The place to go for the last word on controversial plays is the NFL Network's "Total Access" show each Wednesday evening. That's when Mike Pereira, the VP of Officiating, looks at several questionable or disputed calls throughout t
he league from the previous Sunday in his "Official Review" segment with Rich Eisen. Pereira, a former official, examines the plays from all angles and tries to explain why the call was made and, more importantly, if the call was correct. Pereira does a tough job well. As do almost all NFL refs. He very rarely says a call was flat-out wrong. Although he has done it and in those instances will say "This is a call we have to get better at making and we're talking to the officials about that." Name me another sport where the head of officiating comes on TV each week to discuss the calls. Can you see Major League Baseball doing that? More often than not Pereira backs up the call made on the field. I don't always agree with him but it's clear that he's telling it as he sees it and not just covering for his guys. Most times after he's done with his explanation my reaction is "OK, I buy that."Naturally last night the topic of conversation focused on 4th-and-2. Eisen usually saves the biggest call of the week for the last of three or four plays to help build the drama. Not this time. Eisen got right to it. Pereira's first words? "Boy is it a tough play." You can say that again Mike.
Pereira backed his side judge's "bobbling" call that resulted in the spot that did not give the Pats a first down. The key to his defense is that Tom Stabile made a "very decisive decision." He gets points for making his decision -- right or wrong -- quickly and decisively. It's nice that his ref made a decisive call. Well done. That doesn't address if he got the spot right. He then claims that Stabile "saw the bobble and that's what is great." And that he gave "a good, clear bobble signal." Again with the points for the way he made the call. But back to that matter of he "saw the bobble." He says Stabile was where he was supposed to be to make the call. Well, he's the side judge and he was on the sideline so, yes, he was where he was supposed to be. But was he in the position to make the call? Check out the replay. Faulk catches the ball. Shifts it in his hands as he brings the ball down and to his chest, and holds it all the way to the ground. Faulk has his back to the sideline. Nine times out of 10 the receiver is facing towards the line of scrimmage, thus giving the ref a good view of the ball. In this case it is pretty clear that Stabile can see the ball in Faulk's hands until Faulk brings the ball in front of his helmet, which is almost instantaneously. I know, this is a little too Zapruder, but bear with me.
Pereira said the key to spotting the ball is to determine where Faulk first controls the ball "after the bobble" because that is where the spot would be. "The receiver gets forward progress at the exact moment he controls the ball," Pereira explained. Agreed. Problem is, and neither Pereira nor Eisen address this, is that Stabile has no way of knowing when that is because he has no view of the ball shortly after it hits Faulk's hands. So how exactly can he know when he gained control? He can't. And that has been my problem with the spot from the moment it happened. Where were the other refs who had a better view of the ball the whole time? I see officials hold lengthy conferences over some of the easiest calls and yet on this very crucial and, as Pereira himself said, tough call there was no discussion. None. At all. There should have been. That's all I'm saying.
Look at the replay. The spot was wrong. Faulk's bobble was only at the very first second of the catch and then he gained control. Beyond the 30 yard line and what would have been a first down.
OK, I'm moving on. Time for the Jets. Mark is preparing lamb marinated in sour cream and thyme. That will make me feel better.
No comments:
Post a Comment