HawkShack.com

Not shocked I guess. Lion's defense has been suspect most of the year and it's been hit hard by the injury bug. Both teams don't tackle well and my feeling is that will prevent the Commanders from advancing any further. Philly has a more balanced team and I think for the Super Bowl KC is still the best all around team in the league. Very entertaining game!

Damn. I was hoping for the Lions to make it, but they choked. It all came down to turnovers for them.

If the Rams win tomorrow, the AFC championship game becomes the Super Bowl as I don't see either NFC team beating whoever comes out of the AFC.

That means that if the Seahawks are interested in Hank Fraley they can re-interview him and if they want, offer him a contract. As well, the Ben Johnson saga of where he will end up can take a big step forward.

Yup, the upset of the week. I, too, was hoping that the Lions would finally make it to the Super Bowl.

Did you guys get a load of that roughing the passer penalty on the Texans yesterday? What a pile of manure! I'm the last one that will be caught wearing a tin foil hat when it comes to conspiracy theories, but the refs are sure giving the appearance of favoritism. Why in the hell can't they review that on the field via replay assist? Or did they?

River Dog wrote:Yup, the upset of the week. I, too, was hoping that the Lions would finally make it to the Super Bowl.

Did you guys get a load of that roughing the passer penalty on the Texans yesterday? What a pile of manure! I'm the last one that will be caught wearing a tin foil hat when it comes to conspiracy theories, but the refs are sure giving the appearance of favoritism. Why in the hell can't they review that on the field via replay assist? Or did they?

i wanted to not believe the narrative that the refs favor the Chiefs, as I have seen a lot of social media clips through out the season about how the refs favoring the Chiefs in obvious format. I didn't want to believe it because I have not watched a lot of Chiefs games, but after watching this one against the Texans, I am thoroughly convinced the league doesn't want to see the Texans advance. It was giving me Seahawks vs Steelers Superbowl PTSD

River Dog wrote:Yup, the upset of the week. I, too, was hoping that the Lions would finally make it to the Super Bowl.

Did you guys get a load of that roughing the passer penalty on the Texans yesterday? What a pile of manure! I'm the last one that will be caught wearing a tin foil hat when it comes to conspiracy theories, but the refs are sure giving the appearance of favoritism. Why in the hell can't they review that on the field via replay assist? Or did they?

4XPIPS wrote:i wanted to not believe the narrative that the refs favor the Chiefs, as I have seen a lot of social media clips through out the season about how the refs favoring the Chiefs in obvious format. I didn't want to believe it because I have not watched a lot of Chiefs games, but after watching this one against the Texans, I am thoroughly convinced the league doesn't want to see the Texans advance. It was giving me Seahawks vs Steelers Superbowl PTSD

Agree 100%. I don't think that the bias was intentional, that it was more this subconscious bias to protect the 'star', ie Patrick Mahomes and/or favoring the home team, etc. But IMO there was definitely a bias.

At this point, it doesn't really matter if there was or wasn't an intentional bias. Judging by the reaction I've seen on social media, a very large percentage of the public thinks that there was a bias and a good number of them believe that it was intentional. It's as bad as I've seen since XL. The league has a serious credibility issue on their hands.

A pair of penalties against the Texans in Saturday’s 23-14 loss to the Chiefs drew a lot of scrutiny during and after the game, but the NFL’s rules analyst said both calls were correct under the current rules.

Walt Anderson said on NFL Network that there could be debate about whether there was forcible contact by Texans defensive end Will Anderson on what was ruled roughing the passer in the first quarter of the game, but noted that the NFL rulebook calls for officials to throw a flag when there is any doubt about whether roughing has occurred. Anderson also said that replay assist can help officials pick up a flag if there is no contact to the helmet of a quarterback, but that there was contact on that play.


For the full article:

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootba ... n-saturday

NorthHawk wrote:A pair of penalties against the Texans in Saturday’s 23-14 loss to the Chiefs drew a lot of scrutiny during and after the game, but the NFL’s rules analyst said both calls were correct under the current rules.

Walt Anderson said on NFL Network that there could be debate about whether there was forcible contact by Texans defensive end Will Anderson on what was ruled roughing the passer in the first quarter of the game, but noted that the NFL rulebook calls for officials to throw a flag when there is any doubt about whether roughing has occurred. Anderson also said that replay assist can help officials pick up a flag if there is no contact to the helmet of a quarterback, but that there was contact on that play.


For the full article:

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootba ... n-saturday

Of course, he's going to defend the calls. Walt Anderson is a former referee who is now a communications liaison for the league, so even if he disagrees with them, he's going to defend the refs, at least in public. That's his job. Other "experts" disagree:

And in the eyes of NFL officiating expert Ben Austro of Football Zebras, the most controversial flags should indeed not have been called.

According to Austro, the correct call would have been none at all:

Texans defensive end Will Anderson was flagged for roughing the passer. The contact was high, but there was no forcible contact to the head and neck area. This should not have been penalized.

The second controversial penalty came with 1:52 left in the third quarter. The Texans had just manufactured a massive 15-play, 82-yard touchdown drive to reduce their deficit to one point. Up 13-12, Kansas City tried to get some momentum back on its next possession, something the team managed to do thanks to a spectacular 11-yard touchdown pass from Mahomes to tight end Travis Kelce.

That play was uncontroversial, something that was not the case earlier in the series. Making a tackle against Mahomes on a 9-yard scramble, linebacker Henry To’oTo’o was hit with an unnecessary roughness call.

Austro again disagreed with the call:

A second hit on quarterback Patrick Mahomes was ruled unnecessary roughness. In reality this should not have been a flag, and in the context of the earlier erroneous flag, this fans the flames of preferential treatment.

On a run like this, there are NO quarterback protections, only those available to any other runner. Mahomes can be contacted because of his late decision to slide, except the Texans may not forcibly contact him in the head or neck area. Defenders are instructed to go over the top.

There is contact to his head, but there is also contact to the body which makes the contact incidental and not forcible to the head. What officials do see if Henry To’oTo’o entering the tackle with his forearm in front. There is a signature of a forcible shot to the head, and unfortunately the crew took this as a foul.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2025/1/19/ ... 25-mahomes

I am an objective observer as I honestly didn't have a horse in that race. I'd like to see someone else besides the Chiefs, but I'm not exactly a fan of any team out of the state of Texas, either. What I saw yesterday was complete bullshit. The Texans got screwed. These roughing the passer penalties have gotten way, way out hand.

River Dog wrote:Of course, he's going to defend the calls. Walt Anderson is a former referee who is now a communications liaison for the league, so even if he disagrees with them, he's going to defend the refs, at least in public. That's his job. Other "experts" disagree:

And in the eyes of NFL officiating expert Ben Austro of Football Zebras, the most controversial flags should indeed not have been called.

According to Austro, the correct call would have been none at all:

Texans defensive end Will Anderson was flagged for roughing the passer. The contact was high, but there was no forcible contact to the head and neck area. This should not have been penalized.

The second controversial penalty came with 1:52 left in the third quarter. The Texans had just manufactured a massive 15-play, 82-yard touchdown drive to reduce their deficit to one point. Up 13-12, Kansas City tried to get some momentum back on its next possession, something the team managed to do thanks to a spectacular 11-yard touchdown pass from Mahomes to tight end Travis Kelce.

That play was uncontroversial, something that was not the case earlier in the series. Making a tackle against Mahomes on a 9-yard scramble, linebacker Henry To’oTo’o was hit with an unnecessary roughness call.

Austro again disagreed with the call:

A second hit on quarterback Patrick Mahomes was ruled unnecessary roughness. In reality this should not have been a flag, and in the context of the earlier erroneous flag, this fans the flames of preferential treatment.

On a run like this, there are NO quarterback protections, only those available to any other runner. Mahomes can be contacted because of his late decision to slide, except the Texans may not forcibly contact him in the head or neck area. Defenders are instructed to go over the top.

There is contact to his head, but there is also contact to the body which makes the contact incidental and not forcible to the head. What officials do see if Henry To’oTo’o entering the tackle with his forearm in front. There is a signature of a forcible shot to the head, and unfortunately the crew took this as a foul.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2025/1/19/ ... 25-mahomes

I am an objective observer as I honestly didn't have a horse in that race. I'd like to see someone else besides the Chiefs, but I'm not exactly a fan of any team out of the state of Texas, either. What I saw yesterday was complete bullshit. The Texans got screwed. These roughing the passer penalties have gotten way, way out hand.

Let's not forget the obvious no call on the hip drop tackle

https://x.com/packers_access/status/188 ... nst-texans

What frustrates me is those rules that prevent some referee calls from being reviewed under certain circumstances. They should all be reviewable or none of them should be. They should have some referee at headquarters with access to all camera angles that could communicate with those on the field that they may have missed a call such that it could be reviewed if there is any reasonable doubt.

trents wrote:What frustrates me is those rules that prevent some referee calls from being reviewed under certain circumstances. They should all be reviewable or none of them should be. They should have some referee at headquarters with access to all camera angles that could communicate with those on the field that they may have missed a call such that it could be reviewed if there is any reasonable doubt.

I was thinking the same thing. Since they ruled that last call where the two Texan defenders collided as head-to-head, it wasn't reviewable. Why not? What are they afraid of? I don't understand their reasoning. If a ref misses or blows a call, what difference does it make if he claims it was head-to-head?

Of course, he's going to defend the calls. Walt Anderson is a former referee who is now a communications liaison for the league, so even if he disagrees with them, he's going to defend the refs, at least in public. That's his job. Other

True, but for me the important part of that statement from him is

but noted that the NFL rulebook calls for officials to throw a flag when there is any doubt about whether roughing has occurred.

So the Referees have been instructed to throw the flag if close and are really in a no win situation.

Of course, he's going to defend the calls. Walt Anderson is a former referee who is now a communications liaison for the league, so even if he disagrees with them, he's going to defend the refs, at least in public. That's his job. Other

NorthHawk wrote:True, but for me the important part of that statement from him is

but noted that the NFL rulebook calls for officials to throw a flag when there is any doubt about whether roughing has occurred.

So the Referees have been instructed to throw the flag if close and are really in a no win situation.

First of all, that isn't a rule, it's a guideline, a point of emphasis. And you know as well as I do that there are multiple situations in each and every game where there is "a doubt whether roughing has occurred", and they don't always throw the flag. As a matter of fact, there are times that they throw a flag for roughing then decide to pick it up. The rulebook is not an acceptable excuse for blowing those calls.

Patrick Mahomes has become a star, the face of the league. The refs don't live in a bubble or in a vacuum. They're human, watch the same TV commercials as we do, and they are very well aware of who Mahomes is. It's no different from how Michael Jordan hardly ever got called for traveling, because the refs were reluctant to make a call or miss a call that unfavorably affects the star.

I remember thinking the same thing watching this play last night:

NFL fans have a bone to pick with the league’s officials after no flag was thrown for an apparent late hit on Lamar Jackson - just one day after Patrick Mahomes benefitted from several questionable penalties.

With just under nine minutes remaining in the second quarter of Sunday’s Divisional Round clash between the Baltimore Ravens and Buffalo Bills, Jackson rolled out of a collapsing pocket and scrambled for 11 yards. As he approached the line to gain, defensive tackle Ed Oliver wrapped up the star signal-caller from behind while he stepped out of bounds - sparking a brief scuffle from members of both teams.

Lamar Jackson, despite his multiple MVP's, doesn't have the star power that Patrick Mahomes has. He hasn't played in a Super Bowl, and he doesn't appear in TV commercials.

First of all, that isn't a rule, it's a guideline, a point of emphasis. And you know as well as I do that there are multiple situations in each and every game where there is "a doubt whether roughing has occurred", and they don't always throw the flag. As a matter of fact, there are times that they throw a flag for roughing then decide to pick it up. The rulebook is not an acceptable excuse for blowing those calls.

If it's in the rulebook how can it be a guideline? And if it is a guideline then it's something the League wants them to call.
The problem is they put the Referee in a no win situation so by the book he made the right call.
Unfortunately it's like the 'what's a catch' issue that took years to figure out. Too much of a gray area where Refs make questionable calls.
And you are right - Mahomes gets preferential treatment. It's the same in most sports where the stars don't get called for actions that others would or opponents get penalized for things that are marginal at best.
They could review all those calls but they also want to shorten the time it takes to play the games and those are competing interests.

First of all, that isn't a rule, it's a guideline, a point of emphasis. And you know as well as I do that there are multiple situations in each and every game where there is "a doubt whether roughing has occurred", and they don't always throw the flag. As a matter of fact, there are times that they throw a flag for roughing then decide to pick it up. The rulebook is not an acceptable excuse for blowing those calls.

NorthHawk wrote:If it's in the rulebook how can it be a guideline? And if it is a guideline then it's something the League wants them to call.
The problem is they put the Referee in a no win situation so by the book he made the right call.
Unfortunately it's like the 'what's a catch' issue that took years to figure out. Too much of a gray area where Refs make questionable calls.
And you are right - Mahomes gets preferential treatment. It's the same in most sports where the stars don't get called for actions that others would or opponents get penalized for things that are marginal at best.
They could review all those calls but they also want to shorten the time it takes to play the games and those are competing interests.

There are other subjects besides the official rules that are covered in the rule book. For example, Rule #18 of the attached 2022 rule book is entitled "Guidelines for Captains".

https://operations.nfl.com/media/5kvgzy ... -final.pdf

Besides, we all know that the "rules" are subjective and open to interpretation. For example, how do you define "forcible contact"?

And no, they couldn't have reviewed all of those calls. A blow to the head, for example, is not eligible for replay assist. And BTW, the "replay assist" generally doesn't delay the game nearly as much as a formal review. All that happens is that the booth calls down to the crew chief and they get it straightened away in no time.