In case you were wondering . . .

From the NFL rule book:

"When a passer is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his arm starts a forward pass. If a defensive player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, and the ball leaves the passer’s hand, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player."

It looks like, the way the use of the word "intention" is written, the refs got it right in the New England game.

Right....Sure....

While the incomplete pass call is somewhat debatable what no one is mentioning is that Woodson CLEARLY hit Brady across the helmet with his forearm, which is illegal in ANY rulebook with NO room for interpretation.....Had the penalty been properly called on Woodson all this talk (whining!) by the Raider faithful would be mute.

If nothing else, this makes up for the travesty that happened in Oakland 25 years ago in 1976 when the Patriots playoff victory was STOLEN from them by referee Ben Dreith when he called the phantom "roughing the passer" penalty against the Pats when Stabler was barely touched (on a side note, Dreith was not assigned to officiate another New England game for the remaining nine years of his career -- I wonder why?)....that call single-handedly gave Oakland the playoff victory in the final minutes (they went on to win the Super Bowl coached by John Madden) and cost the Patriots their rightful place in the AFC Championship game....and I won't even mention any small amount of justice with regards to Jack Tatum's vicious hit in Oakland in a pre-season game in the 70's that paralyzed New England wide receiver Darryl Stingley.

My final question to any Oakland supporter who refuses to look at the call objectively: Have you ever heard the expression "What Comes Around Goes Around?"....It's about time the Raiders were not allowed to continue to illegally intimidate their opponents (AND the officials) with cheap shot artists like Charles Woodson....the Pats won this game fair and square!

I was in a very noisy sports bar during the game, so couldn't hear any of the explanations for the call. But when I heard about it afterward, it definitely sounds like it was the right ruling.

Ruling aside, it was an incredible game! Come on, Brady's 10-for-10 drive, the pass that Brown bobbled into Wiggins' (I think, I forget now) hands, Vinatieri's miraculous 45-yard FG in whiteout conditions, that clutch play in OT at 4th and 4 ... I about had a heart attack, but it was a helluva good time.

I don't know about the Pats' chances against either Pittsburgh or Baltimore (especially Baltimore), but win or lose in the AFC championship, this team has been everything the Red Sox weren't this season. Everybody on the Pats bands together, no big egos, an incredible sense of cohesiveness, a great coach, and a sense of destiny. The Red Sox, on the other hand, crumbled because almost nobody game a s**t about the team, (almost) everybody was out for himself, the manager (refering to Kerrigan, not Williams of course) is a moron of the lowest grade, and the only destiny the team had was that they knew in August that they'd be playing golf the first week of October. One more irony about the two teams: whereas injuries pretty much dropped an A-bomb on whatever chances the Red Sox had, the one really bad injury on the Pats (Bledsoe's near-death experience) is probably what put the Pats into the playoffs.

Enough of a rant about New England's baseball team; we're talking football here. All I'm saying is that I feel like this Patriots team is some kind of karmic compensation for all the agony the Red Sox put New England sports fans through.

PS: you don't know what satisfaction it gives me to see that the two most selfish p***ks on the Sox last year, Valentin and Lansing, haven't been able to sign with any teams yet. With Valentin's knee (or lack thereof), a GM would have to be a total idiot to sign him; Lansing deserves something slightly (minisculely) above League minimum.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]

Two points about the game.

1. The refs got the call right. The rulebook says that if the QB's arm is in forward motion, and the ball comes out, it's a forward pass. It is irrelevant that Brady intended to tuck it away rather than throw it. The rulebook says it was a forward pass. Period. End of discussion.

2. How the Silver and Black have fallen! What a bunch of whiners. Tim Brown crying that they lost because the League doesn't like Al Davis. No. They lost because their defense couldn't/wouldn't/didn't stop the Pats in OT. Unless Paul Tagliabue was playing middle linebacker, Brown should shut up. Some teams use a (perceived) bad call as a rallying point. The Raiders used it as an excuse to take their football and go home. Winners never whine. The Raiders are losers. They are old ... they played horribly late in the season ... and they won't be back for quite a few years.

Sorry! But the refs in this game were definitely one-sided with the home team throughout the game. Whether the controversial call was right or not, the Raiders really got screwed in this one.

It looked to me as of Brady had brought the ball back to a horizontal position and touched his left hand with the ball (making it impossible to throw), then Woodson hit him. It was clear to me that Brady's intent was to tuck the ball in and not throw it and that he had assumed that position, which is why it touched his left hand. I was stunned the play was reversed. Was rooting for NE but think the Raiders got jobbed.

I agree with Jim - the one replay freeze-frame clearly shows Brady bringing it down into his left hand. It's quick, but the realtime refs saw it.

Playing in a snow storm, however, is a joke for a major spectator sport. Playoff games should be played under circumstances which allow the game to be played fully. Otherwise, don't call it football.

Mind you, as a player, these games can be a lot of fun, especially for those of us with low skills. It levels off skill differentials, allowing the inept to perform just as badly as the talented!!

I agree with you CITT wholeheartedly....from the 4th quarter on (especially during the postgame press conferences) the Raiders ALL came across as a bunch of whiners....how many times did Rice, Brown, and Gannon cry about "missed" pass interference calls in the second half when the receivers either failed to catch the ball cleanly or Gannon himself threw off target?....if Oakland wants to blame anyone, they should start by talking to the 11 guys playing defense on Saturday....they had a 10 point lead with under ten minutes to play and allowed Brady to go 10 for 10 on a crucial drive and then permitted New England to TWICE march into field goal territory to tie and win the game....when was the last time that a "championship caliber" team performed to that level of mediocrity on defense?

As for the "controversial" incomplete pass call, if Al Davis (talk about the pot calling the kettle black?!) and the Raiders don't like the call then they need to get Paul Tagliague and the league office to CHANGE THE RULEBOOK -- as has been previously documented on this thread, the officials made the proper call as defined in the present NFL rulebook....as I previously stated, Woodson's clear and illegal blow to Brady's head (clearly a penalty according to anyone's interpretation of the rules) was NOT called (to the BENEFIT of the Raiders) which would have negated any "fumble" anyway....I, for one, saw NO bias in favor of the home team as far as the officiating is concerned -- this is simply another case of the Raiders whining like crybabies whenever they lose (following the lead of their semi-crazed owner) which they have been doing consistently for 30 years.

LACharlie, as for the game being played in a snowstorm, I for one actually think ALL football games should be played outdoors and subject to the elements....these antiseptic domed stadiums with fake turf, indoor fireworks, "controlled" climates, and scoreboards telling the "wine and cheese" crowd in their luxury boxes (largely consisting of corporate execs trying to impress their clients) and scoreboards telling the crowd when to cheer is contrary to the basic principles that make the game enjoyable....I read last month in The Washington Post that Tagliabue and the NFL league office are seriously considering awarding a future Super Bowl to either Washington, DC (FedExField in Landover, MD to be precise) or the Meadowlands recognizing that it would be played OUTDOORS in late January since the weather conditions are "part of the game" - I hope that the NFL follows through with such plans....simply look at the fate of the Vikings since they moved from Metropolitan Stadium where they played many memorable post-season games in "less than ideal" conditions to the antiseptic Metrodome where all games are played at 72 degree temperature with no "negative influence" from the elements in order so that the better team will prevail (tell that to the Falcons when they defeated the #1 seeded Vikes in Minnesota to advance to the Super Bowl two years ago).!

I know this is getting off on a tangent and merits its own thread altogether but in response to Charlie's statement that "playing in a snowstorm is a joke for a major spectator sport" and "playoff games should be played under circumstances which allow the game to be played fully" I could not disagree more....not only were BOTH teams subject to the same playing conditions but the snowstorm certainly did NOT limit the passing game -- at least not Tom Brady's performance in the second half and OT -- maybe the Oakland defense was to blame, but not the weather.....how else do you explain Brady's 32 for 52 performance for 312 yards with nearly 250 of those coming in the second half and OT!....if it was up to me, ALL domed stadiums and artificial turf should be outlawed....heck, even in the CFL most teams play outdoors (in far more frigid conditions than the majority of NFL teams encounter) throughout the winter and I don't recall any of their players or coaches whining about that, unlike a few Californians that come to mind who are clearly looking for someone to place the blame upon other than their pitiful defensive performance in the clutch on Saturday night.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I CANNOT BELIEVE Jerry Rice, Rich Gannon and Tim Brown lost to a man named Brady.

There goes my 3-point special.

Well on the the bright side I'm happy I don't own a home 'cause then I would have to get up early to shovel snow. Ill!

Referee 16-Raiders 13 in o.t.

i could care less who won, but that is horrible, instant replay has to go, that was just wrong

[quote]Originally posted by LACharlie:
Playing in a snow storm, however, is a joke for a major spectator sport. Playoff games should be played under circumstances which allow the game to be played fully. Otherwise, don't call it football.

---

Definitely not the old school point of view. My, my, my.

[quote]Originally posted by LACharlie:
[QB]
Playing in a snow storm, however, is a joke for a major spectator sport. Playoff games should be played under circumstances which allow the game to be played fully. Otherwise, don't call it football.

QB]

---

Sorry but that's why home field advantage can be so important. Look at the Bucs record in cold weather. I also remember how the Vikes used to dominate when they played outdoors before the Metrodome.

The Raiders had a lock on the number 2 seed and have only themselves to blame for having to travel to New England in January. All domes should be blown up. Football should be played in the elements.

I would have to respectfully agree with george on this one. Otherwise whats next? Building mini domed stadiums for every high school/college football team in America??? I don't think so.

My main point: to overturn a call there has to be INDISPUTABLE evidence. There is no way any replay was conclusive--some seem to show a forward pass, others that Brady had tucked. If they had originally ruled an incompletion that should also have not been reversed. The call on the field should have stood.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim at Outsports:
My main point: to overturn a call there has to be INDISPUTABLE evidence. There is no way any replay was conclusive--some seem to show a forward pass, others that Brady had tucked. If they had originally ruled an incompletion that should also have not been reversed. The call on the field should have stood.

---

I have to agree. It was outrageously wrong to change that call. Not defensible in the least.

While I agree that the rule is flawed, the officials were simply complying with the existing NFL rulebook when they overturned the call on the field....if the Raiders want to place blame anywhere they should blame the NFL rulebook (i.e., Tagliabue and the league execs) and NOT the officiating crew that were simply enforcing the rulebook as they are paid to do -- they didn't write the rules, although I admit the way that rule is defined is highly suspect and I'm quite certain will be changed after this postseason.

Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2:
Note 2: When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body.

That's the rule. That's what the decision was based upon. The rule goes on to state that a fumble should be ruled if the ball has actually been tucked into the body.

Replay shows that he never tucked it into his body, only that he may have been attempting to do so.

Raider Nation doesn't have to like the rule, but it is the rule. And the stripes got it right.

I eagerly await Al Davis' new lawsuit over this issue. Which is fine. I hope he fritters away the remainder of his wealth on more legal proceedings, and dies am impoverished, broken man.

Although I was cheering for the Raiders, the officials did make the right call on that controversial play. It was an entertaining game, despite the snowstorm, or maybe because of it...reminded me of the conditions football is often played up here in Canada.

I was at work while the game was on, so obviously wasn't able to give it my full attention, so maybe I missed something here...but can someone explain why the Patriots 'went for it' on 4th down with 4 yards to go in the OT period? I think they were on the Oakland 27 yard-line at the time. Despite the weather, I think Vinateri should have been able to make the field goal. As it turned out, of course, the Patriots made a first down and won the game moments later anyway, but I just thought it was a risky call, yet I don't remember the commentators expressing any surprise or offering any explanation for it.

[quote]Originally posted by LACharlie:
Playing in a snow storm, however, is a joke for a major spectator sport.

---

I have to point out how nostalgic I was for the "old days" of football that somehow came up for me as I watched the game. (why is that? anybody care to comment?)

I think it's amazing that only football would ever have such elements to battle and *do battle* in; from what *I* saw, they looked like they were just fine and not suffering unduely.

as a casual football fan, I am pleased to say that I was educated about this paticular passing example by the guy I was watching the game with...I'm learning!

[quote]Originally posted by puckman45:
Referee 16-Raiders 13 in o.t.

---

Was that snow, or was it chad?

[quote]can someone explain why the Patriots 'went for it' on 4th down with 4 yards to go in the OT period? I think they were on the Oakland 27 yard-line at the time.

---

The feeling was that a 45-yarder was risky, since if if was missed the Raiders would have gotten the ball at the 35.

A couple of things about this game. First, the referees may have indeed made the correct call, according to the way the rule is written. It's the rule itself that makes no sense. They need to look at Brady's intent, and he CLEARLY was trying to tuck that ball back in. Did anyone hear Jason Whitlock and Mike Lupica on Sports Reporters this morning? I won't repeat what they said verbatim, but this is the point they were making.

More importantly, despite the call which really did screw them, the Raiders really didn't deserve to win. Their defense choked inexplicably and completely. How they allowed the Patriots to make two drives in a snowstorm with the season on the line is inexcusable...and I am a Raiders fan!
Aaaaargh!!!

I totally agree. The call was correct (I didn't see Brady's left hand make contact with the ball on the umpteen replays they showed), but if anything, it's the rule itself that should be changed. The other technicality that went the Pats' way that I gotta think will be changed is the ball that should have been a fumble, but was ruled dead because the near-unconscious guys's leg was touching the ball while the guy was out of bounds. Hey, better lucky than good sometimes, although I did think the Pats were pretty darn good last night.

How will they do against the Pittsburgh? It'll be real tough. And against (most likely) the Rams? They'll get squished like a bug. But like I said, this has been a dream season for Pats fans, watching a bunch of regular guys go from 5-11 last season to 11-5, really come together as a team, and perform up to if not far beyond their potential.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

The NFL is already planning to discuss a change in the wording of this rule in the off-season.

Fumble Or Not?

Do the rules specify that he has to completely tuck the ball back in, and that ends the "intentional forward movement"? If so, then the ruling was correct. But if the fact that he started to tuck the ball in--even if he didn't completely tuck it in--means the forward pass attempt is over, then it should be ruled a fumble. Seems that the rule needs to be clarified, at least.

But it was an exciting finish, and a fun game to watch with all the snow on the field...I got a kick out of the yellow computer-generated first-down line. Yellow snow...

The rule I quoted above is directly from the rule book,
"Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2:
Note 2: When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
So now what? Are we gonna get into the semantics of what constitutes a "tuck"?
If the arm is cradling the ball against the body, that's a tuck. Also, if the forward motion desists, or arm begins moving backward, or remains stationary, then the "forward motion" no longer applies.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Geesh! Are you really that stupid to believe we professional sports officials are swayed by one side or the other?

---

I assume you're exempting the NBA from your statement ...

It's so easy to pick at the officials and say "they screwed Team X"--in this case, the Raiders. But in doing so, you are inferring that the game officials intended to give the Patriots (or whatever team) an advantage through a ruling.

Such a comment, while I know is not intended to do, is personally insulting to officials everywhere. It's especially mean in this case, in which most people agree that the rule was interpreted correctly. Sure, the rule might be a bad one, but the officials interpreted what they saw correctly. Again, they interpreted what they saw correctly.

Think about any accident and how the statements by eyewitnesses differ. Officials don't call the plays, nor do they execute them. Nor do they make judgment calls on how good (or bad) some plays are. They don't play armchair quarterback on the field.

What we do (I don't officiate football but I do other sports) is ensure that the rules of the game are upheld. And the spirit of the game is just as important. Officials don't make up the rules on the field. Quite often, an official won't know the score of the game for the outcome's sake (it's a part of the game so we will know for administrative purposes). Try talking to an official after the game and see what they talk about. You'd be surprised.

Besides, in the second quarter Oakland had a five-yard penalty when they were driving. A Gannon pass got them to 3rd and 5, but an incomplete pass left them at 4th and 5 at the New England 35 or so. Had they not gotten the penalty, they would have had a 1st down and could have scored. I'd say that was Oakland screwing themselves. I also don't hear any complaints about that call.

And what about the penalty at the end of the 1st quarter that moved the Raiders to midfield? They scored on that drive, putting them ahead. There no one is saying that the refs screwed the Pats.

Furthermore, Oakland had 62 plays. 31 pass, 30 rush. Gannon was only 17-31. That's only 54.8%. The Raiders averaged 2.6 yards per rush. Are we to blame the refs for that?

My point is simply that referees and other game officials are so often maligned, especially when things don't go a certain way. We are quick to point out the "mistakes" that officials make, but do we ever say that "gosh that was a well officiated game?" We are pleased to point out when a player has a great game.

I'm not saying that officials should not be held accountable for their actions on the field. If officials make mistakes, they need to upgrade or be gone. But officials are a part of the game, and players need to work through that.

As a coach, I won't tolerate any of the players commenting on the field about the officiating or about any call that is made. They need to worry about their own play and executing what they can control.

Oakland had a 2nd-and-3 and a 3rd-and-1 in the possession before the call reversal. Had they converted one of those plays into a first down, the Brady play never would have taken place and the Raiders would have won. Then, after the reversal Brady threw a 13-yard pass on 2nd-and-10. Oakland had its chances before and after. Vinateri still had a tough 45-yard fg to make.

This isn't about the Pats or the Raiders. It's about treating officials with respect.

[edited to make easier to read with spacing]

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]

it was common sense, that was a fumble, end of story period, maybe they werent trying to give it to the patriots but they werent using common sense, bring back the replacement refs, I liked that one with the southern accent

[quote]Originally posted by gp43:
it was common sense, that was a fumble, end of story period, maybe they werent trying to give it to the patriots but they werent using common sense, bring back the replacement refs, I liked that one with the southern accent

---

It may have been common sense, but it wasn't the rulebook. Don't confuse the two.

I'd rather have refs applying the letters of the rules fairly and consistently, rather than using some sort of "common sense" overlay where everything is subject to judgment (sort of like the U.S. Supreme Court has been over the last 45 years or so). If you don't like the call ... change the rule ... for everyone, not just the Raider defense. Otherwise, you end up with the NBA, where Mark Cuban and anyone with a set of eyeballs can tell you that officiating is a joke because home teams and star players always get the calls.

I'll support Chip and Ump25 and anyone else in defending refs and umps in most sports ... where bad calls do occasionally/rarely happen but they are randomly distributed. I won't include NBA refs in my show of support.

Or Don Denkinger. Rot in hell you Jorge Orta loving SOB! (Us St Louis Cardinals fans have long memories.)

but they havnt enforced that bogus rule all year, have they called every fumble after a pump fake an incomplete pass?, I dont think so, even Brady knew it was a fumble, no excuse for this, it was stupid and they are just twisting their interpretation of the rule , they can interpret the rules to mean anything they want but everyone knows this was a fumble

They haven't enforced that rule because they haven't had this case. We've seen other times when the ball had stopped its forward movement and was not in motion, or was coming back. We haven't seen a case when the ball was moving forward and being tucked in as it was hit. The refs got it right and the League will change the rule. Enough already.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:



Geesh! Are you really that stupid to believe we professional sports officials are swayed by one side or the other?

---

Yes, I do believe professional sports officials are stupid enough to take sides in a game, like this one.

I was a referee for IM basketball in college. After years of me screaming about refs taking a side, I realized that it's just not that simple. Even when I had friends in a game, I wasn't cognizant of it - I was just trying to call a good game. While I'm not saying that officials CAN'T take sides in a game, I am saying it's probably not as common, or as easy, as you might like to think.

[quote]Originally posted by billsf:
Yes, I do believe professional sports officials are stupid enough to take sides in a game, like this one.

---

Just because a ref makes a call you (or Tim Brown) don't like, doesn't mean he's biased. Like I said before, most bad calls are randomly distributed.

In all seriousness, why would a ref be biased in favor of the New England Patriots? Get real. The NFL is all about money - not vengeance on Al Davis. Oakland in the AFC championship - being one of two teams in the nation's fourth largest media market - is much much better television. The Raiders also have a national following and excite opinion in both directions, sometimes simultaneously. All else equal, an AFC championship game with the Raiders would get better ratings (maybe much better) than one with the Patriots, who have no national image or following.

If the League truly were biased against the Raiders, to the point of throwing games, they wouldn't have let the Silver & Black get passed the Jets, the last-surviving member of the New York media market. While the Patriots may play in one of the nation's largest media markets, they really are a small market franchise. They could win 20 Super Bowls in a row and they will always be the third of fourth team in Boston.

In all seriousness, in real time, Brady really looked like he was throwing a pass. Only in slo-mo did it look like he was trying to tuck it away. But - you know what? - it doesn't matter. Forward motion in the act of tucking it away is still forward motion. Meaning, under the rule as currently written: incomplete pass.

There's nothing wrong with being a fan. I hope the Raiders appreciate your support. But enforcing a rule as written is hardly evidence of bias.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

1. The rule is ok, but Brady brought the ball down into his left hand. The refs have BINOCULAR vision - they can see it on the field. Replay is a flat 2-dimensional display.

2. Yeah, those Vikings games in mid-winter were so memorable - lol!! I never liked the LA Coliseum or Kezar [what a mud bowl that was!] in bad weather. Use the soccer rule for playability, and the game would have been postponed or moved. Playoff games should be played in reasonable conditions. And I'm certainly no pussy - as I said, I love the mud!! It returns football to its rugby roots!! But it's no fun to watch, and certainly not what has made NFL football the number one spectator sport!!

3. Everybody hates the Raiders - even me at times, although I watch their games and follow the team. If it comes down to a tough call, it is hard not to suspect the refs might "swerve" away from the Raiders. Besides, the Pats are the Cinderella team, and Brady is Cinderella herself!! [And Gruden IS Chuckie!!]

I don't think everyone hates the Raiders anymore; everyone seems to loathe the Rams, which is unfortunate, because despite their obnoxious coach they have a lot of very decent folks playing for them now, and several future Hall of Famers (Marshall Faulk, Kurt Warner, Aeneas Williams, etc.).

The Patriots engineered an incredible comeback, which really made this game exciting for me. I lived in Boston for almost 10 years and grew to despise many aspects of that city, especially its sports teams (and particularly one led by Bill Belichick and owned by Robert Kraft), but seeing Brady bring his team down the snowy field to tie the game and then get them in position for a field goal really moved me. I'm sure it was painful for Oakland fans, but as some people have noted, they could have taken care of the home field situation during the regular season.

The Raiders are a very good team, but they lost to a team that has shown tremendous mettle since the middle of the season. I think Pittsburgh has got the Patriots' number, though.

Sorry to chime in very late in the discussion.

I hope this is not a stupid question. Can you challenge a challenge?

Two-cents worth:

1) The call was correct as per the rulebook. Change the rulebook so it never happens again. But the play, as was, is.

2) Refs see THREE-dimensionaly; BI-nocular vision implies TWO, as in two-dimensional t.v. replays.

3) "The Play" never would have been reviewed if it didn't happen in the last two minutes of the game. No COACHES challenge would have occured otherwise. But the REFS got it right.

4) When I tuned into the start of the game and saw the snow falling, I said to my Manfriend: "This is going to be a game they'll remember for a long time." And so they will. Football games in the mud/snow/rain/sleet/hail/eclipse are ALWAYS classics.

5) All right-thinking people still hate the Black and Silver.

Be prepared, guys. You will see replays of this game for years to come. Thank G*d the Pats have Angels up their butts!

No, I'm sorry, binocular means two-eyed, and that means three dimensional vision. Think about it and you will agree.

A ref cannot call plays like bringing the ball back down using a two dimensional display. What is clear in three dimensions isn't clear in two.

My two dimensional call was that Brady clearly brought the ball into his left hand - it is a familiar passer's move.

Have you ever tried to stop or cut on frozen carpet/turf with snow and ice on top of it?

Jim is right - Adam Vinateri is a true hero! What clutch play under terrible conditions!

[quote]Originally posted by tzeile29:
Sorry to chime in very late in the discussion.

I hope this is not a stupid question. Can you challenge a challenge?

---

No. In the last 2 minutes of the game, it's the official sitting upstairs who decides whether or not to use the replay. Other than that, one coach can challenge a call, but the other coach can't then challenge the same play.

On whether or not officials take sides: if they are consciously taking sides for one reason or another, they shouldn't be officiating. I don't think that happens very much. Outside of baseball, there's some questions as to whether star players get special treatment--did they call penalties every time Wayne Gretzky was checked, no matter how lightly? Do they let Michael Jordan take eight thousand steps without dribbling on the way to the basket? Are they more likely to call defensive pass interference if the receiver is, say, Randy Moss? But I don't know that any teams (as compared to individual players) get special treatment.