NFL 2022 Season

[Zaxxon]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

[ImLawBoy]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

Pretty sure turning defensive holding into a multi-level penalty won't make the rules any more manageable.

[Zaxxon]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

Pretty sure turning defensive holding into a multi-level penalty won't make the rules any more manageable.

Hey, I'm not here to fix the NFL, just to make things interesting. The rules have been a morass for decades.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

Making easily definable and enforceable rules in football/basketball/baseball has been and will always be a Kobayashi Maru situation.

[El Guapo]

Making easily definable and enforceable rules in football/basketball/baseball has been and will always be a Kobayashi Maru situation.

Don't drag baseball into this. Every time some seemingly weird situation comes up in baseball (like when the catcher accidentally threw the ball into the hitter's bat in the playoffs five or six years ago) there's always a hyper-specific rule that clearly addresses the situation.

[EvilHomer3k]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

The booth ex-officials don't have access to all of the cameras and views that the officials have. They said that last night. I also believe that the booth official agreed with every call that was reviewed last nigh, including the hold at the end.

As for the call, itself, it was holding. There is almost unanimous agreement among analysts (I haven't seen one that says it wasn't but there may be one out there) that it was holding. Bradbury, who was the one called for the hold, said it was holding. The main complaint among analysts seems to be that they wanted Philly to get the ball back so that the game was better and not that the call was wrong. Some are saying that they didn't call holding before this call which is true but has nothing to do with this call, itself. It's bad timing but it was a legitimate call that was clearly a hold.

[coopasonic]

I just want it noted that the linebacker (Nick Bolton) that scooped the Philly fumble and scored a touchdown (twice, though one was reversed) went to my son's high school. The neighborhood socials were going nuts about him. Finding that out made me care a little bit about the game.

[Zaxxon]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

The booth ex-officials don't have access to all of the cameras and views that the officials have. They said that last night. I also believe that the booth official agreed with every call that was reviewed last nigh, including the hold at the end.

If there are camera angles not shown on TV that are instrumental to the review call being made, they need to be shown on TV. This part's not rocket science.

As for the call, itself, it was holding. There is almost unanimous agreement among analysts (I haven't seen one that says it wasn't but there may be one out there) that it was holding. Bradbury, who was the one called for the hold, said it was holding. ...

Some are saying that they didn't call holding before this call which is true but has nothing to do with this call, itself.

It has everything to do with this call. Officials need to be consistent over the course of a particular game. I've commonly heard players mention that there's holding on literally every snap of every game. There are 22 players on the field, and someone is violating a rule at virtually all times. Players get a feel for what the particular crew is calling vs letting slide. When that changes at the most critical moment of the game, it's a problem.

I agree with you that this was holding. I also saw it several other times, not called. That is the problem.

[Jaymann]

Making easily definable and enforceable rules in football/basketball/baseball has been and will always be a Kobayashi Maru situation.

Don't drag baseball into this.

Kobayashi Maru was such an awesome pitcher they had to make a specific rule banning his windup.

[malchior]

About The Call, from the alleged perpetrator himself:

Bradberry, however, took no issue with the call. He took accountability for the penalty after the game.

"It was a holding," Bradyberry told reporters, per the Boston Globe's Ben Volin. "I tugged on the jersey. ... They called it. I was hoping they would let it ride."

Yes, by the letter of the law it was, but they had not been calling it all night, they had not been calling much at all, letting them play, until that moment. That is my issue.

I get that, but it does help me be less annoyed with the call. I get the point, but I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect refs to police everything that's going on simultaneously on a football field and also make immediate judgment calls about whether "this is the kind of penalty that I should be calling at this point in the game".

FWIW this is a normal part of refereeing. Most calls are judgement calls ultimately. I think this one was out of line as someone who has refereed hundreds of games in my life. Obviously not at this level.

Sure the CB said he was holding but did that little tug mean keep him from being able to make a play on the ball which landed 10 feet further than was catchable? I think the spirit of the rules needs to balance the range of competitiveness and level of competition which is quite high here. All those guys are pretty handsy out there and the referees for the most part let a lot get decided on the field.

I do wonder whether there's some change that could be made to the holding rule so that it's not something that could theoretically be called so often.

That'd help for sure but I think the NFL needs a cultural shift. The entire game is more about ticky tack gaming of the rules than goddamn football. Someone makes a tiny movement and every player on the other side stands up and starts pointing. That's not football. That is collective rules lawyering to an obnoxious level.

Also, I really like how the Eagles CB spoke up about the call. The NFL ref who made the call probably really really appreciates that.

I do indeed think it shows a lot of class.

With respect to the hold on a receiver, I think the penalty (in the abstract, not necessarily in this instance) makes sense. With a more traditional PI, the ball is in the air and the refs can determine whether it is remotely catchable or not. If it's not, no foul. With a hold, which by rule occurs before the pass is thrown, it's hard to say what might have happened on the play. Maybe a routine incompletion. Maybe a 30 yard play. The enforcement navigates this by making it a nominal yardage penalty but with an automatic first down. Seems reasonable.

This is a great decomposition of the issue. I think though often there is a middle ground where the impact is clear. The way to solve for that is in line with Zaxxon's idea. In effect, I think they are missing an impact spectrum on this penalty.

In practice, the referee can hold the penalty until they get a sense of the impact. For this case, the impact was probably minimal. Maybe he tugged a little but it didn't cause the player to slow down, stumble, fall, etc. Maybe that's a no call or a loss of yards versus an automatic first down.

[Kurth]

The call was correct, but that doesn’t make it a good call. It was a terrible call given the moment. The refs fucked up. It’s all about judgment in that moment, and the ref who threw that flag displayed some really bad judgment. It ended the game.

Still, not why the Eagles lost. For all the talk about KC having the best player in the game but the Eagles having a significantly better roster overall, that ended up being the reverse. Hurts played his ass off. He outplayed Mahomes without a doubt. He threw for over 300 and a TD and rushed for 70 and 3 TDs. He was incredible. But KC outplayed the Eagles. Their D was more opportunistic. Their O did what they’ve done all season with a balanced, effective attack. And they came up with the decisive special teams play on the Toney punt return.

I’m so bummed this morning that such an incredible performance by Hurts on the biggest stage was wasted.

[Octavious]

Let's not forget that he flat out dropped a ball that directly cost them 7 points. He did play amazing, but that one mistake was huge.

[EvilHomer3k]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

The booth ex-officials don't have access to all of the cameras and views that the officials have. They said that last night. I also believe that the booth official agreed with every call that was reviewed last nigh, including the hold at the end.

If there are camera angles not shown on TV that are instrumental to the review call being made, they need to be shown on TV. This part's not rocket science.

As for the call, itself, it was holding. There is almost unanimous agreement among analysts (I haven't seen one that says it wasn't but there may be one out there) that it was holding. Bradbury, who was the one called for the hold, said it was holding. ...

Some are saying that they didn't call holding before this call which is true but has nothing to do with this call, itself.

It has everything to do with this call. Officials need to be consistent over the course of a particular game. I've commonly heard players mention that there's holding on literally every snap of every game. There are 22 players on the field, and someone is violating a rule at virtually all times. Players get a feel for what the particular crew is calling vs letting slide. When that changes at the most critical moment of the game, it's a problem.

I agree with you that this was holding. I also saw it several other times, not called. That is the problem.

It's an important call at an important time and not calling that foul is just as bad as making it. I guarantee that if it hadn't been called and the Eagles won the exact same discussion would be had about how not making that call was wrong. Guaranteed.

But back to your argument that they weren't calling those same penalties during the game. Which of these two scenarios is more likely?

1. The refs changed their play calling at the end of the game because of some unknown reason.
2. The Eagles defense is getting desperate for a stop after the Chiefs are marching down the field with guys getting wide open over and over. KC has scored 3 straight TDs and are on their way to a fourth after Mahommes runs the ball for 20+ yards to get inside the 20 when the Eagles (briefly) had him in trouble behind the line. Pacheco is getting first downs almost at will. The Eagles backs and safeties, desperate for a stop, start holding a little more than they had been when the Chiefs marched down the field for a TD every single time they have the ball.

Can both be true? Sure. But even if both are as a player you absolutely do not commit that penalty unless you have to because you know that in that situation the refs are going to be watching closely. The Eagles were desperate for a stop and it's much more likely that they were getting more aggressive with their holding because that was what they had to do to stop the Chiefs. The way Bradberry phrased it makes it sound like he knew he committed the penalty and felt he had to do it but could get away with it. It sounds like he was desperate to stop Smith-Schuster to me.

[naednek]

Frickin refs decide the game.

not really. Ya that was questionable, but the allowing the 70 yard punt return was the turning point.

[malchior]

Frickin refs decide the game.

not really. Ya that was questionable, but the allowing the 70 yard punt return was the turning point.

I'll argue the whole 2nd half was a turning point. KC scored every time they got the ball. It possible the only reason it stayed competitive was because the Eagles Offense controlled time of possession.

[Zaxxon]

But back to your argument that they weren't calling those same penalties during the game. Which of these two scenarios is more likely?

1. The refs changed their play calling at the end of the game because of some unknown reason.
2. The Eagles defense is getting desperate for a stop after the Chiefs are marching down the field with guys getting wide open over and over. KC has scored 3 straight TDs and are on their way to a fourth after Mahommes runs the ball for 20+ yards to get inside the 20 when the Eagles (briefly) had him in trouble behind the line. Pacheco is getting first downs almost at will. The Eagles backs and safeties, desperate for a stop, start holding a little more than they had been when the Chiefs marched down the field for a TD every single time they have the ball.

False dichotomy. It's option 3 - the ref in question made a mistake.

[Kurth]

Frickin refs decide the game.

not really. Ya that was questionable, but the allowing the 70 yard punt return was the turning point.

I'll argue the whole 2nd half was a turning point. KC scored every time they got the ball. It possible the only reason it stayed competitive was because the Eagles Offense controlled time of possession.

This was the first game all season the Eagles failed to register a sack or a turnover. A terrible time for the defense to fail to show up. I knew the KC O line was relatively strong on pass pro, but I still thought the Eagles D line would get to Mahomes. Not the case, and that was the game.

[Unagi]

About The Call, from the alleged perpetrator himself:

Bradberry, however, took no issue with the call. He took accountability for the penalty after the game.

"It was a holding," Bradyberry told reporters, per the Boston Globe's Ben Volin. "I tugged on the jersey. ... They called it. I was hoping they would let it ride."

Yeah, well what does he know?

I mean this was one of the top-ten missed calls ever. And he’s trying to tell us it isn’t?

Yes. He is.

As I said above, don't give the refs the chance to decide the game.

I was being highly sarcastic.

[Pyperkub]

Every db holds a bit like that on every play. It's just a question of whether the refs throw a flag or let it go. It's essentially the ONLY way to have a shot at defending passes with all the rule changes favoring the offense (which kind of irks me, I think the NFL has gone way overboard in hampering defenses and making passing games unstoppable). The NFL is almost too predictable in the 4th quarter because of it and it makes the games, well, a bit boring.

[LawBeefaroni]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

That's why it's an illusion. They write and rewrite the rules to appear to be fixing things. They make it worse.

Football is a complex game with extremely high stakes due to its massive revenue. The problem is that the game has become too fast and too hard hitting to be maintained by mere humans making the calls. But the league needs people to think it is somehow controllable so they make up all this shit like "process of the catch" or "catchable ball" or "in the grasp". Constant reactionary rule adjustments for a game that is essentially about causing chaos.


It will only continue to get worse as players become faster and tactics become more complex.

[Isgrimnur]

[Jeff V]

They need the illusion of a manageable set of rules to keep gambling viable. If the public loses confidence in bets and fantasyFB, they'll lose half the viewership.

Lol, they don't have the illusion of a manageable set of rules. Every broadcast includes an ex-official who routinely gets calls wrong/different from the replay official.

That's why it's an illusion. They write and rewrite the rules to appear to be fixing things. They make it worse.

Football is a complex game with extremely high stakes due to its massive revenue. The problem is that the game has become too fast and too hard hitting to be maintained by mere humans making the calls. But the league needs people to think it is somehow controllable so they make up all this shit like "process of the catch" or "catchable ball" or "in the grasp". Constant reactionary rule adjustments for a game that is essentially about causing chaos.


It will only continue to get worse as players become faster and tactics become more complex.

Technology will fix some of it. Imagine smart clothing and footballs that can tell within a nanosecond of whether a defender got there before the ball, whether a shoe broke the plane of the sideline, or whether the crap spewed from players mouths is worthy of a penalty. Offsides penalties determined within a micron of the spot of the football. False starts analyzed by cameras aimed at every player. Even things like face mask penalties could be triggered by excessive contact with the face mask.

It would take some calibration to keep the game playable, of course.

[The Meal]

I saw mentioned earlier today that Detroit's was the only offense to put five TDs on the celebrated Eagles D.

[Kurth]

I saw mentioned earlier today that Detroit's was the only offense to put five TDs on the celebrated Eagles D.

Hey, now. That Detroit offense had its ups and downs this season, but there was a stretch there where Goff was balling out for the Lions, and Aman Ra St. Brown was looking like an all-world receiver. Also, the Eagles were up by 17 heading into the 4th quarter. The last two Lions TDS were basically in garbage time.

[RunningMn9]

I’m a day late, but I don’t know what some people are looking at on that late holding call. I get the argument that you can’t start calling that in the final two minutes of the game, but to say that it wasn’t holding or didn’t impact the WR? That’s nonsense.

That was a defensive hold. The DB knew it was a hold and immediately reacted like he knew he held. Have you never seen a DB that thinks he got screwed by a call? Bradberry hung his head, because he held.

The WR cuts to go out, and Bradberry was going the wrong way. He reached out and grabbed him, you see the WR take two steps in place as the energy from the cut instead is used to stop the DB’s momentum.

If they didn’t call it, I’d be fine (unless I was a Chiefs fan, in which case I would be livid). If I was an Eagles fan, I would be livid that they did call it. As a fan in general, I kinda wish they didn’t call it. But to say that it wasn’t a hold? Of course it was.

I get the consistency argument. I would rather PHI had a chance to drive again (I was rooting for them). But if Bradberry can know he did it, I think it’s ok for us to know he did it.

[stimpy]

That slide by McKinnon made me $5000 richer.
Best football play ever.

[Skinypupy]

JuJu chooses violence.

[El Guapo]

I’m a day late, but I don’t know what some people are looking at on that late holding call. I get the argument that you can’t start calling that in the final two minutes of the game, but to say that it wasn’t holding or didn’t impact the WR? That’s nonsense.

That was a defensive hold. The DB knew it was a hold and immediately reacted like he knew he held. Have you never seen a DB that thinks he got screwed by a call? Bradberry hung his head, because he held.

The WR cuts to go out, and Bradberry was going the wrong way. He reached out and grabbed him, you see the WR take two steps in place as the energy from the cut instead is used to stop the DB’s momentum.

If they didn’t call it, I’d be fine (unless I was a Chiefs fan, in which case I would be livid). If I was an Eagles fan, I would be livid that they did call it. As a fan in general, I kinda wish they didn’t call it. But to say that it wasn’t a hold? Of course it was.

I get the consistency argument. I would rather PHI had a chance to drive again (I was rooting for them). But if Bradberry can know he did it, I think it’s ok for us to know he did it.

100% in agreement. No question that the game would've been more exciting if it wasn't called. But there's no dispute that it was a hold, so I don't think it's reasonable to complain too much about it being called.

[Unagi]

I don’t understand why people would want refs to make calls based on what would make the game more exciting.

That sounds profoundly wrong.

And it seems to be the primary argument for why that call was a bad call.

[Jaymann]

It was a bad call because it was marginal, and once it was made the game was over. Not all but over, but actually over. The difference is, if no call KC still has a HUGE advantage, but the game is not over. KC would absolutely score from point blank range, but at least the game would continue.

NFL refs should take a tip from NBA refs who swallow the whistle in the finals.

[Zarathud]

If you can’t afford the penalty , don’t take the risk of holding. That’s part of the game.

[Carpet_pissr]

I don’t understand why people would want refs to make calls based on what would make the game more exciting.

That sounds profoundly wrong.

And it seems to be the primary argument for why that call was a bad call.

Yeah totally agree, I think it’s a weird argument. I think the best argument is that that penalty was not being called all game, and then it was.

That’s a pretty big deal in soccer where the players really need to have a sense of ‘how’ tightly or not the refs are calling a game, and adjust accordingly.

Watched at least one game in the recent World Cup where something similar happened.,,a particular ref or ref team was calling a game super tight, then during a big play didn’t make that call (or vice versa) and of course fans were up in arms (and commentators).

[Lassr]

Yes, that is my issue. The game was being called a certain way all game long and then in the last few minutes it changed. As a player, I would have to assume that hand checking and grabbing was ok with these refs as they had not called it any, and it was happening, and then in a critical moment it is called.

Just be consistent.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[Zaxxon]

I don’t understand why people would want refs to make calls based on what would make the game more exciting.

That sounds profoundly wrong.

And it seems to be the primary argument for why that call was a bad call.

Yeah totally agree, I think it’s a weird argument. I think the best argument is that that penalty was not being called all game, and then it was.

Mr. Pissr has the right of it. No one (well, no one being serious) is saying it wasn't a hold of some degree. The issue is it wasn't being called consistently, and then it was. The soccer analogy is on point. Also applies to hockey. Players need to know how tightly a game is being called, as like I said earlier there are 'by the definition of the rules' fouls on literally every single play of every single game.

[El Guapo]

I don’t understand why people would want refs to make calls based on what would make the game more exciting.

That sounds profoundly wrong.

And it seems to be the primary argument for why that call was a bad call.

Yeah totally agree, I think it’s a weird argument. I think the best argument is that that penalty was not being called all game, and then it was.

Mr. Pissr has the right of it. No one (well, no one being serious) is saying it wasn't a hold of some degree. The issue is it wasn't being called consistently, and then it was. The soccer analogy is on point. Also applies to hockey. Players need to know how tightly a game is being called, as like I said earlier there are 'by the definition of the rules' fouls on literally every single play of every single game.

To be clear I don't think the argument is that the refs should call the game a certain way in order to make it exciting. It's more that as (mostly) neutral fans, we'd prefer the game to be more exciting rather than less, even though I wouldn't expect the refs to make decisions on that basis.

I get the consistency argument. I think the refs should strive for consistency, though at the same time I can't really say as a mildly informed fan whether that call was consistent or not - had other players been tugging on jersey without it being called during the game? Not that I'm aware of, though I wasn't watching for it.

Also I'm skeptical that it's reasonable to expect even professional refs to achieve perfect consistency when they have to watch so many players at once playing a high speed game where the calls often have difficult line drawing and subjectivity issues.

And ultimately if the player in question agrees that it was clearly a hold, knew it at the time, and isn't arguing that the refs did anything inconsistent...doesn't seem like there's much of an issue at the end of the day.

[The Meal]

In hockey it's typical that refs manage the game. Feedback on a play ("do it again, and I'm tossing you in the box!") can let players know that they're on the verge of an officiating action taking place. To the unobservant it may look like the game is being officiated differently at the end, but the reality is that the powder keg has been building up, players and coaches (generally) know they're about to cross over the established line, then the stripes follow through on what's been communicated.

There aren't a lot of valid comparisons between hockey and football in terms of game flow so maybe there isn't much of an officiating parallel here.

[Skinypupy]

Mahomes: WOO HOO!! PARTY!!! Here, hold this Super Bowl trophy for me.

The NFL:

[Unagi]

That video is cut WAY too short.

[LordMortis]

Radio was just suggesting that Patricia is going to Philly.

You just stared at the prize, why would you take on that poison?

Reason the radio was talking about. Suddenly, Slay wants out. Why would Slay want out? Hmmm....

[DOS=HIGH]

Radio was just suggesting that Patricia is going to Philly.

You just stared at the prize, why would you take on that poison?

Reason the radio was talking about. Suddenly, Slay wants out. Why would Slay want out? Hmmm....

Slay doesn't necessarily want out, he wants a new contract since he only has one year left on his. But Philly may not be able to give him one due to all their free agents, so it's more of a plan B.