It was one of the most poorly officiated games I've seen in a while. Luckily, the most crucial penalty was called correctly.
Meh, does this guy have eyes of his own? First off, the Scott play can be clearly seen on the network feed. Why does he say there was no replay available? I discuss this call in the Refs/Vegas thread. Secondly, Dierdorf is decidedly anti Jets, always has been, but this guy takes his word for everything? If he is going to write an article, shouldn't he at least review the game on DVR replays? I did... and didn't get paid a dime for it.
Dierdorf is one of the worst announcers out there and definately not a Jet lover from all I've heard over the years.... so why should anyone agree him and especially the NY Times? I heard all this outcry after our game @ Mile High that a PI penalty should be reduced to a 15 yard maximum advantage. While agreeing in the past (and I most proabably still do), let's question why this arises when the Jets are on the advantage of this call. If it was Brady or P. Manning, there would be no talk of it.
When that Holmes flag got thrown at the end of the game, I actually waited to get excited until I saw that it was actually DEFENSIVE PI because the officiating was that horrific throughout.
Why is this guy not going into depth about all the penalties that were really non penalties that were called on the Jets? Is there some unwritten rule about questioning the officiating when it goes against the Jets. Could you imagine if this was the Colts and all these calls went against them? There'd be a 10/17 Commision established to find out who was behind this.
Kudos to the NYT for at least raising this issue, since most media outlets want to ignore what went on with the penalties. Thunderbird - you should copy and paste your analysis into this thread. It was excellent.
Yeah when I read it I didn't really understand why he assumes Dierdorf's word is law. It would be nice if people actually paid attention to what happened in this game. What happened in this game shouldn't be happening in the NFL, I think it's big enough business that refs should actually have some idea of what they're talking about.
Agree 100%, though it should be noted that the article was from the Times First Down Blog, which is different quality and talent level than their regular writers for the paper. They seem to take the "blog" aspect very seriously, meaning the writing is as uneven as anything else you'll find in the blogosphere and worse than probably any seriously dedicated Jets blog..
So did I , I didnt say a word until I heard the ref, I had a feeling it was going to be on Holmes. The Refs were beyond horrible Sunday.
What do you mean in a while...don't you mean since week 1 when the officiating was HORRIBLE and cost the Jets a "W" against Balty??
Disagree...they earned some of them...but there were a couple crucial ones that they did not. I've watched the game 10 times frame by frame...some were blatantly bad. So bad it's difference between 6-0 and 5-1.
It is hysterically funny that Hill could seriously say that the only thing he could have done was grab Holmes' facemask and twist it while going down.
Spotting the ball where the foul occurs on PI has been the rule for as long as I can remember. I have always considered that a compromise of sorts. We are after all talking about someone breaking the rules, and presumably that the other team would have benefitted if that had not occurred (hence the requirement that the ball be catchable). Placing the ball at the spot means, of course, that there are no yards after a catch that somewhere between more likely than not and probably would have been caught. And normally there are yac's. If PI occurs well down the field, spotting the ball as a fifteen yard penalty does not come close to making the team that did not commit the penalty whole. I can understand that ADDING yardage beyond the spot becomes too speculative, in terms of compensating for their being no yards after the catch. But there are none where PI occurs and the receiver does not catch the ball, so.... Add it all up, and placing the ball at the spot is really a compromise. If the alternative of a (mere) fifteen yard penalty were enforced, defenders defending long passes would have an incentive to foul if they thought there was some prospect of the receiver catching it. There's some incentive already on that, but it would be much worse. So there are good reasons why the rule is as it is.
