No announcement yet.

why do we even bother challegning calls

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • why do we even bother challegning calls

    If I was Martz I wouldn't waste another timeout challenging a call. They almost never win a challenge and the system the NFL uses is stupid anyway. The referees will use any means necessary to make sure their butts are covered, whether it be not enough evidence to overturn a call, an inadvertant whistle, whatever. Stupid, stupid, stupid system. I haven't seen zebras this protected since that wild kingdom show on the serengeti (over in Africa) where they were on the refuge and lions or pochers weren't allowed. Did everyone see our good buddy, the Commish, in the stands today?

  • #2
    I wouldn't have minded so much if he had challenged one that would have meant something. The hit by Fletcher on Vick in the 4th that has Polley taking it all the way in but ruled incomplete should've been challenged. I guess we had the game by then, so no worries.


    • #3
      On the contrary, Martz challenged a call during the Tampa Bay game and won. The call was a fumble on Warner during the first half. The officials gave the ball back to the Rams so they could punt.

      Forget the fact that Tampa Bay ended up winning that game or all the other turn overs that lead up to that defeat...Anyone who has watched football any length of time knows that the call should have stayed a fumble. It was obvious that Warner was moving to protect the ball, not pass.

      I can't even believe anyone is complaining about bad calls for the Rams! They kicked that **** out of the Falcons!! I have seen bad calls all year and most recently the dumbass who got ran over during the Saints game! The officials have more then proved me right that they are unworthy of all the money they are being paid.

      My point is that the Rams are not the only ones getting the good AND bad calls. Maybe one should count their blessings that their team is as high up on the Superbowl lists as they are with 30+ turnovers. Martz has some serious issues to deal with and is down playing them way too much.
      Last edited by ; -12-03-2001, 05:00 PM.


      • #4
        calls against Rams

        You're right, Rams have gotten the benefit of a few calls, but they have been on the short-end of the stick for the most part. That wasn't even what my message was really about. The point of the message, which I think was missed, is the fact that referees don't look at replay as a chance to right a wrong. They look at like it's admitting a mistake was made. Follow me? If you are going to jump on someone's message try and attack the point. If I'm wrong on making this, then sorry for the misunderstanding.


        • #5
          First of all, Mizzou has finally taken control of this game against SLU. Good thing, go Tigers.

          Now, about the Rams. Sometimes, I think Martz does it to rest his players. Take it like a timeout. He calls them sometimes at the weirdest moments, and sometimes he does it for fun you would think.:ram: :shield:

          9-2 Baby. Just win this game at home this week


          • #6
            It's kind of funny running across this topic this morning, as I wrote the following on my site regarding the general topic of reviews this morning.

            Did anyone beside the official actually see pass interference on Antonio Bryant last night? Looked like pretty good defense to me. I guess the determining factor was we don't have sound on the field. Rumor has it that Bryant puffed up his cheeks and blew really hard on Freeman to cause that penalty. Speaking of referees, lets do away with instant replay on the field and this challenge stuff. Basically a guy sits in the booth for a 60 minute game and his job lasts exactly 4 minutes. Might as well keep him busy for the whole game, even though I realize he will be exhausted after the game. If a play is questionable, review it in the booth. This challenge stuff is ridiculous, especially for obvious stuff.
            Let the coaches keep the 2 challenges per game they have, because most of the stuff they challenge should be reviewed automatically anyway

            As far as the Rams challenges it goes both ways. I thought Martz showed class in not challenging the Polley play.


            • #7
              my point

              why challenge a call when the referees don't want to reverse their call? When they look into that overpriced, ill-used piece of hardware to see a questionable call over and over until the allotted 1:30 has elapsed what do you think they are looking for? The commissioner would say anything that would prove a call needs to be reversed. No way. They are looking to find evidence to make their position stand pat. Once they find it they walk out, pound their chest, and say I'm right and the stupid coach, the stupid fans, or any other intity disputing my rule is wrong. Bow before the king of the gridiron...I am zebra, here me roar. If nothing stands out to prove they were right, they step out and give the ol' "not enough evidence to over-rule the call on the field" passage. Shame, isn't it. We've just wasted 1:30 on something we know isn't getting reversed.


              Related Topics


              • Guest's Avatar
                You make the call
                by Guest
                Maybe we should poll this. How many would have challenged.

                Lets say the other team kicks off to your team and one of your ST bone heads steps out at the one you don’t have the advantage to see it on TV but regardless you think it was the right call would you challenge it. (Please read the following before jumping to conclusions on what should be done).

                The challenge slows things down and the offense does not have to rush out on to the field cold and start at their own one when the 9ers D is all pumped up because they get to start the game with the team pinned at the one yard line. As a coach I might do that to start a game to calm every one down make the other teams players that might not have got a good look at it set there and wonder and take some of their momentum away. If I did that I don’t think I would come out and tell the media I was trying to take their momentum away and slow down the game because I would not want my team thinking I did not believe in them rushing out there pinned at the one and making the right decision.

                What if that team came out after the challenge poised and drove the ball down the field? Or what if the team would have not taken the timeout rushed onto the field against a pumped up defense and an offense thinking they had to do too much and they fumbled it or thrown an INT it would have been 7-0 9ers on the first play.

                Maybe a coach just wants a timeout to talk it over because a fumble, sack, INT, or failed run would turn into points for the defense. If you are going to call a timeout to talk it over why not challenge the play if you are going to burn a time out anyway.

                I don’t know why any one would even question it really its not like its 3rd quarter and the team is down wasting timeouts foolishly. Maybe if the defense is pumped up and offense is down the defense gets a score if you don’t take the timeout. That timeout costs nothing and maybe even helps.

                We came out of it and marched the ball down the field.

                I would challenge.
                -09-17-2005, 07:55 AM
              • jdpbmo
                don't blame Martz
                by jdpbmo
                Well, where to begin. First, Martz didn't commit the 8 turnovers. Second, he didn't jump offsides with 2 minutes to play to seal the doom. How can a team be so utterly, utterly amazing in one half and look like the bad news bears in football gear the next? And we were stupid enough to have the false illusions of going undefeated, 19-0. I don't mean to speak for others, but it popped into my head a time or two. What was Warner doing today? Did he forget who he was supposed to throw to? And then when he was on target the receivers dropped the ball. And when he was on target and the receivers caught it, they soon fumbled it. I would much rather lose a game like we played against NYG than lose like we did today. As bad as they played, they would have won the game. There is no doubt in my mind that we were going to drive the field and either score a game-winning touchdown or at least a field goal to tie it up and send it to overtime where we would win.....if they just don't jump offsides. I would fine McCleon $1 million dollars...not for the mistake, but for being stupid. If he stays on side, NO kicks the field goal and we get the ball back for the game winning doubt about it. It's a shame we have a game like this. NO deserves the credit for their comback and the Rams deserve exactly what they got-a loss. Martz can only call the plays, he can't throw it, catch it, hold onto it, or tackle. over and out jd
                -10-28-2001, 06:14 PM
              • jdpbmo
                reviewing calls from the booth
                by jdpbmo
                Okay, enough is enough. I can usually sit by and hold my piece, but I am so tired of this idiotic process the NFL uses to review calls. It isn't that I'm against the reviewing of questionable calls. I am 100 % for it. I want the call to be right. A noncall or wrong call shouldn't cost a team the game. It all came to a head in the Detroit/GB game when they didn't bother reviewing the touchdown late in the game. How crazy was that? If I was in charge of that part of the game, there would be some people looking for work tomorrow. My main problem with the process is that you are asking officials that make a call, or maybe don't make a call, to reverse their own decision. You are asking them to second-guess themselves or perhaps members of their crew. Now we can sit there and say "well, so what if they have to reverse a call to get it right". Hey, news flash, these officials have egos. They don't want to come out and say "sorry everyone, we just blew that last call". So they look at the replay to satisfy us, then come back and say "indisputable evidence to reverse the call on the field". That's a load of crap. There have been plenty of calls that they show that need to be reversed, but until you get a seperate crew of 2 or 3 people in the booth who do nothing but review a call when it's challenged, you will continue to see this craziness happen. Why wouldn't you have people not associated with the officiating crew reveiwing these calls? If you did, you would find a number of calls overturned when it's obvious they are wrong. You would find calls that are legitimate standing as good calls. People would be satisfied for the most part. Except for the Z E B R A S. They will find they are making a call or two incorrectly in important situations. But you know what else you are doing? You are taking some responsibility from them. What does everyone think? jd
                -11-25-2001, 08:37 PM
              • djccon
                No Whining!
                by djccon
                I haven't had the heart to read a whole lot about what others are saying about yesterday's game, but I'm tired of "the official's call." from what little I've heard. For ny to even SUGGEST Garnes didn't grab Canidate just dumbfounds me. How far did his jersey need to be stretched for them to feel the call was justified? Add to that, the possession on which they got their 3rd field goal - on which one of the ny DBs was hammering on Holt's arms WITHOUT LOOKING BACK FOR THE BALL. Where the he** was THAT call? There are FOUR more points on the board for us.

                I suggest ny should be THRILLED what the refs DIDN'T do to them. What about the repeated headlocks placed on Wistrom and Little that were NEVER called? The tackle where the guy grabbed Holt's helmet to pull him down - ummmmm, sorry folks, but you cannot use ANY part of a ball carrier's helmet in an attempt to tackle the runner - remember Fletcher getting that called against him (using the back of Deuce Staley's helmet to pull him down) in Philly?

                Props to the Giants and the scheme they put in place to throttle the Rams down. Don't cheapen by whining about it being taken away from you. You had as much given to you as you had taken away.

                As for us Rams fans, we all know we escaped by skin of our teeth. However, when you play a very GOOD team, play without your A game, and still win...well, that takes a GREAT team.
                -10-15-2001, 06:45 PM
              • sbramfan
                End of the Game Play Call
                by sbramfan
                OK, I know there are bigger fish to fry today and unfortunately Mike Martz is "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" on this one, but......

                When the Rams got the ball with <1:00 to play and then there was an offsides call, which put the ball from the 38 to like the 33 (I think), was anyone here thinking that maybe they should try to pound up a few more yards into solid field goal territory, and then take a few pops into the end zone?

                FYI, I actually was one of those people who was OK with taking the FG in the Carolina playoff game, because when you somehow find yourself in a position to tie a game that you haven't been in for the other entire 59 minutes of the game, I would think you would want to at least tie it up.

                Realizing that football wouldn't be fun to me if the Rams and Mike Martz weren't a go for it type of team, but somehow I was stoked that they were almost in FG territory after that punt and remember thinking that bad things could happen if you try to force this into a TD, when a FG would tie it up. It's not like the defense was getting completely ripped if they had to risk the coin toss.

                Anyway, as for that INT, good teams seem to get luck, and lately the Rams don't seem to get the bounces like they used to, so I'm thinking that says something right there?
                -09-12-2005, 12:26 AM