way to force the bias to stop if there is actually bias.
There won't be enough decline in viewership to cause any changes to occur.

So I just go into every season in recent years expecting Chiefs (or Bills) to make the Super Bowl for the AFC and anything else is a pleasant surprise.

In the years before the targeting rules were enacted made a point of emphasis and the head officiating crew in NY reviewing things live, it seemed like after every Bengals/Steelers game there were several no calls on vicious hits by Steeler defenders that left the Bengal fan base claiming officiating bias.