Seriously, the officials want the Donkeys to win the Super Bowl

by PVChiefsfan on Sep 30, 2008 6:36 PM CDT Comment 12 comments

After several questionable calls which encouraged the Donkeys to victory, the officals attempted to nudge Denver that way again. When I watched the DVR'ed game on Sunday evening, I didn't really notice it. And when I skimmed through it again last night, I fast-forwarded right through it because I knew the outcome.

The play to which I am referring is the pass from Cutler to Stokely on the 4 yard line with 2:26 remaining in the game. The pass was ruled incomplete.

And that is donkey#@%$...

He securely caught the ball away from his body with both hands, grasped t tightly and then as he began turning towards the endzone, began tucking the ball into the normal carrying position. At this point, Pollard came in and punched the ball out...it is not as if Stokely were tentatively holding onto the ball and a hit from Pollard jarred it loose.

So did Stokely "make a football move"? Two officials initially thought so...the two close referees that Stokely was facing ruled it a fumble which the Chiefs recovered. The back judge, who was behind Stokely then came in and signaled 'no catch' (remember, he was the one who saw red and a big 49 where the ball was supposed to be).

Even if one could question the subjective term "football move", he got two feet down, a fact that went unnoticed by Dan "I can't see over my moustache" Dierdorf. It was pretty freakin' ovious. Stokely caught the ball with both hands out in front of him and hopped a little right when he caught it. Then his right foot comes down (1) , he starts turning, his left foot comes down (2) , he turns some more, and then just before his right foot touches again (3), Pollard hit the ball with his left hand.

My complaints

1 - Had the play occured 30 seconds later it would have been ruled a fumble.

2 - The two referees who had the best view ruled it a fumble. Why not go with them and let DEN challenge it if they want to?

3 - I am not sure if you can challenge an incomplete pass ruling. But if you can, why the hell did we not challenge that call?

Okay, I'm done ranting...and curse you DVR with your frame by frame slow mo!

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You can't challenge an incomplete pass I believe

because if that’s the ruling then the play is over. But I remember watching it and thinking they were right that it was incomplete. I don’t think he ever really caught it.

by Vince D on Sep 30, 2008 7:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Now that you mention it

I remember that play and thinking the same thing. By the way I think they took that football move rule out over the offseason and now it is labeled a catch if the receiver has the ball for a discernible amount of time.

by chiefsfan1384 on Sep 30, 2008 7:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I remember

wondering why it wasn’t ruled a fumble. He clearly had possesion of the ball. It wasn’t for very long but he did catch and posses the ball completely. Sometimes when plays happen that quickly it is an easy way for refs to go with the safe call instead of making the correct call.

by ChiefsWolf24 on Sep 30, 2008 7:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No...

…I remember the play…Stokley caught the pass and in the process of tucking it (which usually constitutes possession or control) it shot straight through under his arm (albeit with help from Pollards hit.) The fact that he never had it successfully tucked means he never had actual possession or control.

The “football move” thing is a myth now…I heard bloggers and even TV commentators mention it all the time, but “CF1384” is correct, it was removed as a stipulation before LAST season.

Also, I think your premise is off to begin with. If they wanted the Broncs to win why would they have allowed so much leniency with calls…i.e. Turk’s blatant late hit…

by woodman212 on Sep 30, 2008 8:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

or the false start by Cottam that was not called

by aPacificChief on Oct 1, 2008 4:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was tongue-in-cheek

I don’t really think there is a conspiracy…but I still think it was a fumble. And had the Donkeys scored, recovered the onside kick, scored again, and won on a 55 yard FG in overtime, I would have been furious.

by PVChiefsfan on Oct 1, 2008 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

absolutely......what I liked about the game overall, was that we didn't hear often from the ref's

by aPacificChief on Oct 1, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

They just let the boys play

Still…not a fumble :P

by woodman212 on Oct 2, 2008 3:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Almost every game

you watch has a blown or missed call. It is called human error and it depends who you are rooting for on how you view a close call. As a fan you see it as a fumble sure. Look at it objectively and it is incomplete.

by cmpotter on Sep 30, 2008 9:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it was incomplete.

It could have been a completion, but IIRC the ball had yet to be FULLY secured, and therefore was an incompletion. If he had taken another 2-or-so seconds, it probably would have been a fumble.

by rockchalk on Sep 30, 2008 10:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

In real time it looked like an incompletion

In slow-mo it was closer, but not enough to overturn the call IMO.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 30, 2008 10:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If you are going to complain about calls...

Then why waste your time on “suspect” calls when you can go straight to “blatantly obvious” with the offensive pass interference on Brandon Flowers when he was going for a pick. That was about as obvious as penalties get, yet it was overlooked.

I don’t think that the refs tried to give that game away, but that was a pretty bad no-call.

by Ben S on Oct 1, 2008 10:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs