What about the Refs? -- Gap?

[RamWraith]

Was it just me or did the Refs look like they were in preseason form Friday night? There was really marginal calls.

--Holts catch
--The QB hit by Lewis
--A couple of phantom pass interferences that went against the Skins
--Hands to the face

[HUbison]

Holt's catch and D-Lew's hit were the worst and in that order.

D-Lew did not hit Ramsey late. I can't even believe the flag ever came out of the pocket on that one. But it's purely judgement from the aspect of timing so I won't complain too much.

But Holt's non-catch was the most ridiculous call I've seen in some time. Not even instance replay could surpass the official's incompetence on that one.

[gap]

Was it just me or did the Refs look like they were in preseason form Friday night? There was really marginal calls.

--Holts catch
--The QB hit by Lewis
--A couple of phantom pass interferences that went against the Skins
--Hands to the face

First off, the hands to the face is hard to call, as fox dropped the ball with lousy camera work. The closest thing I saw to "hand to the face" was as much or more offensive holding. If the official was throwing the flag at the one area I could see, he did the RAMS a huge disservice for not throwing a his hat and having off-setting penalties.

gap

[afrightertoo]

Was it just me or did the Refs look like they were in preseason form Friday night? There was really marginal calls.

--Holts catch
--The QB hit by Lewis
--A couple of phantom pass interferences that went against the Skins
--Hands to the face

There will be more than once when the refs miss a call. All I ask is that they keep the calls balanced and err on the side of fair play.

Holt's catch? Once it went to replay, there had to be "conclusive evidence" to overturn the on the field decision. The camera angle did not afford any one the ability to see if there was space between Holt's toe and the ground. Just because his toe was pointed down didn't conclusively demonstrate that he was dragging it along the turf. There you have another reason to install natural grass again ... if he did indeed drag the foot on the ground, the ground would most likely have been disturbed and some sort of indentation would have been left along the length of the drag. But, conclusive? I think not.

The hit by Lewis? It does boggle my mind how any ref thinks an object in motion can abruptly stop or change direction if it isn't a UFO.

[RamWraith]

Under them same lines I have a question then. Did they NOT go to review whether the ball was bobbled or not, as that was the original call. If so; I thought having control of the ball was at the ref's discretion and not reviewable under rules.

Holt's catch? Once it went to replay, there had to be "conclusive evidence" to overturn the on the field decision. The camera angle did not afford any one the ability to see if there was space between Holt's toe and the ground. Just because his toe was pointed down didn't conclusively demonstrate that he was dragging it along the turf. There you have another reason to install natural grass again ... if he did indeed drag the foot on the ground, the ground would most likely have been disturbed and some sort of indentation would have been left along the length of the drag. But, conclusive? I think not.

[afrightertoo]

Under them same lines I have a question then. Did they NOT go to review whether the ball was bobbled or not, as that was the original call. If so; I thought having control of the ball was at the ref's discretion and not reviewable under rules.

Well you've got me there. I thought they went to replay to see whether his feet were inbounds ... I only remember it being called incomplete, not why.

[Nick]

I'm not clear on the rules of that challenge either. It seemed clear to me that Holt made the catch, although I suppose I can understand that the replay didn't supply conclusive evidence to support it.

Still, you have to wonder how many of these questionable calls don't get overturned because the officials don't want to admit to their whiffing on the call in real time. I mean, they said he was bobbling the ball and he clearly wasn't. By that logic, I would think they'd have to rule it a catch. But who knows, nowadays.

[afrightertoo]

Still, you have to wonder how many of these questionable calls don't get overturned because the officials don't want to admit to their whiffing on the call in real time.

I think it is a fair question. It implies collusion but it is pretty rare to have refs publically argue with one another regarding what they've seen and called. Sure you have a "meeting of the minds" once in a while but it seems like few and far between.

[Nick]

I think it is a fair question. It implies collusion but it is pretty rare to have refs publically argue with one another regarding what they've seen and called. Sure you have a "meeting of the minds" once in a while but it seems like few and far between.

A coach challenging a call is basically telling a referee, "I think you messed up that call to the point where I'm willing to wager a time out on it," and it's hard for me to believe that if a play is questionable enough, some ref isn't going to side with his original call so that he doesn't get blamed for being wrong later. Although, this is all purely speculation.