Cordell Volson

[HerdistheWord]

Indy. The game was horribly officiated. Anybody but you watching agrees. I get it. I’ve never seen you say anything bad about an official. You are a homer. Again that’s ok but you are the least objective person on poor calls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought there were some bad calls or mistakes, but I trust Indy’s opinion on officiating over anyone else’s on this board. I also think blaming the refs is such a juvenile reaction to the outcome of the game. The Bengals made a lot more mistakes than the refs, which affected the outcome of the game much more. Volson alone had two very untimely holding calls. Volson did not have the best game from what I watched.

[southcliffbison]

Indy. The game was horribly officiated. Anybody but you watching agrees. I get it. I’ve never seen you say anything bad about an official. You are a homer. Again that’s ok but you are the least objective person on poor calls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Poor calls" . You just made a judgement......... real easy from a bar stool or a sofa. What gives you the right to judge someone else's work? Calling Indy the least objective person on "poor calls" and calling him a "homer" is a statement worthy of the "Hall of Shame" thread. There is no person, NO PERSON, on this board that has a better knowledge and understanding of the rules and mechanics of the game of football than Indy and I, for one, am thankfully he bothers to take the time to explain the various nuances of the rules, mechanics, and interpretations behind them. I'm guessing you don't officiate and I can tell you why........you're too fucking chickenshit . Don a shirt, grab a whistle and get out there on a football field, basketball court, or a baseball field, start making those "poor calls". Walk a mile in their shoes......hell, walk a yard.

[CalBison97]

I called one of my NFL friends today and asked about the voluntary pull back, because I thought that was the NFL rule (especially at the goal line). He said not really. He had one this year that was similar, and it was ruled and supported the same way replay overturned that one. The way replay ruled is the way we would rule in NCAA and NFHS.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

This play caused quite the discussion amongst the group of friends I was watching with. We are all very well aware of the rule when it comes to the goal line, but this play is called differently in the field of play in the NFL. I believe it was Kelce who reached the ball out in an attempt to get a first down but then quickly pulled it back. He was given forward progress with that ball extension and a first down in doing so. One of my buddies said he heard announcers in an NFL game earlier this year explain that can only happen at the goal line and that when a runner in the field of play voluntary runs or pulls the ball back, the ball is spotted where he is tackled. Matthew Berry (fantasy football guru) talked about that play yesterday and said his interpretation of the rule was that he should have been ruled down where tackled, thus short of the line to gain. It was strange the announcers didn’t discuss the rule or this play. Your friend’s response of “not really” makes the rule sound sketchy and gray area. So in other words, extending a football with your hand and then pulling it back while being tackled is NOT the same as running and getting the ball downfield but then running back and getting tackled.

[semobison]

"Poor calls" . You just made a judgement......... real easy from a bar stool or a sofa. What gives you the right to judge someone else's work? Calling Indy the least objective person on "poor calls" and calling him a "homer" is a statement worthy of the "Hall of Shame" thread. There is no person, NO PERSON, on this board that has a better knowledge and understanding of the rules and mechanics of the game of football than Indy and I, for one, am thankfully he bothers to take the time to explain the various nuances of the rules, mechanics, and interpretations behind them. I'm guessing you don't officiate and I can tell you why........you're too fucking chickenshit . Don a shirt, grab a whistle and get out there on a football field, basketball court, or a baseball field, start making those "poor calls". Walk a mile in their shoes......hell, walk a yard.

Right on! Officiating has become a thankless job. It is getting tougher by the year to find qualified people to referee games from high school on up. They are human, they make mistakes but I have never in all my years seen a game where I thought the officials were deliberately trying to affect the outcome of a game. Fans are fanatics. They need an excuse. My old referee stripes still hang in my closet!

[Snowgoose]

I thought there were some bad calls or mistakes, but I trust Indy’s opinion on officiating over anyone else’s on this board. I also think blaming the refs is such a juvenile reaction to the outcome of the game. The Bengals made a lot more mistakes than the refs, which affected the outcome of the game much more. Volson alone had two very untimely holding calls. Volson did not have the best game from what I watched.

This is my feeling exactly. People have become so juvenile though thanks to social media. Our society is not doing well thanks to social media even though social media has the ability to have so many positive things as well.

I have a 11 year old son that struggles so badly with blaming the refs and I am trying my hardest to get him to change his attitude, but I see adults are unfortunately the same way and way worse. We need refs to have games thank them for their service as it is pretty much thankless. I try and thank them at each travel Bb tourney I coach even if I think they didn’t do the best job.

[scottietohottie]

They just had the hold on 91 for Bengals on espn get up. Wasn't just me who saw that eh. Clearly pulling on teh jersey eh.

[GreenfieldBison]

To no-one in particular - we don't realistically expect players and/or coaches to have a perfect game because, ya know, human. Why then would we expect that from the officiating?

[CalBison97]

To no-one in particular - we don't realistically expect players and/or coaches to have a perfect game because, ya know, human. Why then would we expect that from the officiating?

Subjectivity will always be an issue for referees. A human ref was standing there and chose to allow a defender to hit Burrow, 3 steps after Burrow released the ball. No foul.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/spo...s/69853178007/

[IndyBison]

Indy. The game was horribly officiated. Anybody but you watching agrees. I get it. I’ve never seen you say anything bad about an official. You are a homer. Again that’s ok but you are the least objective person on poor calls.

Thanks. And to point out bias in reading, I've shared at least once in this thread the referee made a huge mistake on this play by winding the clock after the ball was reset. He doesn't do that, and this situation never happens. Someone should hopefully catch the error when he made the announcement. I think that qualifies as "saying something bad about an official."

"Poor calls" . You just made a judgement......... real easy from a bar stool or a sofa. What gives you the right to judge someone else's work? Calling Indy the least objective person on "poor calls" and calling him a "homer" is a statement worthy of the "Hall of Shame" thread. There is no person, NO PERSON, on this board that has a better knowledge and understanding of the rules and mechanics of the game of football than Indy and I, for one, am thankfully he bothers to take the time to explain the various nuances of the rules, mechanics, and interpretations behind them. I'm guessing you don't officiate and I can tell you why........you're too fucking chickenshit . Don a shirt, grab a whistle and get out there on a football field, basketball court, or a baseball field, start making those "poor calls". Walk a mile in their shoes......hell, walk a yard.

Thanks for the support. I like to use these opportunities to encourage people to consider becoming an official. But I would never call them chickenshit. Some people know they wouldn't be able to do it for various reasons. Some people have kids playing so they aren't going to miss their games. Some people don't have jobs that show them the flexibility to leave work early to get to a game. But i do encourage everyone to think about trying. Men or women. Young or old. Played sports or not. Consider other sports. They all have shortages.

It's much harder than people realize. I love getting someone on the field for the first time. Even if it's youth leagues, they are surprised by the speed and get lost in all the things you have to consider during a play. If you work at it though, it's not hard to be good at it. Like anything there is a lot of muscle memory involved during the action. One the play is over are you able to piece everything together to make sure it's enforced correctly. That's where the clock status comes into play as an example. Those are the inexcusable errors that get officials into a lot more trouble. And those errors often lead to bigger issues like what happened in this play. That's why criticism of the side judge are misguided. He's the one who did something right on this play. Once the referee was given the right information, they handled it correctly.

Who wants to join me? If you loved playing sports, you'll likely love the teamwork and camaraderie with other officials. You are striving to be the actual best at what you do. You are an important part of the athletic competition and it's wonderful to be on the field/court/pitch/mat/deck. But your goal is to be invisible. Unfortunately, the game itself usually dictates that.

This play caused quite the discussion amongst the group of friends I was watching with. We are all very well aware of the rule when it comes to the goal line, but this play is called differently in the field of play in the NFL. I believe it was Kelce who reached the ball out in an attempt to get a first down but then quickly pulled it back. He was given forward progress with that ball extension and a first down in doing so. One of my buddies said he heard announcers in an NFL game earlier this year explain that can only happen at the goal line and that when a runner in the field of play voluntary runs or pulls the ball back, the ball is spotted where he is tackled. Matthew Berry (fantasy football guru) talked about that play yesterday and said his interpretation of the rule was that he should have been ruled down where tackled, thus short of the line to gain. It was strange the announcers didn’t discuss the rule or this play. Your friend’s response of “not really” makes the rule sound sketchy and gray area. So in other words, extending a football with your hand and then pulling it back while being tackled is NOT the same as running and getting the ball downfield but then running back and getting tackled.

I was surprised there wasn't a more clear cut answer. I had heard it described opposite from you in that the goal line requires the ball to remain beyond the plane and not pulled back voluntarily to be awarded that spot. It was on a QB sneak where he reached it across and pulled it back right away that he wasn't given a score. I get it if that's the rule. In all other cases, if you voluntarily move the ball back (usually by running backward), you don't get the forward progress spot. I'm assuming this isn't something that isn't specifically mentioned in the rule other than just definition of forward progress. To me it makes sense the progress spot should include the reach in the game from Sunday.

But situations like that should never be considered a bad call by an official. I've said many times, some calls aren't right or wrong. They are just the best judgment calls made with the information known at the time. There is a lot of gray area when it comes to football rules. As an official you work hard to make sure you are in the best position to see what you are supposed to see, correctly process what you see (your brain sometimes lies to you!), and apply the rule as consistently as possible.

It's as much an art as a science. And you don't have time to think, "is this going on favor of one team or another?" You may think of that after the play is over, but it's not part of your thinking at the time. It's a very weird phenomenon that I try to explain to people, but I get why they don't believe it. When we say we don't care who wins, it's an oversimplification, but it's very true.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[oldmantutters]

Thanks. And to point out bias in reading, I've shared at least once in this thread the referee made a huge mistake on this play by winding the clock after the ball was reset. He doesn't do that, and this situation never happens. Someone should hopefully catch the error when he made the announcement. I think that qualifies as "saying something bad about an official."



Thanks for the support. I like to use these opportunities to encourage people to consider becoming an official. But I would never call them chickenshit. Some people know they wouldn't be able to do it for various reasons. Some people have kids playing so they aren't going to miss their games. Some people don't have jobs that show them the flexibility to leave work early to get to a game. But i do encourage everyone to think about trying. Men or women. Young or old. Played sports or not. Consider other sports. They all have shortages.

It's much harder than people realize. I love getting someone on the field for the first time. Even if it's youth leagues, they are surprised by the speed and get lost in all the things you have to consider during a play. If you work at it though, it's not hard to be good at it. Like anything there is a lot of muscle memory involved during the action. One the play is over are you able to piece everything together to make sure it's enforced correctly. That's where the clock status comes into play as an example. Those are the inexcusable errors that get officials into a lot more trouble. And those errors often lead to bigger issues like what happened in this play. That's why criticism of the side judge are misguided. He's the one who did something right on this play. Once the referee was given the right information, they handled it correctly.

Who wants to join me? If you loved playing sports, you'll likely love the teamwork and camaraderie with other officials. You are striving to be the actual best at what you do. You are an important part of the athletic competition and it's wonderful to be on the field/court/pitch/mat/deck. But your goal is to be invisible. Unfortunately, the game itself usually dictates that.



I was surprised there wasn't a more clear cut answer. I had heard it described opposite from you in that the goal line requires the ball to remain beyond the plane and not pulled back voluntarily to be awarded that spot. It was on a QB sneak where he reached it across and pulled it back right away that he wasn't given a score. I get it if that's the rule. In all other cases, if you voluntarily move the ball back (usually by running backward), you don't get the forward progress spot. I'm assuming this isn't something that isn't specifically mentioned in the rule other than just definition of forward progress. To me it makes sense the progress spot should include the reach in the game from Sunday.

But situations like that should never be considered a bad call by an official. I've said many times, some calls aren't right or wrong. They are just the best judgment calls made with the information known at the time. There is a lot of gray area when it comes to football rules. As an official you work hard to make sure you are in the best position to see what you are supposed to see, correctly process what you see (your brain sometimes lies to you!), and apply the rule as consistently as possible.

It's as much an art as a science. And you don't have time to think, "is this going on favor of one team or another?" You may think of that after the play is over, but it's not part of your thinking at the time. It's a very weird phenomenon that I try to explain to people, but I get why they don't believe it. When we say we don't care who wins, it's an oversimplification, but it's very true.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. At the goal line as long as control is maintained the play should be dead once the ball "touches" the plain of the goal line. Just as a puck in hockey, or a ball in soccer crosses the goal line a point is scores and the play is dead. It doesn't need to remain in the goal to count. In the field of play if a player controls the ball past the line to gain but then, on their own accord back tracks and is tackled behind the line, it's not a first down. The same should be true with reaching the ball.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk