(11-21-2018, 11:14 AM)JackCity Wrote:

(11-21-2018, 06:59 AM)hb1148 Wrote: I don't like referring to bad officiating as an "excuse" because it sounds like the conservative play calling was an "excuse" or the inability of the defense to stop the squeelers on the last drive is an "excuse". All were contributing factors. I re-watched the game as I normally do and I can pretty confidently say an unbiased observer would agree we got the short end in this particular game.

Only some of those contributing factors were in the teams control (although the jags did have multiple penalties caused directly by not knowing the rules).  

Right , so how many times did you see holding not called on either side and how many calls did the refs not call against us? You don't have to give a specific number, just any examples of plays the refs didn't ding is for when they could have

Holding is subjective and could be called on any particular play. Because one side gets the benefit (or not) of penalties overall doesn't mean every call goes against them, it can mean two or three in the course of a game that have an influence on the outcome because they stop a drive that should have continued or allow a first down that shouldn't have been.  Generally speaking, these things even out so the outcome of a game isn't influenced.  In this game in particular though, officiating did have an influence. Even knowing nothing else about what happened, statistically speaking you shouldn't ever see a penalty disparity like this:

Pitt: 3 for 15
Jaguars: 11 for 111

And 6 of the squeelers 19 first downs came from penalty. Jags ineffectiveness and conservative play calling where contributing factors too but I'm not sure the Jags don't win if the officiating had been just as one sided the other way.

---