Most awful officiating calls you can recall (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

brainfry

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 5, 2008
342
0
Lexington, KY
1976 Patriots vs. Raiders. Patriots DE Sugar Bear Hamilton was called for a phantom roughing the passer, to keep a drive alive and delivering the AFC championship to Oakland because of Ben Dreith.

You know what? I've changed my mind on that one after 32 years. I was 11 when that happened, and I thought it was a bad call at the time. But after seeing it again recently, it does look like Hamilton hit Stabler in the head. Back then, they let the defenders hit the QBs in the head and hit them harder than they do now. So I guess what I'm saying is, maybe back then it was not the right call if you consider what was allowed at the time. But I think it would be the right call in today's context.
 

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
1976 Patriots vs. Raiders. Patriots DE Sugar Bear Hamilton was called for a phantom roughing the passer, to keep a drive alive and delivering the AFC championship to Oakland because of Ben Dreith.

Superbowl XL most pathetic one sided officiated football game EVER. From the bogus holding call on the Seahawks to the Roethlisberger non-TD. Just brutal.

Walt Colemen missing the roughing the passer against Charles Woodson, causing the whole "tuck" rule incident.



That is not true at all, it was called against the Patriots in the Rams and Jets Games earlier that year. (2001)

Ok....what missed roughing the passer call? Woodson came in untouched and took a swip at the ball when he hit Brady from behind? Was this play BEFORE the tuck play?
 

jake14mw

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 27, 2004
99
0
Central Connecticut
The "incomplete" overruling via instant replay of Troy Polamalu's interception against the Colts in the 2005-6 playoffs. It's one thing for officials to get things wrong in real time, it's another to get it so wrong after reviewing replay.
 

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,046
503
MA
You know what? I've changed my mind on that one after 32 years. I was 11 when that happened, and I thought it was a bad call at the time. But after seeing it again recently, it does look like Hamilton hit Stabler in the head. Back then, they let the defenders hit the QBs in the head and hit them harder than they do now. So I guess what I'm saying is, maybe back then it was not the right call if you consider what was allowed at the time. But I think it would be the right call in today's context.


I hate to say it Brainfry, but I tend to agree with you. I was 10 when I watched this game and back then I thought the Patriots were robbed, but after seeing it numerous times, it did appear Hamilton hit Stabler in the head. The Raiders went 13-1 that year, their one loss being a 48-17 drubbing to the Patriots in Foxboro. Then in the playoff game in Oakland, the Pats had a 21-10 lead going into the fourth quarter, but lost 24-21 when Stabler scored with ten seconds left......

Which brings me to January 2002:

If Sugar Bear Hamilton was guilty of a blow to the QB's head , then Charles Woodson certainly should have been too (as Hart has pointed out). On the "tuck rule" play, Woodson came in clean on Brady but slapped him across the helmet (NINE OUT OF TEN TIMES THIS IS CALLED ROUGHING THE PASSER). Forget about the tuck rule, there should have been a 15 yard penalty on the Raiders on that play.
 

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
I hate to say it Brainfry, but I tend to agree with you. I was 10 when I watched this game and back then I thought the Patriots were robbed, but after seeing it numerous times, it did appear Hamilton hit Stabler in the head. The Raiders went 13-1 that year, their one loss being a 48-17 drubbing to the Patriots in Foxboro. Then in the playoff game in Oakland, the Pats had a 21-10 lead going into the fourth quarter, but lost 24-21 when Stabler scored with ten seconds left......

Which brings me to January 2002:

If Sugar Bear Hamilton was guilty of a blow to the QB's head , then Charles Woodson certainly should have been too (as Hart has pointed out). On the "tuck rule" play, Woodson came in clean on Brady but slapped him across the helmet (NINE OUT OF TEN TIMES THIS IS CALLED ROUGHING THE PASSER). Forget about the tuck rule, there should have been a 15 yard penalty on the Raiders on that play.

WOW....now it's a "blow" to the head....LOL....well, as recent as this morning(I even added it to my favorites in You Tube), the video clip was available. He BARELY grazed his helmet, in some angles, like when looking from his blind side, it looks like he didn't even touch his helment....and now you Pats fans are calling it a "blow" to the head....LMAO!! Classical......
 

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,046
503
MA
WOW....now it's a "blow" to the head....LOL....well, as recent as this morning(I even added it to my favorites in You Tube), the video clip was available. He BARELY grazed his helmet, in some angles, like when looking from his blind side, it looks like he didn't even touch his helment....and now you Pats fans are calling it a "blow" to the head....LMAO!! Classical......


Now THAT'S classical!!
 

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,046
503
MA
Woodson's head slap
Cold, Hard Football Facts for September 6, 2005

The infamous "tuck" play in the Oakland-New England 2001 divisional playoffs is probably one of the most talked-about plays in NFL history. It's certainly one of the most controversial. The "tuck" play is front and center in many conversations again, as Oakland and New England prepare to kick off the 2005 season Thursday night.

We've spent more than our share of time talking about the play, particularly in our "pundit"-splattering opus, "A slow, hanging curveball," in which we highlight the letter and law of the actual rule called into question on the play. In the discussion we brought up something utterly overlooked by "pundits" and fans following the controversy: the fact that blitzing Oakland defensive back Charles Woodson hit New England QB Tom Brady with a vicious and illegal head slap.
tuck.gif


We've seen the non-called penalty with our own eyes as we've watched replays of the game. Well, we recently came across this video evidence for all to see and we have posted it here. Woodson's open hand clearly hits Brady's head, where the right side of the facemask is screwed to the helmet, forcing his helmet to snap to his left and, in all likelihood, forcing Brady to lose control of the ball.

Controversy ensued as many fans claimed it was a fumble, recovered by Oakland, which would have sealed the deal for the Raiders. Instead, it was called an incomplete forward pass and New England was given another shot to go on and tie the game and, ultimately, win in overtime.

But as this video evidence shows, it's a controversy that never should have been. Woodson should have been whistled for a 15-yard penalty, which would have given New England an automatic first down. More importantly, the penalty would have slammed the door on any controversy over the "tuck" rule.
 

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
Woodson's head slap
Cold, Hard Football Facts for September 6, 2005

The infamous "tuck" play in the Oakland-New England 2001 divisional playoffs is probably one of the most talked-about plays in NFL history. It's certainly one of the most controversial. The "tuck" play is front and center in many conversations again, as Oakland and New England prepare to kick off the 2005 season Thursday night.

We've spent more than our share of time talking about the play, particularly in our "pundit"-splattering opus, "A slow, hanging curveball," in which we highlight the letter and law of the actual rule called into question on the play. In the discussion we brought up something utterly overlooked by "pundits" and fans following the controversy: the fact that blitzing Oakland defensive back Charles Woodson hit New England QB Tom Brady with a vicious and illegal head slap.
tuck.gif


We've seen the non-called penalty with our own eyes as we've watched replays of the game. Well, we recently came across this video evidence for all to see and we have posted it here. Woodson's open hand clearly hits Brady's head, where the right side of the facemask is screwed to the helmet, forcing his helmet to snap to his left and, in all likelihood, forcing Brady to lose control of the ball.

Controversy ensued as many fans claimed it was a fumble, recovered by Oakland, which would have sealed the deal for the Raiders. Instead, it was called an incomplete forward pass and New England was given another shot to go on and tie the game and, ultimately, win in overtime.

But as this video evidence shows, it's a controversy that never should have been. Woodson should have been whistled for a 15-yard penalty, which would have given New England an automatic first down. More importantly, the penalty would have slammed the door on any controversy over the "tuck" rule.



ROFLMAO.....love the justification of the tuck...a "vicious" smack that...let's see what is the phrase.....oh yeah, "snapped his head back". I mean it could not have been that Woodson came from the blind side of the QB untouched right??!! NO WAY!! That could never cause a QBs head to snap back. And yet, all the announcers that I remember, either doing the game or ESPN or anywhere else they showed the highlights....failed to mention that supposed "obvious", "vicious smack to the head".....but they MUST be wrong.....and this site MUST be right!:eureka:haha:haha
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,046
503
MA
ROFLMAO.....love the justification of the tuck...a "vicious" smack that...let's see what is the phrase.....oh yeah, "snapped his head back". I mean it could not have been that Woodson came from the blind side of the QB untouched right??!! NO WAY!! That could never cause a QBs head to snap back. And yet, all the announcers that I remember, either doing the game or ESPN or anywhere else they showed the highlights....failed to mention that supposed "obvious", "vicious smack to the head".....but they MUST be wrong.....and this site MUST be right!:eureka:haha:haha


So are you saying you don't see(AS PLAIN AS FRIGGIN' DAY) Woodson's hand slap down on Brady's helmet??? HAAA!!

BTW, if it was called roughing the passer it wouldn't matter if Brady "fumbled" or not. What does Woodson coming from the blind side untouched have to do with that?
 

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
The "incomplete" overruling via instant replay of Troy Polamalu's interception against the Colts in the 2005-6 playoffs. It's one thing for officials to get things wrong in real time, it's another to get it so wrong after reviewing replay.
I dont want to hear about anything with Troy or and of these long haired players. For years he has had an unfair advantage of that long hair which prevents anyone grabbing his jersy back there because you end up with a handfull of hair and a personal foul.:rolleyes:
Thank god they are changing that bogus rule.
 

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
But as this video evidence shows, it's a controversy that never should have been. Woodson should have been whistled for a 15-yard penalty, which would have given New England an automatic first down. More importantly, the penalty would have slammed the door on any controversy over the "tuck" rule.
A 15 yd penalty for what? His hand grazing over the face mask that he never held? :rolleyes:
 

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
So are you saying you don't see(AS PLAIN AS FRIGGIN' DAY) Woodson's hand slap down on Brady's helmet??? HAAA!!

BTW, if it was called roughing the passer it wouldn't matter if Brady "fumbled" or not. What does Woodson coming from the bind side untouched have to do with that?

Oh....you mean the "vicious head slap that naps his neck"??!! Please..... From that front angle, it does look like he hits his helmet, but from the side angles, it clearly shows Woodson's hand hits Brady's shoulder and what causes his "neck to jerk" is the hit from the blind side....NOT the "vicious head slap".... But hey, if you wanna justify the tuck fiasco with the "vicious" hit....you are more than entitled to it.....

But then again, none of those that covered the game nor those that showed the highlights mention anything about this "vicious head slap that snaps" Brady neck....
 

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
WOW....now it's a "blow" to the head....LOL....well, as recent as this morning(I even added it to my favorites in You Tube), the video clip was available. He BARELY grazed his helmet, in some angles, like when looking from his blind side, it looks like he didn't even touch his helment....and now you Pats fans are calling it a "blow" to the head....LMAO!! Classical......
Amen Salsa!! And I aint no Raider fan
 

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,046
503
MA
Oh....you mean the "vicious head slap that naps his neck"??!! Please..... From that front angle, it does look like he hits his helmet, but from the side angles, it clearly shows Woodson's hand hits Brady's shoulder and what causes his "neck to jerk" is the hit from the blind side....NOT the "vicious head slap".... But hey, if you wanna justify the tuck fiasco with the "vicious" hit....you are more than entitled to it.....

LMAO.....so that video is just a mirage then right? LOL, from the front angle it only 'looks' like he hit his helmet, BUT the side angle it "clearly" shows Woodson's hand hit Brady's shoulder. OMG, that's good stuff really. You do realize that the front view CLEARLY shows Woodson's hand was no where near Brady's shoulder, don't you?


But then again, none of those that covered the game nor those that showed the highlights mention anything about this "vicious head slap that snaps" Brady neck....

I grant you that (I think I heard it mentioned once postgame). It doesn't change the fact (video evidence) that he was clearly hit in the head.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top