Am I the ONLY one??

**HoustonRaven** · 12-05-2007, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Rayvens52

How as a ref can you say it was the right call when you are even saying there was movement. You have to have total control of the ball which he did not have. I can also tell you this i sit right in front of the ravens coaching staff and the pats coaching staff and when we looked back the pats coaches were saying no good and ravens staff was excited, when the call came in to uphold the pats staff looked shocked and our coaches were throwing paper. Just one of the many bad calls of the night!

I think I was pretty clear.

You're applying the standards to what is an isnt a catch to a situation that was actually looking at the replay standards. I've had a chance to look at that catch and yes the ball moves around but it doesnt not have to be "set" per se. Meaning, there can be movement as long as the receiver has possession. Possession has always been defined of two hands, control and a football move (assuming the receiver is in bounds). The receiver had both hands on the ball (technically) and that was probably the determining factor for the review.

Because the there was little if any evidence to contradict the call on the field, the call rightfully stood.

**sopranocorleone** · 12-05-2007, 11:00 PM

Unlike a good number of people, I didn't have a major issue with what transpired at the end, in the fourth quarter. A number of the calls seemed fair.

But I do believe Boller was hit after the fact a couple of times and calls should have been made. On one play in particular in the first quarter, Richard Seymor CLEARLY knocked Boller off of his feet well after he released the ball.

On the Darling catch, Thomas tugged Boller's helmet. It wasn't a big foul. But it was an infraction that should have been called.

Moreover, the Patriots' line obviously held on a couple of occasions.

Again, these issues did not decide the game, but the referees were atrocious, and that crew should not be involved in any major games the rest of the way.

**Raven Nurse** · 12-05-2007, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

4. To suggest there is some reffing conspiracy against the Ravens is laughable. First of all, that means they actually care about Baltimore enough to screw with us. They dont. Second, having met a lot of NFL refs over the past 5+ years, one thing is universal, they all have egos the size of M&T Bank Stadium and love to be right! More than any other sport, these refs take their job VERY seriously (watching video, looking at trends, off-season training, etc).

Your opinion in this case is laughable. There is a clear bias against the Ravens period!! How many times have the Ravens been called for delay of game penalties for not handing the ball back to the Refs at the end of a play. Then how many of those calls did the Pat's called on on Monday? NONE. They were throwing the ball alot after plays and NO CALLS!! They look for our players because they are mouthy, period. They dont like us and the NFL does not like us. This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but, you only have to look at the Cinci game, Browns game, and Pat's game to see some really questionable, game changing calls and that is only this year!!!

**highwater** · 12-05-2007, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by sopranocorleone

Again, these issues did not decide the game, but the referees were atrocious, and that crew should not be involved in any major games the rest of the way.

I concur -- I don't believe the officials had any sort of agenda, but I think they were very bad, and should be punished in some fashion. If I had a day at work that bad, I'd get an earful about it, at a minimum.

**Raven Nurse** · 12-06-2007, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by highwater

I concur -- I don't believe the officials had any sort of agenda, but I think they were very bad, and should be punished in some fashion. If I had a day at work that bad, I'd get an earful about it, at a minimum.

I am a firm believer that where there is smoke there is fire...add these calls with the reviewed/ not reviewed field goal an the Cinci phantom call and WTF......a conspiracy

**festivus** · 12-06-2007, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I think I was pretty clear.

You're applying the standards to what is an isnt a catch to a situation that was actually looking at the replay standards. I've had a chance to look at that catch and yes the ball moves around but it doesnt not have to be "set" per se. Meaning, there can be movement as long as the receiver has possession. Possession has always been defined of two hands, control and a football move (assuming the receiver is in bounds). The receiver had both hands on the ball (technically) and that was probably the determining factor for the review.

Because the there was little if any evidence to contradict the call on the field, the call rightfully stood.

Horse pucky. I'm not going to grandstand about a conspiracy but that ball was *moving* in his hands, not secure, not being tucked away, but *moving*, and the call could 50/50 have gone either way.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-06-2007, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by festivus

Horse pucky. I'm not going to grandstand about a conspiracy but that ball was *moving* in his hands, not secure, not being tucked away, but *moving*, and the call could 50/50 have gone either way.

The ball can "move" so long as two hands have hold of the ball. Go back and look. Two hands clearly have hold of the ball. There was movement between his hands but the ball does eventually settle in both hands. "Tucked away" is not a standard. You said it yourself it was 50/50 and as such it cant be reversed -- reversal's need undisputed evidence.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-06-2007, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Raven Nurse

Your opinion in this case is laughable. There is a clear bias against the Ravens period!! How many times have the Ravens been called for delay of game penalties for not handing the ball back to the Refs at the end of a play. Then how many of those calls did the Pat's called on on Monday? NONE. They were throwing the ball alot after plays and NO CALLS!! They look for our players because they are mouthy, period. They dont like us and the NFL does not like us. This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but, you only have to look at the Cinci game, Browns game, and Pat's game to see some really questionable, game changing calls and that is only this year!!!

Penalties have been killing us since the Detroit game two years ago.

There is a long pattern of our team killing themselves yet you have suggestions of conspiracies with no examples to back up your claim.

I dont think either team had a delay penalty on Monday night so Im not sure where you're getting that one. We had about the same number of holds (we had 3, they had 2) as the Pats. Take away the holds as a wash and we're left with 2 personal fouls, 2 unsportsmenlike and 3 false starts.

Trash-talkers draw the attention of the Refs, quiet players dont. We have a bunch of trash talkers. The Pats dont (Harrison being the exception). There is absolutely no conspiracy if we're the ones drawing attention to the refs.

**4G63** · 12-06-2007, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Rayvens52

How as a ref can you say it was the right call when you are even saying there was movement. You have to have total control of the ball which he did not have. I can also tell you this i sit right in front of the ravens coaching staff and the pats coaching staff and when we looked back the pats coaches were saying no good and ravens staff was excited, when the call came in to uphold the pats staff looked shocked and our coaches were throwing paper. Just one of the many bad calls of the night!

Originally Posted by festivus

Horse pucky. I'm not going to grandstand about a conspiracy but that ball was *moving* in his hands, not secure, not being tucked away, but *moving*, and the call could 50/50 have gone either way.

Why in the FUCK are you guys bitching back and forth about this? Its the same play that Scott took a shit on the fans and team by throwing his hissy-fit!!!! The Pats would have had the ball ~4 yd line if they had overturned the call. Do you really think we would have stopped them on 4 tries? If they had overturned it, we wouldn't have gotten the ball back with that amount of time left on the board!!!!

THINK BOYS AND GIRLS BEFORE YOU TYPE!!!! :insane: