# NFL : Referee Ed Hochuli gets downgraded after call in Chargers-Broncos game



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

The league announced today that they will downgrade veteran referee Ed Hochuli,after a controversial call towards the end of the San Diego @ Denver game yesterday.Hochuli acknowledged that he erred on a call late in the game.
Under the league's evaluation system,an official's grades impact his status for potentially working during the playoffs,and ultimately whether he is retained by the league or not.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3589407


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

That blown call cost the Chargers a game, maybe more.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

kevinwmsn said:


> That blown call cost the Chargers a game, maybe more.


No doubt about it - that game would have almost certainly have been over even if the Chargers didn't return the fumble all the way back for a TD!

On a side note my wife has a picture of her and a friend with Ed on the field before a game from several years ago. The guy has the guns on him equal to a lot of the players on the field, but he blew that call as bad as it can be blown!


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Ditto. That call was unbelievable! SD should have gotten the ball on their 10 yard line, not given it back to Denver.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

The blown call resulted more directly in the Chargers loss but couldn't you also point to the 4 other TDs allowed by the Chargers defense as a contributing factor?

Inadvertent whistles happen from time to time. This one just happened to be at the end of the game inside the Red Zone.

Hochuli seems like a good referee. I'm not defending his mistake but at least he admitted to it and he knew how to apply the rules for the situation. I believe the rule regarding inadvertent whistles will be changed in the off-season.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

So he made a mistake. Big deal. He's just human.

The problem is that the rules don't allow for the mistake to be rectified. That's not his problem.

I would like to see the rule changed to this: All balls that fall to the ground behind the line of scrimmage are fumbles even if it was a forward pass, unless the ball is blocked or tipped by the defense.


----------



## morphy (Jun 5, 2007)

I agree that the call was blown, and that it cost the Chargers the game. But Ed Hochuli is one of the best refs ever. He's probably getting run through the ringers just in the weekly review alone, even before any official punishment gets handed down (aside from the lower weekly grade). 

The Broncos aren't the first team to win a game because of a blown call. Just ask the Raiders after the infamous "Tuck Rule" game.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

kevinwmsn said:


> That blown call cost the Chargers a game, maybe more.


If we go back to the way-back machine... before instant replay in the NFL at all... there was that infamous Jets non-TD scoring TD that won the Jets the game... ultimately at the end of the season keeping (I believe Seattle maybe but not 100% sure) out of the playoffs as the result of a tie-breaker scenario... and the coach of that team was fired after the season for failing to improve and making the playoffs.

We'll never know now if that coach would have continued to improve the next year or not... because a bad call kept his team out of the playoffs and cost him his job.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

What good is an instant replay review if they can't overturn a call that they had already made? These instant replay rules are crazy. I think the referees should all be able to view the questionable play and get together and make the right call no matter what. Instant Replay is No Good when you can't change a call like in the San Diego-Denver game. The NFL should be able to step in and change a call and if need be the outcome of a game. San Diego should have won that game and Denver should not be 2-0. For The Record I'm not a fan of either San Diego or Denver. What I am a fan of is Football and I think Instant Replay should be used for getting all calls right even if a whistle had been blown by the refs. And Another thing. I don't like the rule of No Challenges under 2 minutes either. Why have Instant Replay if they can't go back and get it right? I feel just like Norv Turner Feels. That is unnacceptable. I bet we won't see Ed Hochuli doing playoff games this year.


----------



## Tigerman73 (Dec 1, 2006)

Problem is he blew his whistle and as the rules are set up right now when the whistle blows the play is dead. Since the whistle was blown before possession was gained by San Diego by rule the ball still belonged to Denver. Hochuli should have seen that the ball came out before he started forward w/ his throwing motion making it a fumble. Instead he ruled it an incomplete pass. He actually overturned the forward pass ruling and ruled it a fumble but didn't give the ball to SD since it was a dead ball.


----------



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

kevinwmsn said:


> That blown call cost the Chargers a game, maybe more.


wrong!!!!!!!!!! SD not stopping Denver on 4th down or the 2pt conversion cost them the game


----------



## bigshew (Feb 26, 2007)

ARKDTVfan said:


> wrong!!!!!!!!!! SD not stopping Denver on 4th down or the 2pt conversion cost them the game


So if Denver turned the ball over 4 times, but the ref blew each call and gave them the ball back each time so they could score you'd still blame the loss on SD not stopping the 2 pt conversion?


----------



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

bigshew said:


> So if Denver turned the ball over 4 times, but the ref blew each call and gave them the ball back each time so they could score you'd still blame the loss on SD not stopping the 2 pt conversion?


yes


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

ARKDTVfan said:


> wrong!!!!!!!!!! SD not stopping Denver on 4th down or the 2pt conversion cost them the game


110% agreed! The Chargers had the game in their hands regardless of the call. They had two following chances to stop the Broncos and get a win, they failed. And then there was the ensuing kick of where they had 20 seconds to play with. Between this game and last week against Carolina, maybe Turner should take a look at the defense in the final minute of play and they might actually win a game this year.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/sep/15/chargers-hochuli-earns-most-hated-status/?chargers


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

bigshew said:


> So if Denver turned the ball over 4 times, but the ref blew each call and gave them the ball back each time so they could score you'd still blame the loss on SD not stopping the 2 pt conversion?


You never know, Shanahan, knowing it was a blown call, may have gone for 2 to give SD some payback, with a chance to still win the game.

He'd never tell.


----------



## VegasDen (Jul 12, 2007)

I am hard pressed to see how they can change the rule on an inadvertent whistle. Since Pop Warner (or maybe before) players are taught to stop when they hear a whistle. Failure to do so can result in serious injuries (and penalties). Same holds true for other "whistle sports" like basketball or hockey.

Thus, I don't see how any change can avoid creating what the rule book calls an "unfair advantage." Who is to say, in reviewing a play, that a player making a move to recover a fumble didn't slow/stop upon hearing a whistle? It would be totally unfair for a replay/field official to "assume" a player would have recovered a fumble after a whistle (inadvertent or not) had blown.

The Chargers got a bad call....but their defense lost the game not the officials.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

VegasDen said:


> The Chargers got a bad call....but their defense lost the game not the officials.


If people applied that equally to all things, I might be convinced... but it doesn't get applied equally. Plus, one blown call can change the game especially when that call comes at the very end of the game.

As for the inadvertant whistle... I agree, it is hard to correct the inadvertant whistle... but that isn't what we should be fixing. What they SHOULD fix is stopping that whistle from blowing prematurely.

It's one thing when a 400 lb guy is going to take off the QB's head and the ref actually thinks the play is over... but in the Chargers' game Cutler was in no danger at all... so no reason for the ref to blow the whistle prematurely. At the point he blew it, there was no compelling reason to do so.

Hard to correct the whistle... but easier to stop that whistle from being blown. I say that if refs were required to put the whistle in the pocket between plays... and before blowing it would require reaching in, pulling out, and then blowing the whistle... just that extra second or two could make the ref think twice about blowing early. When it is often sitting in his mouth the whole time, it is far too easy to react.

Think about the "red" button the President has for the nukes... Wouldn't it be more prudent to stand away from the button and go near it only when necessary? OR do we want someone hovering his hand right over the top "just in case"? I prefer a little distance so we can be more sure the button press was carefully considered.


----------



## VegasDen (Jul 12, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Hard to correct the whistle... but easier to stop that whistle from being blown. I say that if refs were required to put the whistle in the pocket between plays... and before blowing it would require reaching in, pulling out, and then blowing the whistle... just that extra second or two could make the ref think twice about blowing early. When it is often sitting in his mouth the whole time, it is far too easy to react.


I agree. I officiated high school ball for a number of years. One thing they tried to instill was the use of a "finger whistle" versus the whistle on the lanyard. With the latter the official usually has the whistle in his mouth (like basketball officials). Thus, it's potentially too easy to blow that inadvertent whistle. A "finger whistle" (like those used by hockey officials) is worn on the hand....so you have time to "think" as you pull your hand up to your mouth....thus less potential inadvertent whistles.

I watched the referee in the Dallas/Philly game....he used the "finger whistle". Once, when McNabb was potential "in the grasp" I saw him slowly bring his whistle upwards (it was a slowmo replay)....but his hand dropped when McNabb broke free. That "second or two" you mentioned was clearly illustrated.


----------



## Supervolcano (Jan 23, 2007)

The whistle in mouth vs. hand has an upside and downside.

Sure, in the hand gives ref time to "judge" better, but also remember that the clock rolls until whistle is blown.

I'm not defending or condemning anyone.
I'm just saying .... damned if they do and damned if they don't.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

koji68 said:


> So he made a mistake. Big deal. He's just human.
> 
> The problem is that the rules don't allow for the mistake to be rectified. That's not his problem.
> 
> I would like to see the rule changed to this: All balls that fall to the ground behind the line of scrimmage are fumbles even if it was a forward pass, unless the ball is blocked or tipped by the defense.


Well I partially agree with you. Its not his fault the way he had to deal with the issue but it was his fault that he made the mistake. It was not a small mistake and I think it should of been dealt with in the manner it was. It did cost the Chargers the game but its not the end of the world. Bottom line is it could keep the Chargers out of the playoffs at the end of the season if they come up one game short and Ed was just marked down but that dont mean that he still wont be eligable for post season reffing.

I also do agree with the fact that they do need to change the rule so that it can somehow be corrected at the time of the call.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Msguy said:


> What good is an instant replay review if they can't overturn a call that they had already made? These instant replay rules are crazy. I think the referees should all be able to view the questionable play and get together and make the right call no matter what. Instant Replay is No Good when you can't change a call like in the San Diego-Denver game. The NFL should be able to step in and change a call and if need be the outcome of a game. San Diego should have won that game and Denver should not be 2-0. For The Record I'm not a fan of either San Diego or Denver. What I am a fan of is Football and I think Instant Replay should be used for getting all calls right even if a whistle had been blown by the refs. And Another thing. I don't like the rule of No Challenges under 2 minutes either. Why have Instant Replay if they can't go back and get it right? I feel just like Norv Turner Feels. That is unnacceptable. I bet we won't see Ed Hochuli doing playoff games this year.


Well instant replay can not fix everything. What about a situation where there was a fumble and the whistle blows but the defender would of had a touchdown but he did not even get 10 yards down the field. They can not give him the TD and they are also not going to give it to them on the 1 yard line. How is that fixed? Its not really fair to make them drive the field after the muffed call or whistle blow.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

ARKDTVfan said:


> wrong!!!!!!!!!! SD not stopping Denver on 4th down or the 2pt conversion cost them the game


How can you say that? SD would of just downed the ball a few times and it would of been over.


----------



## Supervolcano (Jan 23, 2007)

joshjr said:


> How can you say that? SD would of just downed the ball a few times and it would of been over.


I think the point is the blown call itself didn't give denver 6 points.

The next play gave them 6 points when Chargers FAILED to stop Broncos.
And the next play after that gave them 2 MORE points when Chargers FAILED to stop Broncos again.

If the Chargers stopped them from getting into the endzone or even stopped them from getting the 2 point conversion, none of this would be as big a deal, would it.

Ever hear the expression "Defense wins games"?
Where was San Diego's defense when they needed it the most, after the blown call?
:scratchin :whatdidid

---------------

Did Steve Bartman's foul ball catch lose the Cubs a chance at the 2003 world series?

Nope, the Cubs blew it on the several plays that followed it, and continued to blow it for the next 2 days after that.
:lol:

---------------

How many championship runs did Michael Jordan lose because of a blown call late in a game against him or his team?

NONE!!! He always got himself AND HIS TEAM to RISE ABOVE the bad call and continued pressing on to win, like true champions do.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

HDMe said:


> As for the inadvertant whistle... I agree, it is hard to correct the inadvertant whistle... but that isn't what we should be fixing. What they SHOULD fix is stopping that whistle from blowing prematurely.


They have been training the officials to not blow the whistle too fast due to exactly this scenario. Once the whistle blows, you can't go back. However, you can always review a play or consult the other officals who might have had a better view and say, nope, it was a forward pass or the guy stepped out here, so bring it back.

I think that is what got him the major downgrade. Officals are human and have to make snap judgements in real time, so they are going to miss a call here and there. However, he went against training that has been emphasized over and over and is a major point of emphasis. Even if the game did not turn out the way it did, I am sure the office of officials would have busted him just as bad, we would just not be talking about it.


----------



## bigshew (Feb 26, 2007)

Lee L said:


> They have been training the officials to not blow the whistle too fast due to exactly this scenario. Once the whistle blows, you can't go back. However, you can always review a play or consult the other officals who might have had a better view and say, nope, it was a forward pass or the guy stepped out here, so bring it back.


The problem is it's often too hard to tell in real time when the ball left the QB's hand. The NFL should make it easier on refs and call any play like the one we're talking about just an incomplete pass instead of nitpicking on "is the arm going forward or back".


----------



## Supervolcano (Jan 23, 2007)

bigshew said:


> The problem is it's often too hard to tell in real time when the ball left the QB's hand. The NFL should make it easier on refs and call any play like the one we're talking about just an incomplete pass instead of nitpicking on "is the arm going forward or back".


Shirley, you must be joking.
:eek2: 
If that ever becomes the case, you'd never see another sack or fumble by a QB because the QB would just intentionally ground ..... errr ..... I mean let it drop .... errr .... I mean accidentally slip out of his hand backwards.

And if that's the rule, the same goes for the running back after a handoff, since HE TOO always has the option to throw the ball until he gets to the line of scrimmage.

You must not have even seen the play being referenced and/or not be a real football fan.

In this particular play, it wasn't so much when he let go of the ball (even though that was blatently obvious, as Ed admitted right after he accidentally blew the whistle).

It was the fact the ball went backwards!!!
And a backwards pass is called a "lateral".

A lateral is a live ball, even if it touches the ground before someone grabs it, no matter whether it's overhand or underhand.

SHEESH!!!
The nerve of some forum posters.
Trying to change how 100 years of football has been played.
 (just kidding on this last paragraph, kind of) :lol:


----------



## bigshew (Feb 26, 2007)

Supervolcano said:


> You must not have even seen the play being referenced and/or not be a real football fan.
> 
> In this particular play, it wasn't so much when he let go of the ball (even though that was blatently obvious, as Ed admitted right after he accidentally blew the whistle).
> 
> ...


Ha Ha. Guess I was a little drunk at the time. Well, football has more rules and rules changes than any other sport. The intentional grounding rule was changed not that long ago. It would be interesting to see a rule book from 100 years ago and compare it to today! The point I was trying to make (and made it badly) is the officials have a tough time seeing everything so where possible make a rule less dependent on having an eagle eye or a quick whistle.:goodjob:


----------



## Supervolcano (Jan 23, 2007)

bigshew said:


> Ha Ha. Guess I was a little drunk at the time.


I'll forgive you ... THIS TIME!!!
:lol: 
Next time though it's gonna be ruled as a 2 point safety PLUS a 15 yard penalty assessed to the subsequent free kick, since I'm adding this to the rule book right now.

Not only were you too drunk when it happened, but after sobering up you acted like you knew what really happened.

Those are 2 seperate flagrant personal fouls. Next time catch the highlights later on ESPN or even the next day so you can keep you well informed sports armchair quarterback status.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

Mike Pereira,the supervisor of the league's officials,talked a bit about Ed Hochuli during his NFL Network show last night.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3596289&POLL361=8000000000000000000000


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has been fined $25,000 by the league for his criticism of Hochuli.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3614181


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I do find it interesting that players, coaches, and owners are fined for being publically critical of officials... even when those officials actually make obvious mistakes that sometimes cost games... BUT the NFL can be critical of an owner, or a player, or a coach and not see similar problems. Officials don't usually get media coverage, so not much chance for them to be critical and risk a fine.

Seems to me that if what a coach/player/owner says is true there is no reason to fine. But maybe I'm missing something specific to this situation?


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

He negated an INT return for a TD by the Panthers with a roughing the passer call on Julius Peppers,during the first quarter of today's game between the Falcons and Panthers.
I wondered if anyone on here may have seen the play.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-hochulicall&prov=ap&type=lgns


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

After missing a face mask call against the Vikings defense on Saints RB Reggie Bush during last night's game in New Orleans,Hochuli is getting more heat.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Welcometo-the-magnifying-glass-Ed-Hochuli?urn=nfl,113106


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Steve615 said:


> After missing a face mask call against the Vikings defense on Saints RB Reggie Bush during last night's game in New Orleans,Hochuli is getting more heat.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Welcometo-the-magnifying-glass-Ed-Hochuli?urn=nfl,113106


His whole crew was awful last night.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Ed Hochuli has long been considered one of the NFL's best officials, right up there with Referee Jim Tunney and Jerry Markbreit. While I wouldn't doubt that the call may cost him a post-season assignment, I seriously doubt that it will cost him his job. It would be the NFL's loss if he was no longer part of the staff. However, it is quite possible that he could be demoted to any of the other 6 positions on a crew (Umpire, Head Linesman, etc.).


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

IIRC, Ed didn't get a playoff game last year.

Many ex referees are now working other positions. Remember Phil Luckett? He's a happy and successful back judge, the position usually considered the #2 guy on a crew.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Actually, it's generally the Umpire's position who is considered the #2 spot, with the Head Linesman #3, according to what one of my fellow officials, who does football in addition to baseball, mentioned to me.


----------

