Did no one watch Chris Collinsworth last night? Even if the replay gear was working, the play would not have been overturned because dual posession calls are not reviewable. Quit whining about that one already!

The play for two points was risky and was easily the most interesting thing that happened that day.

The problem that I have is that it has totally overshadowed what a lot of people think was the most significant moment of the day: the blown fumble call. All of the news coverage is about the Broncos going for two, and it really irks those of us who think that it's secondary.

Denver did what they needed to do to win the game, and I don't fault them for it. They had no control over the mistakes made by the refs and took advantage of what happened. You could see it in the face of the ref when he said that it should have been a fumble but it couldn't be changed.

We can talk about how the Chargers defense should have stopped Denver, but the facts are that Denver never should have gotten the chance. If the season ends and that blown call makes the difference in any team making the post-season, there are going to be a lot of annoyed fans out there.

There's a bigger story than the conversion out there, I just wish that people would focus on it.

The ref said he blew the whistle and therefore the play was dead. But did he? When you look at the replay, the ball is loose and bouncing along, a Charger is about to pick it up, and the ref now waves his arms to signal an incomplete pass. Isn't the whistle on his finger? How could he blow it while waving his arms? So the reason to call the play dead, i.e. that the players heard the whistle and stopped playing, is bogus. Nobody stopped playing. That ref could have esily rectified his mistake and made the right call after looking at the replay footage without any valid complaint from the Broncos that they could have recovered the ball. It's too bad refs can't use a little common sense.

I love how an entire officiating body of work can be summarized by one call--right or wrong--yet a team can be given a lot more leeway when being judged, even if a few things went right (or wrong) in the course of a game.

Which goes to show that in the art of officiating, you're only as good as your last call (or the one you blew in the middle of the game).

Alright, I don't think Shanahan was thinking "hey, we don't deserve to win this thing, so I'll give the game to San Diego because I'm such a swell guy".

What I DO think was part of his mental equation in those 5 seconds was the concept of sportsmanship. I'm pretty sure he realized they shouldn't have had the chance to win that game, so he gave SD a chance to beat them straight up, a chance to stop the 2 pt conversion. Because it's the sporting thing to do. Maybe it wasn't his ONLY consideration, but I like to think it accounted for some percentage...it makes me like him just a little bit more...it's kind of old-school.

but back to that blown call - that really was atrocious. Why on earth would the ref go review the play to see when he blew the whistle?? I'm willing to bet that exactly no one was thinking "well no biggie, he blew the whistle, the play is dead" when the SD defender fell on the ball. Everybody assumed he was checking to see if Cutler arm was forward when he dropped it. Why on earth would he go out of his way to make sure he got it right on the technicality?! Why would you come out and say "well the play was a fumble, you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. But if we want to be technical about it, I blew the whistle early...so...uhh....sorry 'bout that"

Keep that whistle part to yourself bud - and if, IF Shanahan threw his flag to challenge the whistle, then fine, check again, and make the call that he ended up making.

There's such thing as better right in the letter but wrong in the spirit...

it was brutal.

(the 2 pt conversion was pretty nifty though)

I realize you're a Cal guy, and I went to Maryland, but I had to ask:

Did you see the play where a MD safety (legally) hit a Cal player so hard that he appeared to have the wind knocked out of him, crawled around on the ground for a couple of seconds, and then puked all over his shirt? I think I felt that hit in from my perch on my couch. Ow.

Well, my first letter about the Chiefs' decision to go for a touchdown on 4th down against the Raiders (instead of kicking a field goal to tie) in 2006 didn't get a mention. But I bet there are a *lot* more opportunities for teams to make a decision like that inside of 2 minutes to play, over the course of a season, than there are for teams to either go for two to win or kick an extra point to tie. How often do you see a team down by 4 or 7 still kick a field goal with little time left? Or down by 11 halfway through the 4th quarter, score a touchdown, and still refuse to go for two? Very rarely will it ever come down to a "1 for tie, 2 for win" scenario -- but it often comes down to, "go for a touchdown vs. kick a field goal and still need a touchdown". Which is a better test of how smart a head coach really is..

The announcers did, as a matter of fact, say that they thought Shanahan may be going for two to give the Chargers a chance to stop them and win since the call was so blatantly bad. Don't be such a know-it-all because you look like an ass when you're wrong.