(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({ google_ad_client: "ca-pub-3070301786099382", enable_page_level_ads: true });
Football Zebras
CallsQuick calls: Week 8

Quick calls: Week 8

week8You can follow our coverage on Twitter, and we will also post here some notable calls and describe some of the complicated rulings of the weekend.

If you see something interesting, confusing, or controversial in this week’s games, let’s us know by giving us the quarter and time (if known) and what happened in the comments section below or tweet us.


[liveblog]

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

8 thoughts on “Quick calls: Week 8

  1. When we they find refs that know what they are doing out there. They are really bad today against the Miami dolphins. 3 very bad calls against the dolphins today.even the announcers can’t believe how bad the calls are. Get someone out there that is not biased. They really suck.

  2. Here’s the elaboration you requested: http://www.thephinsider.com/2013/10/27/5035336/dolphins-vs-patriots-final-score-miami-17-patriots-27#

    BTW – your comment above in which you cite the rule for “batting” assumes that Olivier Vernon, in fact, “batted” the ball. Upon what do you base your conclusion? If you watch the play, you will note his fingers “curling” back toward his outstretched body as if trying, but ultimately, failing to haul in the loose ball. Logic dictates that if he were trying to swat or bat the ball away, his fingers would move in the opposite direction, that is, away from his body and toward the ball.

    Perhaps the fact that David Boston, the “roid-raging” former WR who failed miserably as a Miami Dolphin and was cut by the team, is the son of the Line Judge, Byron Boston, who appears to have made the call on the “batted fumble,” has something to do with it. Boston is no stranger to bad/controversial calls, ie Music City Miracle; Cleveland “mob/riot” game. And still, he is retained by the NFL year after year.

  3. Still remains that that ball squirted out to his opponent’s end zone on a loose ball. He propelled it in that direction. There is nothing in the rules regarding curled fingers, and if there was, I have no idea how on earth you rule that at full speed. And, it’s not reviewable.

    I didn’t see the DPI, but I have heard universal panning on the call, so I will defer to that.

    2 controversial calls by Boston in over 20 years, one not his jurisdiction, one properly called. A long résumé with several postseason assignments and multiple Super Bowls. I don’t see that as rising to the level of termination.

  4. The fact that you refer to the Music City Miracle as a “bad/controversial call” removes all credibility. There was a camera angle on the broadcast, even, that perfectly showed it was a lateral.

  5. @Brian

    First of all, there can be no doubt the Music City Miracle call was and continues to be a “controversial” call, so your point about the reference I made lacking creditibility is just plain incorrect. Second, if you will recall, the official instant replay review deemed the video to which you refer in your post as “inconclusive” to overturn the line judge’s (Byron Boston’s) ruling on the field. Thus, it is your comment that that “the camera angle on the broadcast . . . perfectly showed it was a lateral,” that lacks credibility. And, to reiterate, the fact we’re even debating this underscores that the call was “controversial.”

    @Ben Austro

    Your point about the call being essentially a judgment call on the part of the officials is well taken, and actually illustrates exactly why the call never should have been made in the first place. If the call required the officials to make a split second decision without being able to fully evaluate all of the necessary information, INCLUDING THE MOVEMENT OF THE PLAYERS HANDS AND FINGERS, so as to determine if, in fact, the ball had or had not been “swatted” or “batted” by the player, then the call should NOT have been made, especially, on a critical 3rd down play which ended up affecting the score in the game. Under your interpretation of the rule, anytime a player, while attempting to recover a fumble, contacts a loose ball and happens to move the ball in the direction of his opponent’s endzone, the player should be penalized for “batting” the ball forward. In that case, at least 50% of plays involving loose balls in the field of play would be penalized, and the simple truth is that they are NOT. Besides, a common sense definition of the words “batting” or “swatting” encompass an affirmative act by a player of striking or, to use your term, propelling the ball toward his opponent’s endzone. What we have here is movement of the ball occasioned by Olivier Vernon’s diving body as he tried to haul in Brady’s fumble.

  6. Correction to last sentence: “What we have here is accidental/innocuous movement of the ball occasioned by Olivier Vernon’s diving body as he tried to haul in Brady’s fumble.”

Comments are closed.

Top