OT: Jerome Boger is Terrible at His Job
I'm not here to balme the refs for the Lions loss yesterday, because it goes further than that, obviously. What I am going to say is that his inompetence, on three separate occasions, deeply influenced the Lions ability to tie a game that could've gone either way.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^
But the Lions need to play better and coach better. 3rd and short into a 10 man twice makes me nuts.
November 17th, 2014 at 6:39 PM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^
Man the Lions had all game to do something with the football, and they didn't do anything at all. Sure this was a terrible call by the officials but it isn't the reason the Lions lost
November 17th, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
You're using "this" in a singular meaning. This would imply that it related to only one blown call, and not several. These are several blown calls, two of which were reviewed.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
If you're referring to the Prater FG in London, that was actually the correct call.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
Winning isn't luck, namely because luck doesn't exist. If we're talking about calls going the other way, then the Prater FG call was the only call that led to a Lions victory that I can see someone referring to as lucky.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
I think he was referring to "lucky" in the sense of a series of low- or moderate-probability events all going the Lions' way, just due to chance. Obviously, luck exists in that sense.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
Sure the Lions did themselves no favors but the refs blew a good 4 or 5 calls that could have been the turning points. The one that was overturned that Ross ran for 50 yards, WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ABOUT??? The guy may have had it but he let it go and the whistle was not blown; the Lions took it from there. How the replay booth guy overruled that, didn't overrule other plays that would have given the Lions first downs, or how nobody stepped in at the end to make that last call right, unbelievable. Yeah, the Lions have gotten some good breaks earlier in the year but it's not due to the refs giving them some freebies. The Lions got screwed yesterday.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^
I mean, put that drive at the Cards 46 instead of the Lions 1, and tell me the Lions aren't in much better position to tie the game at a critical moment in the game.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
After a Drew Stanton INT, the Lions started on the Cards' 19 and got 3. Nothing from the Lions' offense showed me that they were capable of putting it in the endzone yesterday.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
You mean the time the refs said Ebron went out at the 10 where you can clearly see his foot on the nine and his body leaning forward while he was still inbounds (reflected above)? I don't know, man. Maybe if they'd been awarded the first down...
November 17th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
This was more egregious than the punt return IMO. I guess maybe you could kinda sorta, in some twisted fashion, interpret "possession" the way they did, even though they never interpret it that way in any other context.
But I don't know how much more indisputable you need the evidence to be on the Ebron spot.
November 17th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
So if Calvin Johnson did that in the endzone, it'd be a touchdown?
I feel like we've covered that example somehow...
November 17th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
What's wrong with the punt return is precisely this: Had Ross not picked up the ball and run with it, Arizona would've been credited with downing it wherever the next guy after Bethel (the guy who "had" it at the 1) picked it up. Alternatively, had Bethel grabbed it and fallen into the end zone, it would've been a touchback. Boger interpreted "possession" in a way that no referee has ever done before.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
Considering that the Lions gained 52 yards on that drive, I'd say you have a point.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
Watching the officials' consistent blown calls or our offense.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
So you aren't blaming the refs but you are.
What about 5-15 on third downs, 260 yards of offense, 4 sacks allowed, and 80 yards of penalties?
November 17th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
So because the Lions weren't playing well it's ok that the referees were incompetent? This is an argument I see frequently to defend bad calls and it makes no logicial sense.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
It was an 8 point game at the end of the day, so it's logical to say that blown calls have an impact on a game.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
"I'm not here to balme the refs for the Lions loss"
He's referring to that.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
Blame is a term that would indicate that the refs were solely responsible for the Lions losing.This is not the case, so I didn't blame them for the Lions losing. With calls in three key situations, however, they did deeply influence the Lions ability to tie the game up in a game that could've gone either way. Would they have won in overtime had they tied it up? No idea, which is why I didn't blame the refs for the loss.
November 17th, 2014 at 8:04 PM ^
"Blame is a term that would indicate that the refs were solely responsible for the Lions losing."
No, it isn't. Blame isn't always (and isn't usually) due to one simple cause. You're putting part of the blame for the loss on the refs. There's nothing wrong with that. Certainly refs do screw up. I'm not sure why you're so against just admitting it though.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
The Lions' offense didn't play a great game, but the defense did.
The refs egregiously blew at least three calls, and disproportionately called penalties on the Lions to the extent that Cardinals fans were apologizing to Lions fans in the game thread on Reddit. Despite that, the Lions only lost by 8. Who knows how the game would have turned out, but I don't doubt for a second that the refs may have had 8 points of influence on the final outcome.
November 17th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
The refs contributed to Detroit's loss in a big way. So did the Lions. So did the Cardinals, who have the best record in the NFL right now. Holding the refs responsible for screwing the Lions on too many occasions isn't "blaming the refs." In this case, it's just stating the obvious.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
None of those pictures seem to tell me anything really. One picture is a moment in time and an alternate picture in that same series may have given a different position. Those are very minor events to me. The possession one on the punt is total BS. Would that have been a catch if it didn't bounce? No football move and definitely didn't complete the process.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
Yeah, having the ball on the 50 instead of the 1 in a one score game late in the 4th quarter is always a minor call.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
Next time you bitch about something someone says, you should actually read the entire post first instead of assuming what I said, as I cleary said that WAS a bad call. Idiot
November 17th, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^
The pictures show what were clearly bad spots on three different occasions. Look at where the ball is in each picture, then look at where it was spotted. The first one (The one with Ebron) was on a third down, and he actually fell forward out of bounds around the 8. The spot cost the Lions a first down with three shots into the endzone with 30 seconds to go in the half. The other two extended drives that shouldn't have.
The punt was just a terrible call.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
That was the worst reffing I've seen in a long time.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
The problem with the Lions is Stafford. He played alot like Stanton, but making elite QB money. He has two of the best WRs in the game and a first-rounder at TE. No more excuses. Being a GREAT QB means being consistent, no matter who you play or point in the game.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
If the OC keeps having you throw short passes and running all the time and the line cannot block with any consistency no QB can fare well.Stafford is a gunslinger. Let him attack defenses downfield more consistently.
Stafford does need to be more consistent, but he is far from the problem. The problem is that Joe Lombardi is a poor playcaller and schemer. He is overmatched on a weekly basis by defensive coordinators. It's been Stafford and the other skill players who have bailed Lombardi out up until yesterday with last minute wins.
Stafford has 13 td passes in ten games. He has had 40 and 29 in a season before falling off to 22 last year(and that was a team that was CJ and no one else at WR)
November 17th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
The OLine has regressed significantly from last year. RT has had a bunch of injuries, with Waddle in and out of the lineup with knee issues and Hillirard out for the season mean its the 3rd or 4th tackle playing as replacement. Warford was also hurt last game so we had the rookie Swanson playing for him. Sims and Raiola have regressed from last season as they have gotten older.
They all certainly have struggled with the new scheme but the constant changing of the lineup cant be helping any.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
I understand and agree, but elite QBs (which he should be compared to due to his salary-18th overall in the WORLD http://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#tab:overall ) such as Tom Brady and Andrew Luck have done very well with average to terrible O-lines. And the assumption that its coaching, and subsequently not Stafford, is the problem in my opinoin is not valid. For one, Lombardi has had great great success running his system previously, so it isn't the system. The reason people are blaming him is that his system is currently not being executed, which is the QBs fault. For example, Alex Smith's QBR is actually higher than Staffords, and that is without the WR weapons Stafford has (even without CJ), as no WR has caught a TD for the chiefs yet!.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
November 17th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
Ladies' Man!
November 17th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
Officials are human and despite their repeated protestations otherwise, are heavily influenced by the cheers of the home crowd. People like to be liked and I submit yesterday's game as a perfect example of an officiating crew making call after call to the benefit of the home team and hence loud cheers of approval. And like a snowball rolling downhill - the more ridiculous the call, the wilder the cheers.
And no, not ONE call led to the Lions defeat but the sum total of the calls - ALL of which favored the Cardinals sure as shit did. And anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Want to watch a game in which one team got their asses kicked with no help from the officials? Watch the Browns/Texans game from yesterday - I was there and saw the descruction in person.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
The refs were pretty bad early, and I kept waiting for the pendulum to swing back and fuck the Cardinals at some point. Never happened. The taunting and the punt callback were just straight-up nihilism at its finest.
Also, I find it funny that some people are like "well, the refs don't matter." In some cases, I'd agree...but this was a one possession game.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
What's interesting is there's a solution to the problem but the referees hate it and have fought it every day it's brought up. To remove the crowd's influence simply put the officials in noise-cancelling headphones and allow them to communicate to each other electronically. No crowd noise - no positive (or negative) feedback loop and voila.....no homefield referee advantadge. And I don't remember where I read it but I do know this has been tested and every time they've tried it the calls immediately become balanced and don't favor the home team any longer. It's especially prevelant in basketball FWIW.
But I think the reason the refs won't agree to it is because to do so would acknowledge what every fan of every sport can see with their own eyes - that officiating IS inlluenced by the home crowd.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
How will the refs be able to throw penalty flags for racial slurs that weren't actually uttered if they can't hear?
/s
/facedesk
November 17th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
that's why there is a 3 pt home field advantage in football and basketball. it has been proven in other sports too, like soccer.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
be officiating if they cannot remain nuetral, the definition of what a ref should be. A strong enough individual will NOT be persuaeded by the home crowd, mad coach, or for any reason.
You claim that by human nature people make these decision based on a feeling of approval. Believe it or not, when I officiate wrestling matches, I make the call I see on the mat, regardless of the crowd and coach, and I actually look forward to hearing the complaints from one side. I'm fine with it because I made the right call. Maybe its easier when you ref kids because who could really live with themselves for screwing over a hard working kid. Screwing over a multimillionaore athlete might be a little easier on the concsience. You will always make someone unhappy so you might as well stick to your guns and be a person of integrity.
Make the right call, everytime, regardless, its inexcusable, especially with replays.
November 17th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
I, for one, fully believe that your douchey nature does indeed make you a fantastic referee. I always hated having "nice guys" as soccer refs; they're way too flimsy to make tough calls.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
Which I will take, good sir! Thank you.
I can tell, that deep down, there might be a slight chance you maybe could, just a little bit, kinda maybe like me Monocle...