Anyone notice how few instant replays the SB had (was there even one?). Instructions from above had
to have been made.
It was particularly noticeable when the refs called the long 3rd down catch by the Rams in the 3rd Q a completion when it was obvious that the receiver had only one foot in bounds when he gained control of the ball. it wasn't even very close, and should have been reviewed.
Clearly, the officiating of the game has been compromised by what the League Office perceives to be good for ratings (not having the game slowed by the rules that have been contributing to viewership declinesfor the past few years). The officiating was bad, but i also believe that it is tainted by external forces as well.
Replies to: Anyone notice how few instant replays the SB had (was there even one?). Instructions from above had
officiating was bad, but acceptable
(no message)
Why would "bad" officiating be "acceptable?"
(no message)
You're reaching on this one.
I didn't notice any change in the amount or timing of replays. Quite frankly, there weren't a lot of plays worth seeing 6 times in slo-mo.
Rams came up and ran a play quickly. The Pats didn't challenge. It happens in every game I've seen this year.
This wasn't an important play. The fact that the Pats didn't challenge was likely do to the fact that challenges are more important in a game like this and they weren't going to burn one unless it was an important play. This wasn't an important play.
Re: You're reaching on this one.
I think the reason the Pats did not challenge was that they had already used 2 timeouts early in the half and did not want to risk the 3rd one.
Were there any reviews?
(no message)
There are no "booth" reviews unless change of possession, scoring or last two minutes.
There were no questions on any of the scores or the two interceptions. I don't recall any plays in the last 2 minutes warranting review but I suspect they had a host of guys, more than a normal game, so any reviews would be invisible as much as possible.