Clayton Article On The Refs - Page 2

**The Bad Guy** · 09-09-2001, 10:55 PM

When a ref says it's an "honor" to ref a game because of Jerry Rice you know it's trouble.

Raiders, Chiefs make plea for regular referees
By John Clayton, ESPN.com

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- For two weeks, locked-out officials were looking for a poorly officiated game by their replacements to promote a settlement. They got one Sunday when the Oakland Raiders nipped the Kansas City Chiefs 27-24 on a Sebastian Janikowski field goal with 1:06 left in regulation.

After the game, Raiders and Chiefs players, bitter rivals by day, walked over to NFL Referees Association negotiator Tom Condon in unison and begged him to get the regular officials back. Chiefs fullback Tony Richardson, somewhat of a benefactor from a confusing third-quarter non-call, summed it up best.

"We need our refs back," Richardson said. "We've got to get this done. I'll give them some money to get it done."

The game was held up for close to 15 minutes to review, re-review and figure out a play in which Richardson appeared to be pulled down by two Raiders short of a first down on a third-down play with 37 seconds left in the first half. Line judge Ron Baynes, who is a league supervisor of officials, didn't think Richardson was down so he started running upfield with Richardson.

"I had ruled from my side of the field that the receiver was never down," Baynes said to a pool reporter. "The runner was never down."

So Richardson figured he should have been given the ball at midfield, where he ran out of bounds. Raiders coach Jon Gruden called for a replay because he felt his two defenders pulled Richardson backwards before he reached the 30, which was first-down territory.

What happened next was even more bizarre. Referee Randall Beesley viewed the replay and communicated with Nate Jones, the replay official who told him that the play couldn't be reviewed. Beesley, after reviewing the play, announced that the play cannot be reviewed only to find out that it could. Ball placements can be challenged if it involves first downs, and in this case, it did.

So, the play underwent a second review, but this time not by the referee. It was handled by Baynes, who found out he was wrong with his call.

"When I looked in there, his (Richardson's knee) was down, I found out," Baynes said in a pool report. "The play should have gone then to the head linesman's spot and we never had a (TV replay) shot that showed any irrefutable evidence that we could turn it over. We had to take the spot that was given on the field."

In case you didn't know, the head linesman was on the opposite side of the field, and he put the ball at the 30, good enough for a Chiefs first down. Gruden's challenge was denied. The Raiders lost a timeout. Richardson lost his chance for a big gain, but he got the first down. It took close to 15 minutes to bewilder and confuse everybody in what was then a strange 17-14 lead by the Chiefs.

"I said on my radio show last week, I didn't care if the game was four hours. As long as they get the calls right, it's fine," Raiders receiver Tim Brown said. "I think it almost went four hours. It's a tough situation. I knew last week they did pretty good, but we knew the intensity would be higher this week. They just didn't get it done."

Asked if the replacement officials were overmatched, Brown said, "Yes, ain't no doubt about it."

Brown will probably have to contribute to the officials' finance fund because he received a rare unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for talking to Beesley after what appeared to be a blown sideline call. Raiders halfback Charlie Garner got one foot in bounds on an incredible 27-yard sideline catch with less than two minutes left in the first half. Chiefs safety Jerome Woods gave him what appeared to be an illegal helmet-to-lower-helmet hit that drove
him out of bounds at the Chiefs' 12

Incomplete was the call. The replay assistant challenged for a replay. Beesley ruled that it was no catch, so the line of scrimmage moved back to the Chiefs' 39.

"I asked, 'What was the ruling?' " Brown said. "The referee said that he didn't get knocked out of bounds. I asked him if he saw the replay. He said, 'Get out of my face or I'm going to kick your *** out.'

"I said, 'What?' Then he threw the flag. I never said anything out of disrespect toward him because I wouldn't do that. I thought it was totally inappropriate."

Beesley might not be a fan of Brown, but Brown claims the officials, particularly Beesley, liked teammate Jerry Rice. Brown said that one official came into the locker room before the game and asked for Rice's autograph. Beesley, according to Brown, came into the huddle and shook Rice's hand and said that it was "an honor to referee a game with you."

What an embarrassment.

Several Raiders spoke out after the game about their concerns.

"This is my life, and you work all year round to get the opportunity to have 16 chances to do what you like to do," said Raiders defensive end Trace Armstrong, the president of the NFL Players Association. "You want to be certain that the game is determined by actions on the field. I'm not saying it was or wasn't today. But there were some things out there that I'm concerned about."

Armstrong was concerned about two plays in which helmet-to-helmet hits on Raiders received no attention by the officials. The Garner play was one. Another involved Chiefs offensive lineman Donald Willis delivering a helmet spear on Raiders middle linebacker Greg Biekert following a dropped pass by Snoop Minnis that Beikert picked up. After the play was ruled dead, Willis drilled him. A fight almost broke out. There was no flag.

"My biggest concern is player safety and there were a couple of cases today that I thought some players went over the line," Armstrong said. "There were some things that really didn't have any place on the football field."

Raiders quarterback Rich Gannon, who, like Armstrong, admits that his agent is Condon, said he had concerns about questionable calls in relationship to the outcome of the game.

For example, Gannon cited Trent Green's spectacular 12-yard scramble out of bounds on a third-and-10 with 1:32 left. Green made it out of bounds, but he let the play clock get down to five seconds before the officials reset it with a fresh clock. Green still couldn't get the play off from the Raiders' 30, so he called a time out.

"They reset the play clock, and that was incredible," Gannon said. "They never, ever reset the game clock if it gets down below five seconds. That was a big play in the game, and that would have saved a timeout. That was huge. That could have been the difference in the ball game."

Two plays later, Green hit Minnis with a 30-yard touchdown pass to tie the score at 24 with 1:21 left.

"I didn't have any idea it was going to be that bad," Condon said. "The game went almost three-and-a-half hours (3:27). They weren't calling holding. The stoppages in the game were bad. How about that late shot on Biekert and there was no flag on the play?"

Condon plans to call the league on Monday to restart contract talks. Here's hoping that the league listens.

Brock · 09-10-2001, 09:16 AM

Surprisingly, I agree with Titus.

NaptownChief · 09-10-2001, 09:26 AM

The Refs definitely weren't as bad as our Center so for us to put a so called professional on the field like him, it would be very hypocritical to question the officials professionalism.

DanT · 09-10-2001, 09:52 AM

There is not a regular NFL official who could have possibly screwed up that Garner completion. How in the world could they overturn that? Garner's center of gravity was well inbounds and his momentum was mostly parallel to the sideline before he received the a$$-over-teakettle hit from a defender whose momentum was mostly oblique to the friggin' sideline and OBVIOUSLY was enough to cause Garner to go out-of-bounds. Think about how perfectly reeruned the overturning was--they had to have ruled [B]that there was indisputable visual evidence that Garner caused himself not to complete the catch inbounds.[/B] To be satisfied with officials that could make a call like that is to be satisfied with a 4th-rate product, plain and simple. You can't correct idiocy like that, either. Any adult who can't apply kindergarten physics to such an easy body-in-motion problem is beyond training and beyond help.

I would love for the collective memory of my fellow Chief Planeteers to scour its archive of outrages and tell me a single instance where such an obviously correct call was OVERTURNED. This is worse than just messing up a call. This is imagining indisputable visual evidence that an obviously correct call was wrong and then reversing it.

Hell, I'd like to know if anyone even remembers a game where not just one, not just two, but 3 obvious intentional-groundings by Gannon went unflagged. That was easily the sorriest overall job of officiating that ever besmirched any Chiefs game I ever saw. If anyone can remember worse, please tell.

**Baby Lee** · 09-10-2001, 09:57 AM

Just asking, but wasn't there reference to the fact that this 'catch' was reversed, not because he would have come down in bounds, but because he didn't demonstrate control with his feet down and in fact didn't have control until he was on the ground, out of bounds?

Not that Clayton has demonstrated mastery of the facts, but he states that "Beesley ruled that it was no catch." Not, "Beesley ruled that the catch was out of bounds."

KCTitus · 09-10-2001, 10:02 AM

Like I said, it was good to see bad calls go both ways.

I guess Im not like others. I dont like 3 different teams on the field at once. I know for a fact that KC has a hard enough times winning games when they dont have two opponents.

In case you forgot and judging by that last post, you have, DanT, the Chiefs received not one, not two, not three, but 4 official apology letters from the league last year for bad calls that directly impacted the final outcome.

The call on the Garner catch was questionable, granted, but I'll take bad calls on both sides rather than 4 apology letters for obviously bad calls that impacted the outcome of games.

You cant beat the refs. The old refs had their own agendas.

MrBlond · 09-10-2001, 10:12 AM

I have seen worse officiating of Chiefs/raiders slugfests from the regular refs. It was definatly subpar though. I didnt see anything in the KC game or any other game done yesterday that indicates that Hochuli's gang deserves to more than double their current salaries. With a little time and training these guys could be every bit as good as those watching from home yesterday. In fact, if it were me sitting there I would be on the phone to Condon this morning.

DanT · 09-10-2001, 10:25 AM

JC~Johnny,

My information is limited--I saw the game without audio in a sports bar and the only coverage I've read is what's in this morning's KC Star--but I haven't seen anyone dispute that Garner demonstrated possession.

KCTitus,
I sure don't remember any games last year where the officials failed to flag 4 obvious calls (the officials are posted in such a way that intentional grounding is easy to spot and flag and there's an official who's supposed to watch the game clock and catch delay-of-game violations) and where they overturned an obviously correct and important call like the Garner completion. That amounts to an overall level of incompetence that I've never seen packed into a single game. The NFL has a very good quality-control program for their regular refs and is good about acknowledging isolated blown calls, which is all I can remember about the officiating in the Chiefs' 2000 season. If you think that there was a game with general officiating incompetence last year, then that would be great to hear about because I can pull up the archived stories on the game to refresh my memory about the details. The more years one goes back, the harder it is to get the archived game stories from the internet, of course. Thanks for any info you can provide.

NaptownChief · 09-10-2001, 10:32 AM

DanT,

I have seen so many replay calls blown to have any confidence in any of the crews. There have been too many obvious calls that have been blown and it doesn't matter if you look at it from the perspective of needing unquestionable evidence to overturn or having unquestionable evidence to overturn...There have been so many that I don't even need to bring up any specifics.

So to say that none of the regulars would have blown that Garner call is giving them far too much credit.

**Baby Lee** · 09-10-2001, 10:34 AM

DanT - as implausible as the 'lack of control' angle is, its still more plausible than the 'not pushed out' angle. There was some air between the ball and Garner's chest on the way down.

I just worry that, for PR purposes, the infinitely less plausible [and false] rationale gets all the airplay. All the remarks about the 'not pushed out' angle are coming from 'Condon kids.' I haven't heard from the refs or a refs representative either way.

DanT · 09-10-2001, 11:19 AM

Hey JC~Johnny,

Here's an excerpt from an article in today's Star:
[url]http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/chiefs.pat,sports/3accf5c2.909,.html[/url]
[QUOTE]
Brown was incensed at the end of the first half when Beesley, an Arena League and Conference USA college referee, overturned an apparent reception by Oakland halfback Charlie Garner at the Chiefs' 12.

Garner had one foot in bounds, but the momentum from a hit by Chiefs safety Jerome Woods knocked him out, which would make it a legal catch.

"The ruling on the field was no catch," Beesley said in error, because the ball had been spotted as a reception. "On the replay, evidence clearly showed as he was going out of bounds, he didn't have two feet in bounds and it was not a force-out."

Brown approached Beesley and asked whether the officials were looking at the same replay that was displayed on the stadium's Diamond Vision. Brown said Beesley's reply ended in a profanity.

"Being a guy who doesn't curse, I just went ballistic," Brown said. "I thought it was totally inappropriate for him to be saying that to me. In the time I said, `What did you say?' He threw the flag.

"If I was a different man, if he caught me five years ago...I don't know what would have happened. In the heat of the battle, you're not expecting an official to say something like that."

Beesley already had issued his post-game comments before Brown made his remarks and was unavailable for further comment.

[/QUOTE]

It appears from this story that Beesley's astonishing ruling was based on the issue of whether the catch was inbounds.

**Baby Lee** · 09-10-2001, 11:23 AM

Thanks Dan - So long as that's an accurate quote, I guess that is dispositive of the matter.

MrBlond · 09-10-2001, 11:42 AM

[url]http://espn.go.com/nfl/s/2001/0909/1249842.html[/url]

This is a wrap-up each game. Some blown calls and embarassing flubs but nothing that affected the outcome and nothing that hasnt happend to the regulars. and this was the first game with no off-season to study the rules and their nfl interpretations. They will only improve. IMO, if the league hires them full time at the old rate by week three this will be a non-issue and this time next year officiating will be improved over this time last year.

KCTitus · 09-10-2001, 02:14 PM

DanT: I wanted to find the articles that mentioned the apology letters individually, but was unsuccessful in finding them. I did however, pull up the 'recaps' of the games where the controversial calls, in which we did later receive an apology letter from the league office/officials:

1. Oakland @ KC--Key play the Morris fumble/down by contact. The play was reviewed but was not overturned by the refs on the field. KC did receive an apology letter for this blown call. Here's the recap of the game: [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/00recaps/week7/oakkan.html[/url]

2. Buffalo @ KC--Key play Rob Moulds fumbles during the drive that turned out to be the game winner. Obvious fumble but Refs rule that they ruled down by contact which was not reviewable. recap: [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/00recaps/week12/bufkan.html[/url]

3. KC @ SD--Key play after Tony Richardson runs for the first down to the SD 1 yard line he gets up and spikes the ball. Officials rule that it was a PF (unsportsmanlike) and that it was continuing action. So instead of giving KC 1st and goal at the 1yd line or 1st and goal from the 16, they give KC a 3rd and 16 from the 17. recap: [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/00recaps/week13/kansdg.html[/url]

(note #'s 2 and 3 came on successive weeks)

As I reviewed the season recaps, it appears there were only 3 games instead of four. So I stand corrected. Obviously, these letters were not very well publicized so it's hard to find information on them. But these were the controversial calls that did affect the games last year.

KC should have won regardless, that's not my point, my point is that the old refs made bad, bad calls.

Ultra Peanut · 09-10-2001, 03:14 PM

#3 was completely, entirely, baffling. What a ridiculous screwup. I was enraged. That sort of thing really makes me hope the replacements do a good job.

DanT · 09-10-2001, 04:03 PM

Thanks for the info, KCTitus.

You're right that the refs make some bad, bad calls. All three of these appeared to be isolated calls, though. #3 was probably the worst call but it was a novel situation. I was a little mad at T-Rich (probably my favorite current Chief, by the way) for spiking the ball and I had only a vague sense of how the then-relatively new anti-spiking rule was enforced (i.e. is it part of the play or not?). I thought we got the bad end of the deal but it didn't offend me quite the way that the overturning of an obvious completion would have. My reaction during the game was a combination of , "Damn, Tony, why did you do that?" and "Damn, that's enforced as part of the play? :confused:" Whereas, my reaction to the Garner "incompletion" was "Omigod, how in the hell could they possibly overturn that call. Before I even learned what a football looked like, I probably knew that THAT was a completion. Who the fuck doesn't think that's a completion, other than these idiot refs?"

The SlyMo and Moulds plays were of the sort that most fans realize could go either way. Marty had a rule that players are supposed to hand the ball to the official. The rationale for the rule is that you can't expect the officials to let you get away with leaving the ball on the ground (i.e. they might call it a fumble). That doesn't excuse the bad calls, I'm just saying that I'm accustomed to those being disputable either way.

Anyway, you're right about bad calls. They are aggravating, no matter who's making them!

09-09-2001, 10:55 PM
The Bad Guy Scott Pioli Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The Copacobana Casino cash: $9273645	Clayton Article On The Refs When a ref says it's an "honor" to ref a game because of Jerry Rice you know it's trouble. Raiders, Chiefs make plea for regular referees By John Clayton, ESPN.com KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- For two weeks, locked-out officials were looking for a poorly officiated game by their replacements to promote a settlement. They got one Sunday when the Oakland Raiders nipped the Kansas City Chiefs 27-24 on a Sebastian Janikowski field goal with 1:06 left in regulation. After the game, Raiders and Chiefs players, bitter rivals by day, walked over to NFL Referees Association negotiator Tom Condon in unison and begged him to get the regular officials back. Chiefs fullback Tony Richardson, somewhat of a benefactor from a confusing third-quarter non-call, summed it up best. "We need our refs back," Richardson said. "We've got to get this done. I'll give them some money to get it done." The game was held up for close to 15 minutes to review, re-review and figure out a play in which Richardson appeared to be pulled down by two Raiders short of a first down on a third-down play with 37 seconds left in the first half. Line judge Ron Baynes, who is a league supervisor of officials, didn't think Richardson was down so he started running upfield with Richardson. "I had ruled from my side of the field that the receiver was never down," Baynes said to a pool reporter. "The runner was never down." So Richardson figured he should have been given the ball at midfield, where he ran out of bounds. Raiders coach Jon Gruden called for a replay because he felt his two defenders pulled Richardson backwards before he reached the 30, which was first-down territory. What happened next was even more bizarre. Referee Randall Beesley viewed the replay and communicated with Nate Jones, the replay official who told him that the play couldn't be reviewed. Beesley, after reviewing the play, announced that the play cannot be reviewed only to find out that it could. Ball placements can be challenged if it involves first downs, and in this case, it did. So, the play underwent a second review, but this time not by the referee. It was handled by Baynes, who found out he was wrong with his call. "When I looked in there, his (Richardson's knee) was down, I found out," Baynes said in a pool report. "The play should have gone then to the head linesman's spot and we never had a (TV replay) shot that showed any irrefutable evidence that we could turn it over. We had to take the spot that was given on the field." In case you didn't know, the head linesman was on the opposite side of the field, and he put the ball at the 30, good enough for a Chiefs first down. Gruden's challenge was denied. The Raiders lost a timeout. Richardson lost his chance for a big gain, but he got the first down. It took close to 15 minutes to bewilder and confuse everybody in what was then a strange 17-14 lead by the Chiefs. "I said on my radio show last week, I didn't care if the game was four hours. As long as they get the calls right, it's fine," Raiders receiver Tim Brown said. "I think it almost went four hours. It's a tough situation. I knew last week they did pretty good, but we knew the intensity would be higher this week. They just didn't get it done." Asked if the replacement officials were overmatched, Brown said, "Yes, ain't no doubt about it." Brown will probably have to contribute to the officials' finance fund because he received a rare unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for talking to Beesley after what appeared to be a blown sideline call. Raiders halfback Charlie Garner got one foot in bounds on an incredible 27-yard sideline catch with less than two minutes left in the first half. Chiefs safety Jerome Woods gave him what appeared to be an illegal helmet-to-lower-helmet hit that drove him out of bounds at the Chiefs' 12 Incomplete was the call. The replay assistant challenged for a replay. Beesley ruled that it was no catch, so the line of scrimmage moved back to the Chiefs' 39. "I asked, 'What was the ruling?' " Brown said. "The referee said that he didn't get knocked out of bounds. I asked him if he saw the replay. He said, 'Get out of my face or I'm going to kick your *** out.' "I said, 'What?' Then he threw the flag. I never said anything out of disrespect toward him because I wouldn't do that. I thought it was totally inappropriate." Beesley might not be a fan of Brown, but Brown claims the officials, particularly Beesley, liked teammate Jerry Rice. Brown said that one official came into the locker room before the game and asked for Rice's autograph. Beesley, according to Brown, came into the huddle and shook Rice's hand and said that it was "an honor to referee a game with you." What an embarrassment. Several Raiders spoke out after the game about their concerns. "This is my life, and you work all year round to get the opportunity to have 16 chances to do what you like to do," said Raiders defensive end Trace Armstrong, the president of the NFL Players Association. "You want to be certain that the game is determined by actions on the field. I'm not saying it was or wasn't today. But there were some things out there that I'm concerned about." Armstrong was concerned about two plays in which helmet-to-helmet hits on Raiders received no attention by the officials. The Garner play was one. Another involved Chiefs offensive lineman Donald Willis delivering a helmet spear on Raiders middle linebacker Greg Biekert following a dropped pass by Snoop Minnis that Beikert picked up. After the play was ruled dead, Willis drilled him. A fight almost broke out. There was no flag. "My biggest concern is player safety and there were a couple of cases today that I thought some players went over the line," Armstrong said. "There were some things that really didn't have any place on the football field." Raiders quarterback Rich Gannon, who, like Armstrong, admits that his agent is Condon, said he had concerns about questionable calls in relationship to the outcome of the game. For example, Gannon cited Trent Green's spectacular 12-yard scramble out of bounds on a third-and-10 with 1:32 left. Green made it out of bounds, but he let the play clock get down to five seconds before the officials reset it with a fresh clock. Green still couldn't get the play off from the Raiders' 30, so he called a time out. "They reset the play clock, and that was incredible," Gannon said. "They never, ever reset the game clock if it gets down below five seconds. That was a big play in the game, and that would have saved a timeout. That was huge. That could have been the difference in the ball game." Two plays later, Green hit Minnis with a 30-yard touchdown pass to tie the score at 24 with 1:21 left. "I didn't have any idea it was going to be that bad," Condon said. "The game went almost three-and-a-half hours (3:27). They weren't calling holding. The stoppages in the game were bad. How about that late shot on Biekert and there was no flag on the play?" Condon plans to call the league on Monday to restart contract talks. Here's hoping that the league listens.
Posts: 23,216

09-10-2001, 09:16 AM	#16
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Surprisingly, I agree with Titus.
Posts: 47,314

09-10-2001, 09:26 AM	#17
NaptownChief Football Pimp Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Indianapolis,IN Casino cash: $9974900	The Refs definitely weren't as bad as our Center so for us to put a so called professional on the field like him, it would be very hypocritical to question the officials professionalism. __________________ "We weren't worth a damn," the Kansas City Chiefs head coach said, shaking his head. "I'm not worth a damn. No one's worth a damn..." Former President of the Eric Downing Fan Club and Current President of the Kris"Secret Weapon"Wilson Fan Club
Posts: 4,357

09-10-2001, 09:52 AM	#18
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $1531711	There is not a regular NFL official who could have possibly screwed up that Garner completion. How in the world could they overturn that? Garner's center of gravity was well inbounds and his momentum was mostly parallel to the sideline before he received the a$$-over-teakettle hit from a defender whose momentum was mostly oblique to the friggin' sideline and OBVIOUSLY was enough to cause Garner to go out-of-bounds. Think about how perfectly reeruned the overturning was--they had to have ruled [B]that there was indisputable visual evidence that Garner caused himself not to complete the catch inbounds.[/B] To be satisfied with officials that could make a call like that is to be satisfied with a 4th-rate product, plain and simple. You can't correct idiocy like that, either. Any adult who can't apply kindergarten physics to such an easy body-in-motion problem is beyond training and beyond help. I would love for the collective memory of my fellow Chief Planeteers to scour its archive of outrages and tell me a single instance where such an obviously correct call was OVERTURNED. This is worse than just messing up a call. This is imagining indisputable visual evidence that an obviously correct call was wrong and then reversing it. Hell, I'd like to know if anyone even remembers a game where not just one, not just two, but 3 obvious intentional-groundings by Gannon went unflagged. That was easily the sorriest overall job of officiating that ever besmirched any Chiefs game I ever saw. If anyone can remember worse, please tell.
Posts: 4,382

09-10-2001, 09:57 AM	#19
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $8028275	Just asking, but wasn't there reference to the fact that this 'catch' was reversed, not because he would have come down in bounds, but because he didn't demonstrate control with his feet down and in fact didn't have control until he was on the ground, out of bounds? Not that Clayton has demonstrated mastery of the facts, but he states that "Beesley ruled that it was no catch." Not, "Beesley ruled that the catch was out of bounds." __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642

09-10-2001, 10:02 AM	#20
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9882732	Like I said, it was good to see bad calls go both ways. I guess Im not like others. I dont like 3 different teams on the field at once. I know for a fact that KC has a hard enough times winning games when they dont have two opponents. In case you forgot and judging by that last post, you have, DanT, the Chiefs received not one, not two, not three, but 4 official apology letters from the league last year for bad calls that directly impacted the final outcome. The call on the Garner catch was questionable, granted, but I'll take bad calls on both sides rather than 4 apology letters for obviously bad calls that impacted the outcome of games. You cant beat the refs. The old refs had their own agendas. __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,199

09-10-2001, 10:12 AM	#21
MrBlond Lets Rock. Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: South of the border. Casino cash: $10004900	I have seen worse officiating of Chiefs/raiders slugfests from the regular refs. It was definatly subpar though. I didnt see anything in the KC game or any other game done yesterday that indicates that Hochuli's gang deserves to more than double their current salaries. With a little time and training these guys could be every bit as good as those watching from home yesterday. In fact, if it were me sitting there I would be on the phone to Condon this morning. __________________ "I can handle things, I'm smart, not like everybody says, like dumb, I'm smart, and I want respect!"
Posts: 12,747

09-10-2001, 10:25 AM	#22
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $1531711	JC~Johnny, My information is limited--I saw the game without audio in a sports bar and the only coverage I've read is what's in this morning's KC Star--but I haven't seen anyone dispute that Garner demonstrated possession. KCTitus, I sure don't remember any games last year where the officials failed to flag 4 obvious calls (the officials are posted in such a way that intentional grounding is easy to spot and flag and there's an official who's supposed to watch the game clock and catch delay-of-game violations) and where they overturned an obviously correct and important call like the Garner completion. That amounts to an overall level of incompetence that I've never seen packed into a single game. The NFL has a very good quality-control program for their regular refs and is good about acknowledging isolated blown calls, which is all I can remember about the officiating in the Chiefs' 2000 season. If you think that there was a game with general officiating incompetence last year, then that would be great to hear about because I can pull up the archived stories on the game to refresh my memory about the details. The more years one goes back, the harder it is to get the archived game stories from the internet, of course. Thanks for any info you can provide. Last edited by DanT; 09-10-2001 at 10:51 AM..
Posts: 4,382

09-10-2001, 10:32 AM	#23
NaptownChief Football Pimp Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Indianapolis,IN Casino cash: $9974900	DanT, I have seen so many replay calls blown to have any confidence in any of the crews. There have been too many obvious calls that have been blown and it doesn't matter if you look at it from the perspective of needing unquestionable evidence to overturn or having unquestionable evidence to overturn...There have been so many that I don't even need to bring up any specifics. So to say that none of the regulars would have blown that Garner call is giving them far too much credit. __________________ "We weren't worth a damn," the Kansas City Chiefs head coach said, shaking his head. "I'm not worth a damn. No one's worth a damn..." Former President of the Eric Downing Fan Club and Current President of the Kris"Secret Weapon"Wilson Fan Club
Posts: 4,357

09-10-2001, 10:34 AM	#24
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $8028275	DanT - as implausible as the 'lack of control' angle is, its still more plausible than the 'not pushed out' angle. There was some air between the ball and Garner's chest on the way down. I just worry that, for PR purposes, the infinitely less plausible [and false] rationale gets all the airplay. All the remarks about the 'not pushed out' angle are coming from 'Condon kids.' I haven't heard from the refs or a refs representative either way. __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642

09-10-2001, 11:19 AM	#25
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $1531711	Hey JC~Johnny, Here's an excerpt from an article in today's Star: [url]http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/chiefs.pat,sports/3accf5c2.909,.html[/url] [QUOTE] Brown was incensed at the end of the first half when Beesley, an Arena League and Conference USA college referee, overturned an apparent reception by Oakland halfback Charlie Garner at the Chiefs' 12. Garner had one foot in bounds, but the momentum from a hit by Chiefs safety Jerome Woods knocked him out, which would make it a legal catch. "The ruling on the field was no catch," Beesley said in error, because the ball had been spotted as a reception. "On the replay, evidence clearly showed as he was going out of bounds, he didn't have two feet in bounds and it was not a force-out." Brown approached Beesley and asked whether the officials were looking at the same replay that was displayed on the stadium's Diamond Vision. Brown said Beesley's reply ended in a profanity. "Being a guy who doesn't curse, I just went ballistic," Brown said. "I thought it was totally inappropriate for him to be saying that to me. In the time I said, `What did you say?' He threw the flag. "If I was a different man, if he caught me five years ago...I don't know what would have happened. In the heat of the battle, you're not expecting an official to say something like that." Beesley already had issued his post-game comments before Brown made his remarks and was unavailable for further comment. [/QUOTE] It appears from this story that Beesley's astonishing ruling was based on the issue of whether the catch was inbounds.
Posts: 4,382

09-10-2001, 11:23 AM	#26
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $8028275	Thanks Dan - So long as that's an accurate quote, I guess that is dispositive of the matter. __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642

09-10-2001, 11:42 AM	#27
MrBlond Lets Rock. Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: South of the border. Casino cash: $10004900	[url]http://espn.go.com/nfl/s/2001/0909/1249842.html[/url] This is a wrap-up each game. Some blown calls and embarassing flubs but nothing that affected the outcome and nothing that hasnt happend to the regulars. and this was the first game with no off-season to study the rules and their nfl interpretations. They will only improve. IMO, if the league hires them full time at the old rate by week three this will be a non-issue and this time next year officiating will be improved over this time last year. __________________ "I can handle things, I'm smart, not like everybody says, like dumb, I'm smart, and I want respect!"
Posts: 12,747

09-10-2001, 02:14 PM	#28
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9882732	DanT: I wanted to find the articles that mentioned the apology letters individually, but was unsuccessful in finding them. I did however, pull up the 'recaps' of the games where the controversial calls, in which we did later receive an apology letter from the league office/officials: 1. Oakland @ KC--Key play the Morris fumble/down by contact. The play was reviewed but was not overturned by the refs on the field. KC did receive an apology letter for this blown call. Here's the recap of the game: [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/00recaps/week7/oakkan.html[/url] 2. Buffalo @ KC--Key play Rob Moulds fumbles during the drive that turned out to be the game winner. Obvious fumble but Refs rule that they ruled down by contact which was not reviewable. recap: [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/00recaps/week12/bufkan.html[/url] 3. KC @ SD--Key play after Tony Richardson runs for the first down to the SD 1 yard line he gets up and spikes the ball. Officials rule that it was a PF (unsportsmanlike) and that it was continuing action. So instead of giving KC 1st and goal at the 1yd line or 1st and goal from the 16, they give KC a 3rd and 16 from the 17. recap: [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/00recaps/week13/kansdg.html[/url] (note #'s 2 and 3 came on successive weeks) As I reviewed the season recaps, it appears there were only 3 games instead of four. So I stand corrected. Obviously, these letters were not very well publicized so it's hard to find information on them. But these were the controversial calls that did affect the games last year. KC should have won regardless, that's not my point, my point is that the old refs made bad, bad calls. __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,199

09-10-2001, 03:14 PM	#29
Ultra Peanut v^V^v^V^v^V^ Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Holland* Casino cash: $10005177	#3 was completely, entirely, baffling. What a ridiculous screwup. I was enraged. That sort of thing really makes me hope the replacements do a good job.
Posts: 39,518

09-10-2001, 04:03 PM	#30
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $1531711	Thanks for the info, KCTitus. You're right that the refs make some bad, bad calls. All three of these appeared to be isolated calls, though. #3 was probably the worst call but it was a novel situation. I was a little mad at T-Rich (probably my favorite current Chief, by the way) for spiking the ball and I had only a vague sense of how the then-relatively new anti-spiking rule was enforced (i.e. is it part of the play or not?). I thought we got the bad end of the deal but it didn't offend me quite the way that the overturning of an obvious completion would have. My reaction during the game was a combination of , "Damn, Tony, why did you do that?" and "Damn, that's enforced as part of the play? :confused:" Whereas, my reaction to the Garner "incompletion" was "Omigod, how in the hell could they possibly overturn that call. Before I even learned what a football looked like, I probably knew that THAT was a completion. Who the fuck doesn't think that's a completion, other than these idiot refs?" The SlyMo and Moulds plays were of the sort that most fans realize could go either way. Marty had a rule that players are supposed to hand the ball to the official. The rationale for the rule is that you can't expect the officials to let you get away with leaving the ball on the ground (i.e. they might call it a fumble). That doesn't excuse the bad calls, I'm just saying that I'm accustomed to those being disputable either way. Anyway, you're right about bad calls. They are aggravating, no matter who's making them!
Posts: 4,382