The bad call

[Player4]

Did Marvin screw up in how he worded his request for a review?

It seemed as though he was requesting review of whether Hasslebeck fumbled the ball or not...and the denial for the review was that the play was not ruled a catch on the field so hence there could be no review for a fumble.

Why wasn't he requesting a review of whether it was or was not a catch? They review those rulings all the time. That's what Marvin should have asked to be reviewed. I think they would have overuled the ruling on the field that it was an incomplete pass. Then, and only then when the play would have been ruled a catch would have the play been eligible to be reviewed for a fumble.

He should have disputed the incomplete pass ruling.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Did Marvin screw up in how he worded his request for a review?

It seemed as though he was requesting review of whether Hasslebeck fumbled the ball or not...and the denial for the review was that the play was not ruled a catch on the field so hence there could be no review for a fumble.

Why wasn't he requesting a review of whether it was or was not a catch? They review those rulings all the time. That's what Marvin should have asked to be reviewed. I think they would have overuled the ruling on the field that it was an incomplete pass. Then, and only then when the play would have been ruled a catch would have the play been eligible to be reviewed for a fumble.

He should have disputed the incomplete pass ruling.

I don't know what's with that, I think they screwed up. My understanding is you're supposed to be able to review that this year, and I don't think he's supposed to need a lawyer with him to define exactly what's being reviewed (though with the idiot refs sometimes, you do wonder).

In my opinion, the play wasn't even close. Hasselbeck caught the ball, tucked the ball, took two steps (ie, a 'football related move'), and the ball came out. That's a textbook fumble. Don't know if the fact that Hasselbeck caught his own pass confused the zebras or what, but that was a catch and a fumble.

Certainly the Bengals had enough other chances to win the game, but the zebras stick it to us again.

[HoTbOy]

That was a catch and fumble how they did not see that I don't know, but still had chances...CHenry is missed in the redzone...

[agreen_112]

I don't know who got it wrong, but it was very simple. The linesman ruled that the pass was incomplete. All we wanted to challenge was that it was a CATCH! They said that it wasn't reviewable? Ok, well... When chad makes a sideline grab and the official calls it incomplete, can we review that play? YEAh. What's the difference?

Once they reviewed the catch, the ref would've seen that it was in fact a CATCH and a fumble caused by the ground. Ball will be spotted at the end of run, which would've made it about 2nd and 18.

We didn't need to challenge whether or not it was a fumble, the catch is what we needed to be reviewed. Marv may have screwed it up, but he should have someone upstairs helping him out. I doubt that person was there if you know what I mean... I don't blame Marv for that screwup, that would've been a very hard thing to call on the spot.

[BZoner]

"I don't think he's supposed to need a lawyer with him to define exactly what's being reviewed"

Well said DC_Bengals_Fan.

Duff calls happen, we had at least one go our way this season (Baltimore) and over the course of the season they will average out. What hurt us a lot more than the zebras was our inability to convert all that yardage into points, not including the 2 INT, 2 Fumbles and a 72 yard return, we still had an opportunity to win the game. The D did what they were supposed to do, they aint a top 10 D but we knew that anyway, so our O needed to get it done but with Rudi down I can't complain too much.

The "Margin of Error" quote that was bandied around almost as much as the term "Vanilla" in the off season sure seems to be making sense now.

FEAR NOT my bengal brethren, if we get we our guys back healthy with a patsy second half of the season we can go on a run like pissburg did when the stole the suberbowl, this was always going to be the tough part. WHO DEY.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

The D did what they were supposed to do, they aint a top 10 D but we knew that anyway, so our O needed to get it done but with Rudi down I can't complain too much.

We should give some credit to the Seattle defense - which is very tough. The offense did ok despite a musical chairs 0-line, and the noisiest road stadium in the NFL. IMO they're allowed to have an off game or two - and they still put up 20+ points usually.

I don't know that you can depend on your offense to run down the field every week at the last minute to win games, nor do they have enough weapons, there's no one for Carson to spread the ball around to and he doesn't seem to be synched up with the reserves.

The bottom line to me is that the defense simply cannot hold a lead late in the 4th quarter. I don't know what more the offense can do, other than give you a lead with 5-10 min's left in the game. Both the defense and the special teams fail this team more often than not.

It seems like every year on here we hear how the offense didn't win the game for them - but at what point do you require the defense to actually stop some body once in a while, when they're not getting fluke turnovers?

They played better yesterday on D and it was encouraging enough, but the pass coverage still looks abysmal and the pass rush is non-existent too often.

[jjakq27]

That was a catch and fumble how they did not see that I don't know, but still had chances...

Ed Hochuli's massive biceps got in the way.

I can't see why that kind of "pass" would be any different than a pass down the field. It should have been reviewable as well.

This one kinda smells like the TB game last year.

[Player4]

I'm very disapointed that Marvin didn't go ballistic...he should not have let the issue go. The play should have been reviewed. It would have probably made a huge difference. I'd like to hear a response from the NFL as to why the play was not eligible for review.

[BengalByTheBay]

I'm very disapointed that Marvin didn't go ballistic...he should not have let the issue go. The play should have been reviewed. It would have probably made a huge difference. I'd like to hear a response from the NFL as to why the play was not eligible for review.

Stay tuned to NFL network so that you can see the psychobabble from the head ref. Same as TB as far as I'm concerned -- although the failure to review the play is ridiculous. They review plays routinely for whether a pass is complete. Similarly, they commonly review plays for whether a fumble occurred. We had one at Balt. (I think) last year where the play was blown dead after the fumble -- the play was reviewed -- the non-fumble call was reversed, but since the whistle was blown, they gave us the ball without any advancement of it (ie, runback). This play happens all the time and the explanation was pure BS. Yes, calls do go your way as well...absolutely. But the explanation of completely failing to review is was wrong. Does that play make any difference? Well, you tell me. Possession on opponent's half of the field with 5:00 to go, or not?

If that's whining, place me firmly in the whiner category. It was BS just like the TB call was BS last year. Are we precluded from going to the playoffs because of it.....I don't know. We'll have to wait and see, but it was a completely wrong call.

[COB]

I'm very disapointed that Marvin didn't go ballistic...he should not have let the issue go. The play should have been reviewed. It would have probably made a huge difference. I'd like to hear a response from the NFL as to why the play was not eligible for review.

Stay tuned to NFL network so that you can see the psychobabble from the head ref. Same as TB as far as I'm concerned -- although the failure to review the play is ridiculous. They review plays routinely for whether a pass is complete. Similarly, they commonly review plays for whether a fumble occurred. We had one at Balt. (I think) last year where the play was blown dead after the fumble -- the play was reviewed -- the non-fumble call was reversed, but since the whistle was blown, they gave us the ball without any advancement of it (ie, runback). This play happens all the time and the explanation was pure BS. Yes, calls do go your way as well...absolutely. But the explanation of completely failing to review is was wrong. Does that play make any difference? Well, you tell me. Possession on opponent's half of the field with 5:00 to go, or not?

If that's whining, place me firmly in the whiner category. It was BS just like the TB call was BS last year. Are we precluded from going to the playoffs because of it.....I don't know. We'll have to wait and see, but it was a completely wrong call.

Spot on. They flat out blew the assessment on whether it was reviewable. I think most of the cells destined for Hochuli's brain got siphoned off to his biceps. I don't know if the NFL will admit it or not, but they blew that one.

[Player4]

...and Marvin's reaction looked like: "Aw shucks". WTF is that? Dude, fight for your team! Scream Yell, get into their face, throw your crutches or something. Baseball managers use the riot act all the time in part as a way to motivate their team. Maybe if Marvin wouldn't have been so willing to take it in the rear the team would have responded with more emotion and we would have had the edge we needed to pull off the win.

I'm just sayin'.

[BengalByTheBay]

...and Marvin's reaction looked like: "Aw shucks". WTF is that? Dude, fight for your team! Scream Yell, get into their face, throw your crutches or something. Baseball managers use the riot act all the time in part as a way to motivate their team. Maybe if Marvin wouldn't have been so willing to take it in the rear the team would have responded with more emotion and we would have had the edge we needed to pull off the win.

I'm just sayin'.

This part I don't agree with, however. I just don't think trying to show up the officials works in foorball. Maybe it's because I don't want to believe that whining changes anything, but it's certainly the case that they won't change the call. You use the example of baseball, but to me that's just part of the MLB theater. Again, it doesn't change anything except maybe getting a make-up call later. But even there, you have to be careful that the ref. doesn't just get pissed at the theatrics and, subconsciously or otherwise, screw you for the rest of the game. And, come to think of it, I can't recall a lot of examples of where the pouting works at all (Gruden, for example). I would hardly down-grade ML for not making a pointless, or even worse - harmful, display of himself on the sideline. I don't think he's that kind of coach and, just for myself, I don't see it as a negative.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Spot on. They flat out blew the assessment on whether it was reviewable. I think most of the cells destined for Hochuli's brain got siphoned off to his biceps. I don't know if the NFL will admit it or not, but they blew that one.

Test *that* clown for HGH.

[mgi]

My call was that is that it was a completed pass, but Hasselback was down by contact.

I thought completions got reviewed all of the time (both feet, footiball move, etc.) Houshmanzadeh's touchdown against the Browns was reviewed to see if it was a completion.

It should have been 2 and 18.

[jjakq27]

My call was that is that it was a completed pass, but Hasselback was down by contact.

I thought completions got reviewed all of the time (both feet, footiball move, etc.) Houshmanzadeh's touchdown against the Browns was reviewed to see if it was a completion.

It should have been 2 and 18.

Supposedly the play cannot be reviewed if it was ruled an incompletion and whistled dead on the field. I still don't see how that play was any different that a sideline catch or something downfield that gets reviewed all the time, even if it is ruled an imcompletion or blown dead. Another one of those quirky rules that seems to pop up once or twice a year to this team.

Unfortunately O'Neal gave up a big completion and then Joseph was burned a couple of plays later for the TD.

[BengalByTheBay]

My call was that is that it was a completed pass, but Hasselback was down by contact.

I thought completions got reviewed all of the time (both feet, footiball move, etc.) Houshmanzadeh's touchdown against the Browns was reviewed to see if it was a completion.

It should have been 2 and 18.

Supposedly the play cannot be reviewed if it was ruled an incompletion and whistled dead on the field. I still don't see how that play was any different that a sideline catch or something downfield that gets reviewed all the time, even if it is ruled an imcompletion or blown dead. Another one of those quirky rules that seems to pop up once or twice a year to this team.

Unfortunately O'Neal gave up a big completion and then Joseph was burned a couple of plays later for the TD.

That's exactly the point though. This wasn't an unreviewable play. Completion is reviewed several times in every game every week. Whether there was a whistle (inadvertent or otherwise) doesn't matter except for whether the receiver or recoverer attempts to advance the ball. As I stated above, what they do in that situation is - if the call is reversed - they spot the ball where the turnover/reception occurred. I don't see this as a quirky rule (there certainly are some of those). There are only a few plays that can't be reviewed and this simply isn't one of them.

Does that play change the game? Yeah. Does it mean we absolutely win...maybe not with this d, but it sure as hell makes it tougher on the hags. I expect bad calls. I don't expect a completely wrong interpretation of reviewability. I too thought it would be reviewed and they would say not enough to overturn the 'no fumble' call, but it was so obviously a catch -- Hasselbeck was headed to the sideline with it. It also rankles me that Hasselbeck jumped up and immediately started signaling incomplete. Ref's just went with it IMO. Again, that happens but it simply IS a reviewable play.

[jjakq27]

I believe it is a quirky rule because it doesn't seem to follow the accepted conventions of any other caught ball.

It should be reviewable but apparently it is not because the play was blown dead by the ref when he called it an incomplete pass and by rule it is unreviewable. Again I don't see how that is any different than a pass caught further downfield, ruled incomplete and blown dead.

From Kevin Hench (FoxSports) and Lance's Blog today:

"Which was your favorite "cannot be reviewed" moment from Sunday: Ron Winter running out the clock after Rex Grossman was sacked on fourth down at the end of the first half of Cowboys-Bears, or Ed Hochuli's crew blowing the quick whistle in Seattle that preempted a review that could have won the game for the Bengals? Not every game in Week 3 was marred by dubious officiating. Others were marred by woeful quarterback play, inane play calling, the baseball basepath and the ugliest uniforms in NFL history.Week 3 goes under review:

Seahawks 24, Bengals 21

Just when it looked like Matt Hasselbeck had fumbled away a possible win for the second week in a row, the Seahawks were saved by the dreaded "non-reviewable" game-changing missed call. Hasselbeck caught his own batted pass, gathered it into his bread basket, staggered a couple of strides and then lost the ball as he went to the turf. It was going to be a tough call: Did the ground cause the fumble or was the ball already moving before his knee hit? Turned out it didn't matter. Once the stripes wrongly called the pass incomplete, it could not be reviewed. Great rule."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7259336

[SkinneymulleT]

When was there a whistle? I have not heard that excuse used yet? Did they address this one on NFLN official review? From what I heard, the whistle didnt blow untill after the ball was loose, and by rule it only effects continuation of the play after the whistle is blown. Even Rich Eisen skipped over the call when reviewing the game and he is usually pro-bengals. There must have been word from above (GOD-EL) to ignore it again.

[BengalByTheBay]

I believe it is a quirky rule because it doesn't seem to follow the accepted conventions of any other caught ball.

It should be reviewable but apparently it is not because the play was blown dead by the ref when he called it an incomplete pass and by rule it is unreviewable. Again I don't see how that is any different than a pass caught further downfield, ruled incomplete and blown dead.

From Kevin Hench (FoxSports) and Lance's Blog today:

"Which was your favorite "cannot be reviewed" moment from Sunday: Ron Winter running out the clock after Rex Grossman was sacked on fourth down at the end of the first half of Cowboys-Bears, or Ed Hochuli's crew blowing the quick whistle in Seattle that preempted a review that could have won the game for the Bengals? Not every game in Week 3 was marred by dubious officiating. Others were marred by woeful quarterback play, inane play calling, the baseball basepath and the ugliest uniforms in NFL history.Week 3 goes under review:

Seahawks 24, Bengals 21

Just when it looked like Matt Hasselbeck had fumbled away a possible win for the second week in a row, the Seahawks were saved by the dreaded "non-reviewable" game-changing missed call. Hasselbeck caught his own batted pass, gathered it into his bread basket, staggered a couple of strides and then lost the ball as he went to the turf. It was going to be a tough call: Did the ground cause the fumble or was the ball already moving before his knee hit? Turned out it didn't matter. Once the stripes wrongly called the pass incomplete, it could not be reviewed. Great rule."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7259336

That's just wrong -- whether a pass is complete is reviewed in almost every game. It's just not unreviewable. That's the point -- the ref. got it exactly wrong. And as for a whistle making a completion somehow unreviewable -- essentially what would have to happen is the whistle was blown while the ball was in the air. Are you getting that -- whistle blown while the ball is still in the air? If that happened - it wouldn't make the call of whether the pass was complete any more "unreviewable" than a whistle blown after a kick is in the air. IF that did happen it would be the single stupidest call of the year. The "inadvertent whistle" only comes into play if there's a fumble call that's ultimately overruled (see above re: no advancement of the ball). To accept this as anything other than a 100% wrong call, followed by a 100% wrong contention about reviewability requires the suspension of reality of which I am incapable. I'll say it one more time. Bad calls happen every week. This was a bad call and then the refusal to review an eminantly reviewable play. Two strikes on the same play. That doesn't happen absent some really bad refereeing on the level of that typically only allowed in the Pac-10.

[jjakq27]

I believe it is a quirky rule because it doesn't seem to follow the accepted conventions of any other caught ball.

It should be reviewable but apparently it is not because the play was blown dead by the ref when he called it an incomplete pass and by rule it is unreviewable. Again I don't see how that is any different than a pass caught further downfield, ruled incomplete and blown dead.

From Kevin Hench (FoxSports) and Lance's Blog today:

"Which was your favorite "cannot be reviewed" moment from Sunday: Ron Winter running out the clock after Rex Grossman was sacked on fourth down at the end of the first half of Cowboys-Bears, or Ed Hochuli's crew blowing the quick whistle in Seattle that preempted a review that could have won the game for the Bengals? Not every game in Week 3 was marred by dubious officiating. Others were marred by woeful quarterback play, inane play calling, the baseball basepath and the ugliest uniforms in NFL history.Week 3 goes under review:

Seahawks 24, Bengals 21

Just when it looked like Matt Hasselbeck had fumbled away a possible win for the second week in a row, the Seahawks were saved by the dreaded "non-reviewable" game-changing missed call. Hasselbeck caught his own batted pass, gathered it into his bread basket, staggered a couple of strides and then lost the ball as he went to the turf. It was going to be a tough call: Did the ground cause the fumble or was the ball already moving before his knee hit? Turned out it didn't matter. Once the stripes wrongly called the pass incomplete, it could not be reviewed. Great rule."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7259336

That's just wrong -- whether a pass is complete is reviewed in almost every game. It's just not unreviewable. That's the point -- the ref. got it exactly wrong. And as for a whistle making a completion somehow unreviewable -- essentially what would have to happen is the whistle was blown while the ball was in the air. Are you getting that -- whistle blown while the ball is still in the air? If that happened - it wouldn't make the call of whether the pass was complete any more "unreviewable" than a whistle blown after a kick is in the air. IF that did happen it would be the single stupidest call of the year. The "inadvertent whistle" only comes into play if there's a fumble call that's ultimately overruled (see above re: no advancement of the ball). To accept this as anything other than a 100% wrong call, followed by a 100% wrong contention about reviewability requires the suspension of reality of which I am incapable. I'll say it one more time. Bad calls happen every week. This was a bad call and then the refusal to review an eminantly reviewable play. Two strikes on the same play. That doesn't happen absent some really bad refereeing on the level of that typically only allowed in the Pac-10.

I don't like the rule either but it's not my rule. Call the league office or Ed Hochuli for further clarification.

[BengalByTheBay]

I believe it is a quirky rule because it doesn't seem to follow the accepted conventions of any other caught ball.

It should be reviewable but apparently it is not because the play was blown dead by the ref when he called it an incomplete pass and by rule it is unreviewable. Again I don't see how that is any different than a pass caught further downfield, ruled incomplete and blown dead.

From Kevin Hench (FoxSports) and Lance's Blog today:

"Which was your favorite "cannot be reviewed" moment from Sunday: Ron Winter running out the clock after Rex Grossman was sacked on fourth down at the end of the first half of Cowboys-Bears, or Ed Hochuli's crew blowing the quick whistle in Seattle that preempted a review that could have won the game for the Bengals? Not every game in Week 3 was marred by dubious officiating. Others were marred by woeful quarterback play, inane play calling, the baseball basepath and the ugliest uniforms in NFL history.Week 3 goes under review:

Seahawks 24, Bengals 21

Just when it looked like Matt Hasselbeck had fumbled away a possible win for the second week in a row, the Seahawks were saved by the dreaded "non-reviewable" game-changing missed call. Hasselbeck caught his own batted pass, gathered it into his bread basket, staggered a couple of strides and then lost the ball as he went to the turf. It was going to be a tough call: Did the ground cause the fumble or was the ball already moving before his knee hit? Turned out it didn't matter. Once the stripes wrongly called the pass incomplete, it could not be reviewed. Great rule."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7259336

That's just wrong -- whether a pass is complete is reviewed in almost every game. It's just not unreviewable. That's the point -- the ref. got it exactly wrong. And as for a whistle making a completion somehow unreviewable -- essentially what would have to happen is the whistle was blown while the ball was in the air. Are you getting that -- whistle blown while the ball is still in the air? If that happened - it wouldn't make the call of whether the pass was complete any more "unreviewable" than a whistle blown after a kick is in the air. IF that did happen it would be the single stupidest call of the year. The "inadvertent whistle" only comes into play if there's a fumble call that's ultimately overruled (see above re: no advancement of the ball). To accept this as anything other than a 100% wrong call, followed by a 100% wrong contention about reviewability requires the suspension of reality of which I am incapable. I'll say it one more time. Bad calls happen every week. This was a bad call and then the refusal to review an eminantly reviewable play. Two strikes on the same play. That doesn't happen absent some really bad refereeing on the level of that typically only allowed in the Pac-10.

I don't like the rule either but it's not my rule. Call the league office or Ed Hochuli for further clarification.

I don't think it IS a rule.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a ref screwed up the interpretation of a rule on the field. Seriously, what's the contention - that a completed/incompleted pass *isn't* reviewable?!?!

I still think it confused them because Hasselbeck completed the pass to himself. But he's an eligible receiver like anyone else. (Bonus points for anyone who recalls the receiver who caught Farve's first completion in the NFL).

[BengalByTheBay]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a ref screwed up the interpretation of a rule on the field. Seriously, what's the contention - that a completed/incompleted pass *isn't* reviewable?!?!

I still think it confused them because Hasselbeck completed the pass to himself. But he's an eligible receiver like anyone else. (Bonus points for anyone who recalls the receiver who caught Farve's first completion in the NFL).

I'll go with Brett Favre.

[jjakq27]

I don't think it IS a rule.

Per Lance's show yesterday, Dave Lapham contacted Jerry Markbreit at the league office and he also said that Hochuli made the right call.

[membengal]

Did Markbreit offer any reason for his backing of Hochuli? Anything at all?