By “admonished”, you mean that the Commissioner said there was no rule against it? 
A rule was put in place the next year, but the officials acted correctly in not preventing the plowing. If they had not done so, surely the Patriots coach would have been screaming bloody murder, and he would have been right to do so. It was a blatant exploitation of a loophole in the rules, but it wasn’t a bad decision by the officials.
2002 NFL Wildcard round, Giants @ 49ers.
Seconds left, Giants line up for a make-able game-winning FG. Bad snap! Holder picks up the ball and starts running, everyone breaks into the “fire” play, which is the plan when a FG try goes tits up. Holder throws the ball downfield to a receiver, who is dragged to the ground well before the ball gets there. Not just interefered with; the defender grabbed to collar of his shoulder pads and dragged him to the ground.
Clearly, this should be pass interference, giving the Giants one more untimed play where they could kick a chip-shot FG for the win.
What actually happened? The refs not only missed the PI, but they also incorrectly called ineligible man downfield on the receiver despite the fact that he was indeed an eligible receiver. Just an all around clusterfuck of a blown call that directly changed the outcome of a playoff game.
They didn’t “allow it”, it just happened. It looked like the guy was plowing the yard lines as he was supposed to, then he veered and cleared the spot, rather suddenly. Even if they were in a position to do something about it, and were able to anticipate his actions, what exactly were they supposed to do? Tackle the guy? Lie down in front of the plow? Once the deed was done, it was done. The spot was clear. There is no contingency in the rules for placing the ball elsewhere, kicking from the other end of the field, or anything else.
And has been pointed out numerous times, the act was not actually against the rules. It was certainly gamesmanship on the part of the Patriots. Call it cheating if you like. But the officials had nothing to do with it. In order for something to be a “blatantly incorrect officiating error” there has to be an actual rule in place that the officials missed. Which there wasn’t. As confirmed by the NFL commissioner.
There was a blatant handball by Kim Vilfort against Germany to score the second goal that sealed the victory for Denmark in the 1992 European Championship.
Being an Englishman, I was really, really upset.
In 1986, the stewards at Saratoga Race Course disqualified a horse named Allumeuse for causing a collision during a race - the only problem is that Allumeuse was 5 yards away from the incident and had nothing to do with it. They disqualified the wrong horse.
Henry’s handball against Ireland in Paris in a World Cup play-off.
It was blatant and between the ref and the linesman someone should have caught it.
And France were utterly useless at that World Cup as well.Harald Schumacher’s tackle on Patrick Battiston was probably worthy of more than a Goal Kick.
I have to admit that there are NFL calls that just blow and MLB example right out of the water. The difference is that in the NFL it seems to be the case that the referees often act as if they do not know what the rules are. In most sports the officials seem to be applying the correct rules, they just make the wrong judgment call.
Yeah, and if you follow the article to the end with more recent analysis, it suggests strongly that the call was, in fact, correct.
If it was Hochulees he could have stopped it one handed.
Aussie rules classic.
Player has shot for goal - gets fouled by defender. Ball goes through for a ‘behind’ - scores one point.
According to the rules, the attacking player is given the option of a free-kick, to try and score a goal - six point score. (If he misses everything, he scores zero).
Naturally, the attacking player chooses to try for the 6-pointer 999 times out of a thousand.
However, in this case, the umpire asks the defender who committed the foul if the shot should be taken again. Not surprisingly, he says no.
100% incorrect. There is a remedy via the NFL palpably rule:
Would have to be a podium finish for winning the thread.
100% incorrect would mean “100% incorrect”; are you denying that the commissioner stated that it wasn’t against the rules? That the plow guy looked like he was just clearing the yard lines, then veered left? That the officials didn’t “allow” it, it just happened without their approval?
The “palpably unfair” rules are rather vague in this scenario. Most references in the rule-book refer to players. The “non-player” section, refers generally to non-players “entitled to sit on the bench”. The only reference to “equipment men” which is what Mark Henderson would probably qualify as only prohibits non-players from contacting, threatening or making obscene gestures at opposing players (or league officials).
At any rate:
Non-enforcement of a rule that has never been enforced in the history of the NFL, especially for an act which is, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER, NOT AGAINST THE RULES is about as far from “blatantly incorrect” as one can get. The situation was textbook murky.
Look, the Patriots could have dug out the spot with their hands. It wouldn’t have been that hard. No one would have complained. The snowplow was expedient, certainly, but didn’t confer that profound an advantage. If they had used the snowplow to pile snow on the Dolphin’s field goal spot, then we could talk.
That Seahawks superbowl loss to the TD catch that wasnt. You watch the replay footage and the guy never ever had control of the ball but the catch still stood on review.
You’re both missing the fact that the Patriots didn’t know the guy was going to do that either. It’s not like they had it planned. The snow plow guy was operating on his own accord. John Smith, the kicker, actually had to adjust his normal kick because of where the spot was cleared.
Can you clarify this? The Seahawks have lost two Super Bowls, and the only controversial touchdown call that I can find any information on is Roethlisberger’s run in Super Bowl LX, which wasn’t a catch, and is controversial because of the question of whether he crossed the goal line or not, not whether he had possession. What Super Bowl, and what touchdown, are you talking about?
The players may not have known, but according to the cited article, the guy did it on the orders of the Patriots coach.
Which is perfectly irrelevant as to what the officials did. Or didn’t do.
I could be missremembering, I am not a sports fan. The play in question was atouch down pass that got reviewed because they were not sure the receiver was in bounds, watching the review was were you realized the guy never even caught the ball at all.
The third paragraph mentions talk about the reffing in that game. I cant find footage of the play in particular.
I’d like to remind everyone that the snowplow incident was wholly irrelevant. It may have cost the Dolphins a game in the regular season, but they still went to the Superbowl that year. (And got revenge by knocking the Patriots out of the playoffs along the way.) Any complaints about it seem like petty grudges to my ear.
My bad call nomination directly eliminated my team from the playoffs.