Bang bang play?

Anyone read the Ask-A-Ref section today regarding the "bang bang play"?

I really don't get it. The refs don't want to cause a turnover based on one of their calls......huh?

So when the Lions got the roughing the passer call on Ricky Ray this past Friday, that negated an interception by the Lions. Didn't that call technically cause a turnover?

I'm not all of a sudden cheering for the Lions, but I really don't get their stance/explanation. Don't most calls technically negate and/or prolong a turnover?

I'm reminded of the prime directive in star trek movies.....the refs don't want to interfere with the development of the game, they're just there to observe?!? Which is it guys? Are you there to call games, or do you not want to interfere with the game? You can't have it both ways.

I thought it seemed funny too..... they're there to let us know what happened, at least in their opinions. If the receiver catches the ball and subsequently fumbles...... then it's a fumble.

I guess they're just selective on which plays they don't mind the ball changing sides.

Edmonton's had 3 or 4 interceptions called back in their last two games due to penalties.