Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NFL)   The NFL has issued a statement about last night's Seahawk/Packer debacle. To summarize: "Suck it, haters"   ( nfl.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Seahawks, NFL, Golden Tate, field of play, M.D. Jennings, forward pass, pass interference, touchdowns  
•       •       •

3603 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Sep 2012 at 6:04 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



396 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-25 02:11:38 PM  
So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.
 
2012-09-25 02:12:03 PM  
nflhumor.com
 
2012-09-25 02:15:40 PM  

eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.


Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.
 
2012-09-25 02:15:52 PM  
i6.photobucket.com

i6.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-25 02:16:13 PM  
Well that should settle that for everyone! Controversy over. Congratulations to the NFL.

//obviously they can't, shouldn't and weren't going to reverse the game outcome after the fact
//still a joke of a call and a joke of a game
 
MBK
2012-09-25 02:19:40 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-25 02:23:20 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.


He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.
 
2012-09-25 02:26:59 PM  
Given that the NFL moved the start time on late games to 4:25 so that gamblers who lose big on the 1:00 games now have a chance to try and make it up on the late games, I'm thinking when Vegas starts screaming that these refs are seriously messing up their handicappers, maybe the NFL will pay more attention.
 
2012-09-25 02:28:22 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.

He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.


I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.
 
2012-09-25 02:28:23 PM  
Congratulations NFL, you just completely alienated a lot of people including me. I have now stopped caring about football completely and don't even want to watch any more games this year.
 
2012-09-25 02:32:29 PM  
This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.
 
2012-09-25 02:32:43 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Marcus Aurelius: Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.

He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.

I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.


Faulkner's lengthy sentences are legendary, but every single on of them is grammatically correct. You'll not find any structural errors in any of his books. Stylistically they can be a bit of a chore, but he was far better than that two-bit hack Charles Dickens.
 
2012-09-25 02:37:59 PM  
I have a vision of the NFL keeping the scab refs on for the whole year and then, next year, hiring a new set of scabs to keep the chaos, and then soon, the NFL will devolve into the craziness like Rollerball (the first one)
 
2012-09-25 02:40:51 PM  

Nabb1: Benevolent Misanthrope: Marcus Aurelius: Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.

He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.

I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.

Faulkner's lengthy sentences are legendary, but every single on of them is grammatically correct. You'll not find any structural errors in any of his books. Stylistically they can be a bit of a chore, but he was far better than that two-bit hack Charles Dickens.


Perhaps. But I still just don't "get" him. As a Southerner, loving Faulkner supposed to be genetic, I think.
 
2012-09-25 02:41:55 PM  

dj_bigbird: I have a vision of the NFL keeping the scab refs on for the whole year and then, next year, hiring a new set of scabs to keep the chaos, and then soon, the NFL will devolve into the craziness like Rollerball (the first one)


That would be AWESOME!
 
2012-09-25 02:42:14 PM  
They weren't going to, and should not have reversed the call.  But they ought to have the balls to say it was a bad call and a mistake (something I believe they've done before, not sure if under Godell though.)
 
2012-09-25 02:42:35 PM  
Maybe fans should boycott this football season. I'm seriously contemplating giving up on the season. The only thing that will get the owners back to the table and bargain in good faith is us hitting them in their pocketbooks.
 
2012-09-25 02:46:19 PM  

downstairs: They weren't going to, and should not have reversed the call.  But they ought to have the balls to say it was a bad call and a mistake (something I believe they've done before, not sure if under Godell though.)


They admitted the OPI was missed.
 
2012-09-25 02:46:43 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Perhaps. But I still just don't "get" him. As a Southerner, loving Faulkner supposed to be genetic, I think.


I think he tapped into that dark, gothic Southern familial dysfunction in a way that few have been able to do.
 
2012-09-25 02:47:13 PM  
I can't wait until this lockout is over so I can go back to complaining about the bad calls made by the regular refs.
 
2012-09-25 02:49:54 PM  
With this link, we will have ten out of sixteen links on today's sports tab dedicated to the Inaccurate Reception or bad officiating, plus that "Call It Maybe" one in the video tab.

Pretty sure that qualifies as a bad day for Goodell.
 
2012-09-25 02:50:51 PM  

borg: This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.


Out of the 20 challenge flags thrown in week 3, 16 were overturned. That's 80 farking percent. I don't even think there were 16 challenges overturned in the entire 2011 season.
 
2012-09-25 02:51:36 PM  

MBK: [imageshack.us image 468x640]


I LOL'd.
 
2012-09-25 02:52:12 PM  
Don't argue rules with the guys who make the rules.

I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.
So yeah, suck it.
 
2012-09-25 02:53:31 PM  

borg: This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.


You're missing the point: even those who are arguing that the call was correct (to include the NFL) are admitting other egregiously bad/non-calls in the same game. And in other games this week. And in other games last week, and the week before.

In a non-replacement season you generally needed to go back at least a few games to find an equally bad call.
 
2012-09-25 02:56:50 PM  

Tarkus: Maybe fans should boycott this football season. I'm seriously contemplating giving up on the season. The only thing that will get the owners back to the table and bargain in good faith is us hitting them in their pocketbooks.


The only thing that will actually force Goddell to act is a boycott. I'm not sure the players and the coaches can actually refuse to play under their CBA, and he'd just call up a bunch of scabs for them too. The only way to force real action is for the fans to refuse to watch.
 
2012-09-25 02:56:55 PM  

borg: This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.


Nice. You'll get some bites.

/looking for that 4th time out. It has to around here somewhere....
 
2012-09-25 02:57:47 PM  
The NFL could never admit that the TempRefs were wrong, as that would be admitting that the owner's shouldn't have locked out the RealRefs in the first place.
 
2012-09-25 03:03:04 PM  

cretinbob: Don't argue rules with the guys who make the rules.

I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.
So yeah, suck it.


The first ref on the scene ruled interception. It was another ref that had no view of the play that ran in afterward and ruled touchdown. The first ref gave up at that point.

It was a farce.
 
2012-09-25 03:06:42 PM  

borg: This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.


Nobody is saying that. The problem is that this has morphed from a sideshow into a gigantic debacle. The regular refs do make bad calls, but they know what they're doing. They might make questionable judgement calls, but they can control the players, they have their respect and the respect of the coaches. These scabs take five goddamn minutes to spot the ball after turnovers/challenges. The stutter impotently whenever they announce penalties, they call phantom pass interference penalties and miss completely blatant holds on every single drive. They have absolutely no control. And this is ignoring the hypocrisy of the NFL (which now allegedly cares about player safety), replacing the regular refs, with 1500 years of combined professional experience, with referees from the high school level and lingerie bowl.

Have you watched any games this year?
 
2012-09-25 03:09:30 PM  

cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.


They missed the blatant OPI call (which the NFL admits should have been called) on the final play, and called it a touchdown when it was clearly an interception, capping off a drive that only got as far as it did because of a 30+ yard defensive pass interference call that was utter horseshiat and should have been called on the offense. Which team would have won? We don't really know, the officiating is that bad.
 
2012-09-25 03:10:02 PM  

Fark It: with referees from the high school level and lingerie bowl.


Hell, the lingerie league didn't even want them, they were fired for incompetency.
 
2012-09-25 03:10:46 PM  

Fark It: borg: This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.

Nobody is saying that. The problem is that this has morphed from a sideshow into a gigantic debacle. The regular refs do make bad calls, but they know what they're doing. They might make questionable judgement calls, but they can control the players, they have their respect and the respect of the coaches. These scabs take five goddamn minutes to spot the ball after turnovers/challenges. The stutter impotently whenever they announce penalties, they call phantom pass interference penalties and miss completely blatant holds on every single drive. They have absolutely no control. And this is ignoring the hypocrisy of the NFL (which now allegedly cares about player safety), replacing the regular refs, with 1500 years of combined professional experience, with referees from the high school level and lingerie bowl.

Have you watched any games this year?


Don't forget that they get the player number wrong on a staggering number of penalty calls.
 
2012-09-25 03:10:50 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cretinbob: Don't argue rules with the guys who make the rules.

I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.
So yeah, suck it.

The first ref on the scene ruled interception. It was another ref that had no view of the play that ran in afterward and ruled touchdown. The first ref gave up at that point.

It was a farce.


This. They had no clue what the fark was going on, they didn't even make a call, they wanted for the answer to be piped down from the booth.
 
2012-09-25 03:13:57 PM  

cretinbob: Don't argue rules with the guys who make the rules.

I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.
So yeah, suck it.


With all due respect, I think the only way you can conclude the refs did a good job with a difficult play is that you did not see it. They missed a PI call, were totally confused and ran around like idiots when one ref called it incomplete and the other called it a touchdown, didn't have a conference, and then went straight to the replay booth. It was the very definition of amateur hour.
 
2012-09-25 03:15:47 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The NFL could never admit that the TempRefs were wrong, as that would be admitting that the owner's shouldn't have locked out the RealRefs in the first place.


You may be right, but if the NFL doesn't pull its head out of its ass pretty quick, it won't matter because every week that passes devalues the season. You might be able to recover from a three week mess, but after that it's going to get to the point that the viewers will put an asterisk next to this season, viewership will plummet, and the fans will write the season off as a joke. Same thing happense when there's a player's strike.

When you consider it's a multi-billion dollar business, getting into a pissing contest over what amounts to about $100,000 per club seems like a pretty short-sighted decision IMO. They should end this thing and try to salvage the season. Today.
 
2012-09-25 03:18:32 PM  
The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.
 
2012-09-25 03:18:45 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The NFL could never admit that the TempRefs were wrong, as that would be admitting that the owner's shouldn't have locked out the RealRefs in the first place.


If you go to NFL.com right now, you will see that there are actually articles ON THE LEAGUE'S OWN WEBSITE calling for an end to the lockout. They've even got an article about Larry Fitzgerald talking about how the replacement refs were manipulated in that call.

Never mind control of the field, Goodell doesn't have farking control of the entire LEAGUE anymore.

\also, they've apparently started up negotiations today according to NFL.com. THAT would be a fly-on-the-wall moment if there ever was one.
 
2012-09-25 03:21:24 PM  

Aarontology: The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.


The fine for doing so would have truly been paid for by the citizens of Green Bay.
 
2012-09-25 03:26:15 PM  

FriarReb98: Aarontology: The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.

The fine for doing so would have truly been paid for by the citizens of Green Bay.


I wonder if they would do it for the organization, for each player, or both.

But still. Imagine Goodell fining the shiat out of the Packers for that, and how much of a PR blow that would be for him and that whole "embarrassing the shield" mantra he's a fan of.
 
2012-09-25 03:28:18 PM  

Aarontology: I wonder if they would do it for the organization, for each player, or both.


Probably the coach.

/As far as the fans go, they willingly shell out significant amounts of money for pieces of paper which entitle them to nothing more than a seat in an annual shareholders meeting. I think they could be convinced to pay a fine in this scenario.
 
2012-09-25 03:29:10 PM  
I didn't watch the game, so I don't know, but did the refs allow those 8 sacks on Aaron Rodgers?
 
2012-09-25 03:29:36 PM  

Aarontology: But still. Imagine Goodell fining the shiat out of the Packers for that, and how much of a PR blow that would be for him and that whole "embarrassing the shield" mantra he's a fan of.


It totally would fit my fantasy of the most spectacular way this could end. To summarize: Replacement refs work the London game with Goodell in attendance. Someone suffers a career-ending injury caused by a non-call. Belichick or the players throw punches at the refs, start an honest-to-goodness soccer riot on live TV, causing an international incident. Goodell has to resign (if not end up in an English prison for it), the lockout ends, and the NFL never goes to London again. It'd be perfect.
 
2012-09-25 03:32:22 PM  

cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play


Neither did the refs.
 
2012-09-25 03:33:49 PM  

FriarReb98:

Never mind control of the field, Goodell doesn't have farking control of the entire LEAGUE anymore.

\also, they've apparently started up negotiations today according to NFL.com. THAT would be a fly-on-the-wall moment if there ever was one.


I'll bet they have a deal by noon tomorrow. They can't afford another week with this PR disaster they are faced with.
 
2012-09-25 03:40:27 PM  
Maybe Jerry Sandusky will get caught by a prison guard blowing an 18 year-old inmate and the focus move off of the NFL and back to the Penn State scandal.
 
2012-09-25 03:42:24 PM  

Harv72b: Probably the coach.

/As far as the fans go, they willingly shell out significant amounts of money for pieces of paper which entitle them to nothing more than a seat in an annual shareholders meeting. I think they could be convinced to pay a fine in this scenario.


They're also worth something like a billion dollars. I think the team could pay for any fines.

FriarReb98: It totally would fit my fantasy of the most spectacular way this could end. To summarize: Replacement refs work the London game with Goodell in attendance. Someone suffers a career-ending injury caused by a non-call. Belichick or the players throw punches at the refs, start an honest-to-goodness soccer riot on live TV, causing an international incident. Goodell has to resign (if not end up in an English prison for it), the lockout ends, and the NFL never goes to London again. It'd be perfect.


last night I was wondering what would have happened if the Patriots had been in the place of the Packers. I would have bet a lot of money that Belichick would have done exactly as you described.
 
2012-09-25 03:43:58 PM  
I haven't watch the games more than just casually, are the games noticeably longer with the scab refs?
 
2012-09-25 03:45:39 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play

Neither did the refs.


i281.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-25 03:47:48 PM  
The judges used in MMA make the scab refs look like paragons of virtue and correct calls.
 
2012-09-25 03:49:43 PM  

Headso: I haven't watch the games more than just casually, are the games noticeably longer with the scab refs?


They're breaking records.
 
2012-09-25 03:52:59 PM  

Aarontology: The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.


According to TMQ there was a game in 1998 (I think) when the Pats' opponent didn't come out in protest, so the refs just let the Pats run the PAT try in their absence, and instead of kicking it Belichick had Vinatieri run it in for two.
 
2012-09-25 03:53:46 PM  

Aarontology: last night I was wondering what would have happened if the Patriots had been in the place of the Packers. I would have bet a lot of money that Belichick would have done exactly as you described.


Hell, he almost did it Sunday with just the overzealous penalty-calling. And IIRC the Pats had less than the Ravens.
 
2012-09-25 03:55:38 PM  

kronicfeld: Aarontology: The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.

According to TMQ there was a game in 1998 (I think) when the Pats' opponent didn't come out in protest, so the refs just let the Pats run the PAT try in their absence, and instead of kicking it Belichick had Vinatieri run it in for two.


Can't be, Belichick started in 2000. IIRC there was a Pats-Fins game in Foxboro with a messed up ending like an hour after the game was done and 90% of the fans were in Route 1 traffic.
 
2012-09-25 03:59:30 PM  

obeymatt: I didn't watch the game, so I don't know, but did the refs allow those 8 sacks on Aaron Rodgers?


Well, he WAS sacked 8 times, and the refs didn't stop them, so...yeah.
 
2012-09-25 04:10:26 PM  

Lando Lincoln: obeymatt: I didn't watch the game, so I don't know, but did the refs allow those 8 sacks on Aaron Rodgers?

Well, he WAS sacked 8 times, and the refs didn't stop them, so...yeah.


I see what you did there.
 
2012-09-25 04:28:00 PM  
When the NFL is using refs let go by the Lingerie Football League for being incompetent, something is seriously wrong, yet they refuse to admit it.

/LA LA LA I can't hear you, everything's fine
 
2012-09-25 04:28:13 PM  

FriarReb98: Can't be, Belichick started in 2000. IIRC there was a Pats-Fins game in Foxboro with a messed up ending like an hour after the game was done and 90% of the fans were in Route 1 traffic.


My mistake, it wasn't Belichick; I just assumed it was. It was 1998, Pats/Bills, and Wade Phillips was the Bills' coach.
 
2012-09-25 04:31:28 PM  

Nabb1: Benevolent Misanthrope: Perhaps. But I still just don't "get" him. As a Southerner, loving Faulkner supposed to be genetic, I think.

I think he tapped into that dark, gothic Southern familial dysfunction in a way that few have been able to do.


Tennessee Williams did that as well but he is more entertaining. Faulkner is not light reading.

Anywhoo, screw all you haters and you're whining about the ref. It's not as if he made poor/biased calls and took the Superbowl from the Packers or anything.

/not bitter
 
2012-09-25 04:34:39 PM  

Walker: /LA LA LA I can't hear you, everything's fine


external.ak.fbcdn.net
The replacement referees are doing an outstanding job and getting better each week.

 
2012-09-25 04:52:59 PM  
The walkout will end when Vegas bookies lose enough money and pay Roger Goodell a visit in the middle of the night.
 
2012-09-25 05:06:47 PM  
NFLolololol
 
2012-09-25 05:17:01 PM  

dudemanbro: Congratulations NFL, you just completely alienated a lot of people including me. I have now stopped caring about football completely and don't even want to watch any more games this year.


Welcome back to the human race.
 
2012-09-25 05:24:00 PM  

Aarontology: The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.



Would it matter?  I mean, you can't get in trouble for having 10 men on the field (I know this because some team did it on purpose on the first play in tribute to a player who died that week.)
 
So in this case, is there any punishment to fielding zero players?
 
2012-09-25 05:30:56 PM  
The NFL will find a quick solution when Goddell wakes up and find Tim Tebow's head under the beadsheets.
 
2012-09-25 05:35:20 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-25 05:53:34 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: The NFL will find a quick solution when Goddell wakes up and find Tim Tebow's head under the beadsheets.


Come on, let's be serious now, this is too big of an issue for a simple BJ to solve, even if it's a Teblow.
 
2012-09-25 06:06:50 PM  

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

 
2012-09-25 06:06:57 PM  
You Don't Know Jack's Facebook page:

"YDKJ alert! Any right answer provided by a player in Wisconsin will be credited to someone in Seattle. Too soon?"
 
2012-09-25 06:10:44 PM  
Whatever was called on the field was going to be upheld. There was nothing in the video to overturn anything either way. I'm pretty sure the real refs would have called it an interception, though.
 
2012-09-25 06:14:39 PM  
Apparently the 500+ comment thread on the article saying that they were going to release a statement wasn't enough? ALRIGHT!!!
 
2012-09-25 06:21:43 PM  
I called it (really impressive, I know):

HaywoodJablonski
I have Seattle +3.5. So Fark that reversal noise.

Here's my prediction for the NFL response: LOL Fark you!

25 Sep 2012 10:42 AM
 
rka
2012-09-25 06:21:55 PM  

FriarReb98: Someone suffers a career-ending injury caused by a non-call.


Once the career-ending injury happens, what does it matter if a call is made or not? How does an after-the-fact flag stop that hit?

That's why the whole "putting players at risk" line is just a bunch of B.S. You know who puts players at risk? Other players.

I don't see why it takes Regular Refs to tell a professional player (and union member) not to try to injure another player (and fellow union member).
 
2012-09-25 06:21:57 PM  
Nothing has to change as long as people are still watching.

As soon as people stop watching, something will change.
 
2012-09-25 06:25:06 PM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2012-09-25 06:27:03 PM  

borg: The walkout will end when Vegas bookies lose enough money and pay Roger Goodell a visit in the middle of the night.


They might just put a horses head in bed with him
 
2012-09-25 06:30:38 PM  

eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do.


They never reverse the bad calls, made weekly, by the regular refs either.

But go ahead and get your panties in a wad and pretend that Green Bay lost because of a single call, and that their losing had NOTHING to do with Rodgers being sacked 9 times.

I have never seen more retarded people jump on a bandwagon as they have over these replacement refs - the old refs were atrocious as well.
 
2012-09-25 06:32:21 PM  

FriarReb98: It totally would fit my fantasy of the most spectacular way this could end. To summarize: Replacement refs work the London game with Goodell in attendance. Someone suffers a career-ending injury caused by a non-call. Belichick or the players throw punches at the refs, start an honest-to-goodness soccer riot on live TV, causing an international incident. Goodell has to resign (if not end up in an English prison for it), the lockout ends, and the NFL never goes to London again. It'd be perfect.


Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2012-09-25 06:32:59 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Well that should settle that for everyone! Controversy over. Congratulations to the NFL.

//obviously they can't, shouldn't and weren't going to reverse the game outcome after the fact
//still a joke of a call and a joke of a game


What I find funny is that it would not have been a clear cut call for the regular refs either, that play was hard to call but the PI that happened should have been called. It was glaringly obvious and the worst PI the entire game.
 
2012-09-25 06:33:48 PM  
I'm done with this season until the regular refs come back.

I have better things to do than get emotionally invested in a game that has no integrity.
 
2012-09-25 06:35:52 PM  

Tarkus: Maybe fans should boycott this football season. I'm seriously contemplating giving up on the season. The only thing that will get the owners back to the table and bargain in good faith is us hitting them in their pocketbooks.


I'm seriously considering it. The scab refs are terrible. I didn't think a group could ever make the ACC refs look competent, but these idiots have finally pulled it off.

It's really become unwatchable.
 
2012-09-25 06:35:56 PM  

rka: FriarReb98: Someone suffers a career-ending injury caused by a non-call.

Once the career-ending injury happens, what does it matter if a call is made or not? How does an after-the-fact flag stop that hit?

That's why the whole "putting players at risk" line is just a bunch of B.S. You know who puts players at risk? Other players.

I don't see why it takes Regular Refs to tell a professional player (and union member) not to try to injure another player (and fellow union member).


My point is that it would be something dramatic where its obvious the game was so out of hand that normal refs would've camled things down long before it happened. Maybe the DHB penalty counts for it; I didn't watch any of that game before the last 30 seconds or so as it was the Bronco game that was on in my market. The general gist is that it would take something like that to get a coach to snap.
 
2012-09-25 06:36:29 PM  

borg: This is the first bad call in NFL history. The regular refs have never made an awful call affecting the outcome of a game.


*ahem* Super Bowl 40 *ahem*
 
2012-09-25 06:38:05 PM  

steamingpile: What I find funny is that it would not have been a clear cut call for the regular refs either, that play was hard to call but the PI that happened should have been called. It was glaringly obvious and the worst PI the entire game.


non-calls have been the NFL's stock-in-trade when it comes to fixing games. It's the NFL's version of the foul. Just don't call holding when a Manning is on the march and everybody forgets. As they have now.

NFL officialdom has improved with the replacement refs, at least for now there isn't a cable running from the hand of Vegas to the official's asses. Not yet.
 
2012-09-25 06:38:51 PM  

rka: That's why the whole "putting players at risk" line is just a bunch of B.S. You know who puts players at risk? Other players.


I understand what you're saying, and on some levels I agree with you. But on the whole, yes...the replacement refs are making the game more dangerous for the players on the field.

Not just in the "well if they aren't going to call it I'm going to do it" vein, but because of the frustration level which so many of these guys are feeling from the moment they step on the field right now. You can't hit an official (or at least, nobody has yet (cue Orlando Brown pics)), so you hit the guy on the other side of the line of scrimmage. You feel like you just got jobbed by a no-call (or are about to be, or have been for the entire game), so you get angry and retaliate against the only target you can. The guard is blatantly holding you on every play & getting away with it, so you lead with a forearm to his facemask on the next play & just happen to catch him at exactly the wrong spot. Etc. etc.

In the locker room, at the gym, during commercial shoots & public appearances of course the players are going to respect one another & behave with restraint. But on the field, in a game which is designed to be violent and require split-second reaction times, it's another matter entirely.

Guarantee you that in some stadium locker room next Sunday morning, a player is going to be staring at a picture of Roger Goodell to psych himself up for the game...and at some point he's going to superimpose that face onto some other guy's helmet.
 
2012-09-25 06:39:35 PM  
ok - serious question: What can the average couch surfing fan do to voice displeasure at this point? Boycott seems pointless as it won't result in an empty seat at the stadium... Ideas?

/ref issue was wrong before last night
//nothing to do with who benefited from poor calls this weekend
///slashies!
 
2012-09-25 06:41:39 PM  

Girl On Couch: ok - serious question: What can the average couch surfing fan do to voice displeasure at this point? Boycott seems pointless as it won't result in an empty seat at the stadium... Ideas?

More than 70,000 voice mails were left at the league offices Monday night, an NFL source told ESPN's Seth Markman.


Link

/The phone numbers have been posted a million times in the last 24 hours; a quick googling should net them for you.
 
2012-09-25 06:42:41 PM  
I wonder if people can file FCC complaints for chants of "bullshiat" that get broadcast on national TV.
 
2012-09-25 06:43:38 PM  
Did anyone really expect the NFL to reverse the call and award the game to Green Bay? Ya, I didn't think so.
 
2012-09-25 06:45:09 PM  

AlHarris31: I'm done with this season until the regular refs come back.

I have better things to do than get emotionally invested in a game that has no integrity.


Sure you are, people have been saying that since the start if the season yet the NFL is till killing in the ratings.
 
2012-09-25 06:46:56 PM  

Girl On Couch: ok - serious question: What can the average couch surfing fan do to voice displeasure at this point? Boycott seems pointless as it won't result in an empty seat at the stadium... Ideas?


I would contend that the bulk of the money is made on the average couch-surfing fan. Ticket sales are good and important for the team, but television contracts are better. If people stop watching football on tv, the networks will put the squeeze on the NFL to get ratings back up. THAT is what the NFL really cares about.
 
2012-09-25 06:49:48 PM  

steamingpile: AlHarris31: I'm done with this season until the regular refs come back.

I have better things to do than get emotionally invested in a game that has no integrity.

Sure you are, people have been saying that since the start if the season yet the NFL is till killing in the ratings.


I think I said it in another thread... I'm betting the Browns/Ravens game will be a ratings blockbuster, noticeably up from usual NFLN broadcasts, because more people than usual will be tuning in to see the Potato refs herp and derp all over the field.

For all your "ZOMG WHAR INTEGRITY NO WATCH WHARGARBL" people who claim they won't watch anymore, you'll probably have two or three more tuning in that usually don't just to see the trainwreck.

/and when, in the big money era of the NFL, has there been integrity in the game? It's designed to separate you from your consumer dollars, or to make you watch commercials. The game is secondary to selling you things, and the league cares more about dress code and what color and brand of accessories are worn than about the game itself.
 
2012-09-25 06:53:21 PM  

Harv72b: Girl On Couch: ok - serious question: What can the average couch surfing fan do to voice displeasure at this point? Boycott seems pointless as it won't result in an empty seat at the stadium... Ideas?

More than 70,000 voice mails were left at the league offices Monday night, an NFL source told ESPN's Seth Markman.

Link

/The phone numbers have been posted a million times in the last 24 hours; a quick googling should net them for you.


70000 out of around 19 million who watched the game, itsa very small percentage and it doesn't say how many were repeat callers. You just know a few hundred in Wisconsin were quickly re-dialing every time they hung up
 
2012-09-25 06:53:27 PM  

steamingpile: AlHarris31: I'm done with this season until the regular refs come back.

I have better things to do than get emotionally invested in a game that has no integrity.

Sure you are, people have been saying that since the start if the season yet the NFL is till killing in the ratings.


Only now, they're tuning in to see what a disaster it has become.
 
2012-09-25 06:53:45 PM  
I've said it before, but here goes:

The refs' biggest error on the final play was missing the Tate OPI, but many refs let that stuff go on Hail Marys anyway. That said, the TD call was, in real time, very understandable. The only guy on the field to see it saw two guys go up, two guys get their hands on the ball, and two guys go down with it. When he called the TD, he was following the rulebook. The entire sequence took place over, what? a half a second? This error was forgivable and I would argue that even the full-time refs would have botched it 8/10 times.

What we should be talking about are all of the godawful penalties in the 2nd half that never really happened. It was as if the refs got together and decided, "hey! let's call some penalties in the 2nd half!"

/basically, the only real penalties were the false starts and the offsides
 
rka
2012-09-25 06:55:27 PM  

Harv72b: but because of the frustration level which so many of these guys are feeling from the moment they step on the field right now


What frustration leveled caused DHB to get clocked in the head?

What frustration level caused Joe Mays to smack Matt Schaub hard enough to damn near rip his ear off? Plus...Mays DID get flagged for a roughing the passer two times in a row. There isn't enough yellow laundry in the world to help the refs protect the players.

And holding? Holding? There hasn't been a game played in the history of forever where holding wasn't going on up and down the line and not been called. We'd never be able to complete an NFL game if the refs (regular or scab) called holding by the letter of the law.

All these replacements refs are doing is highlighting the fact that players and coaches don't give one shiat about their fellow NFL'ers. As someone pointed out in another thread, they'd shank each other at halftime if they thought it would get them another win or another contract.

You just have to look at Pete Carroll's and the rest of the Seahawks response to the whole mess. They benefited, so the call was good. And they'll go to their grave telling you that.
 
2012-09-25 06:55:50 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: /and when, in the big money era of the NFL, has there been integrity in the game? It's designed to separate you from your consumer dollars, or to make you watch commercials. The game is secondary to selling you things, and the league cares more about dress code and what color and brand of accessories are worn than about the game itself.


THIS! Take the Super Bowl for instance. The game takes back stage to the commercials.
 
2012-09-25 06:58:31 PM  
On Sunday Green Bay plays at home. Lord have mercy on the scabs assigned to that game.
 
2012-09-25 06:59:32 PM  
Wow, and I thought the Steeler fans were whiners.
 
2012-09-25 07:00:40 PM  

netweavr: I wonder if people can file FCC complaints for chants of "bullshiat" that get broadcast on national TV.


I'm still LMAO over that one.
 
2012-09-25 07:00:43 PM  

AlHarris31: I'm done with this season until the regular refs come back.

I have better things to do than get emotionally invested in a game that has no integrity.


What they need is Brady, the Mannings, and a couple other high profile QBs essentially say the same thing. I know they can't openly refuse to play, but, 'ow, my shoulder hurts' this week then 'i twisted my ankle' next, maybe hit your head falling down some stairs, the flu, etc....
 
2012-09-25 07:01:55 PM  

steamingpile: Harv72b: Girl On Couch: ok - serious question: What can the average couch surfing fan do to voice displeasure at this point? Boycott seems pointless as it won't result in an empty seat at the stadium... Ideas?

More than 70,000 voice mails were left at the league offices Monday night, an NFL source told ESPN's Seth Markman.

Link

/The phone numbers have been posted a million times in the last 24 hours; a quick googling should net them for you.

70000 out of around 19 million who watched the game, itsa very small percentage and it doesn't say how many were repeat callers. You just know a few hundred in Wisconsin were quickly re-dialing every time they hung up


I dunno, a lot of us called just once. I bet there were were a lot of others.
 
2012-09-25 07:02:08 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I've said it before, but here goes:

The refs' biggest error on the final play was missing the Tate OPI, but many refs let that stuff go on Hail Marys anyway. That said, the TD call was, in real time, very understandable. The only guy on the field to see it saw two guys go up, two guys get their hands on the ball, and two guys go down with it. When he called the TD, he was following the rulebook. The entire sequence took place over, what? a half a second? This error was forgivable and I would argue that even the full-time refs would have botched it 8/10 times.

What we should be talking about are all of the godawful penalties in the 2nd half that never really happened. It was as if the refs got together and decided, "hey! let's call some penalties in the 2nd half!"

/basically, the only real penalties were the false starts and the offsides


Your argument would have been fine had another ref on the field not gotten the call right
 
2012-09-25 07:03:08 PM  
Gimme a fast car, Goodell's home address, and a sock full of oranges. Strike's over. >:-(
 
2012-09-25 07:04:39 PM  

Bunny Deville: steamingpile: Harv72b: Girl On Couch: ok - serious question: What can the average couch surfing fan do to voice displeasure at this point? Boycott seems pointless as it won't result in an empty seat at the stadium... Ideas?

More than 70,000 voice mails were left at the league offices Monday night, an NFL source told ESPN's Seth Markman.

Link

/The phone numbers have been posted a million times in the last 24 hours; a quick googling should net them for you.

70000 out of around 19 million who watched the game, itsa very small percentage and it doesn't say how many were repeat callers. You just know a few hundred in Wisconsin were quickly re-dialing every time they hung up

I dunno, a lot of us called just once. I bet there were were a lot of others.


Again almost 20 million viewers, I'm way to lazy to do the math to find the ratio of those who were pissed to those who didn't give a shiat.
 
2012-09-25 07:04:42 PM  
This will be the year the Vikes somehow win it all....the most tarnished year for officiating, and they'll be in quotes in a negative way. 'the champs'.
 
2012-09-25 07:05:16 PM  
The only way this will ever end if Goodell resigns. It's too late for him now. This botched game is his legacy. Whatever he wanted to be known as will always be stained by this game. Even if the refs started Thursday, damage done. The game he was supposed to protect is marred.
 
2012-09-25 07:05:38 PM  

Captain Steroid: Gimme a fast car, Goodell's home address, and a sock full of oranges. Strike's over. >:-(


I call shotgun! =D
 
2012-09-25 07:06:03 PM  

Captain Steroid: Gimme a fast car,


Maybe we make a deal. Maybe together we can get somewhere.
 
2012-09-25 07:06:06 PM  
The Raiders had three injured players because of non calls during week 3. No flags thrown, it's open season on receivers. An illegal pick, two concussions, one possible season/career ending. Green Bay gets a bad call resulting in a loss, it's torches and pitchforks. Nice
 
2012-09-25 07:08:57 PM  

ScotterOtter: The Raiders had three injured players because of non calls during week 3. No flags thrown, it's open season on receivers. An illegal pick, two concussions, one possible season/career ending. Green Bay gets a bad call resulting in a loss, it's torches and pitchforks. Nice


Yeah - during the Raider game I wondered out loud (in a smart ass way) if there needed to be a death on the field for the ref situation to come to a head. Doesn't seem so funny now....
 
2012-09-25 07:09:09 PM  

ScotterOtter: The Raiders had three injured players because of non calls during week 3. No flags thrown, it's open season on receivers. An illegal pick, two concussions, one possible season/career ending. Green Bay gets a bad call resulting in a loss, it's torches and pitchforks. Nice


Maybe if ya'll were more likeable people would care more? Raiders (and some of their fans) have an image problem.
 
2012-09-25 07:09:44 PM  

Girl On Couch: Captain Steroid: Gimme a fast car, Goodell's home address, and a sock full of oranges. Strike's over. >:-(

I call shotgun! =D


No shotguns! Bludgeoning weapons only! Lead pipes, bowling pins, Louisville Sluggers, etc.

We're angry football fans, not psychotics!
 
2012-09-25 07:10:50 PM  

Dr J Zoidberg: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I've said it before, but here goes:

The refs' biggest error on the final play was missing the Tate OPI, but many refs let that stuff go on Hail Marys anyway. That said, the TD call was, in real time, very understandable. The only guy on the field to see it saw two guys go up, two guys get their hands on the ball, and two guys go down with it. When he called the TD, he was following the rulebook. The entire sequence took place over, what? a half a second? This error was forgivable and I would argue that even the full-time refs would have botched it 8/10 times.

What we should be talking about are all of the godawful penalties in the 2nd half that never really happened. It was as if the refs got together and decided, "hey! let's call some penalties in the 2nd half!"

/basically, the only real penalties were the false starts and the offsides

Your argument would have been fine had another ref on the field not gotten the call right


The other ref didn't see shiat, as he was behind the action. Thus, all he did was signal stoppage and look at the other ref for the determination. The other ref made no other signals other than the standard timeout signal. If by "the call right" means that the time should have been stopped, then I follow. But all of the people saying he was getting ready to signal touchback are completely wrong. He signaled time, stopped, looked at the other ref (because he didn't see what had happened), and then followed the TD call. At no time did he move to show touchback.
 
2012-09-25 07:11:53 PM  

tortilla burger: I would contend that the bulk of the money is made on the average couch-surfing fan. Ticket sales are good and important for the team, but television contracts are better. If people stop watching football on tv, the networks will put the squeeze on the NFL to get ratings back up. THAT is what the NFL really cares about.


This is correct. Ticket sales and the ancillary revenue is important, but TV rights are huge. Currently they are 20 BILLION dollars paid by the various networks to broadcast. According to Wikipedia (meh), that number will be 39 billion in 2014. Link.

"Putting butts in seats" really isn't the priority anymore, except to avoid blackouts.
 
2012-09-25 07:14:41 PM  
To think that I stopped watching the NFL in 1982. I could have witnessed this bullshiat call first hand had I not!
 
2012-09-25 07:16:44 PM  
Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly
 
2012-09-25 07:17:13 PM  

HZS9PK: The only way this will ever end if Goodell resigns. It's too late for him now. This botched game is his legacy. Whatever he wanted to be known as will always be stained by this game. Even if the refs started Thursday, damage done. The game he was supposed to protect is marred.


All of you do realize he's only doing what he's told to do by the owners right?
 
2012-09-25 07:20:34 PM  
Gary Bettman is likely the happiest guy today
 
2012-09-25 07:23:47 PM  

Tarkus: Maybe fans should boycott this football season. I'm seriously contemplating giving up on the season. The only thing that will get the owners back to the table and bargain in good faith is us hitting them in their pocketbooks.


Or a wildcat strike by the players.
 
2012-09-25 07:24:20 PM  

steamingpile: All of you do realize he's only doing what he's told to do by the owners right?


Which is the problem. The commissioner is basically there to represent the owners, not the league. It's the same problem with the MLB, NFL and NHL, you have commissioners who represent the owners and not the league as an independent entity.
 
2012-09-25 07:25:26 PM  

bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly


Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.
 
2012-09-25 07:27:17 PM  

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: All of you do realize he's only doing what he's told to do by the owners right?

Which is the problem. The commissioner is basically there to represent the owners, not the league. It's the same problem with the MLB, NFL and NHL, you have commissioners who represent the owners and not the league as an independent entity.


How is that the problem? He is appointed by the owners to keep both sides in line.
 
2012-09-25 07:29:41 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Dr J Zoidberg: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I've said it before, but here goes:

The refs' biggest error on the final play was missing the Tate OPI, but many refs let that stuff go on Hail Marys anyway. That said, the TD call was, in real time, very understandable. The only guy on the field to see it saw two guys go up, two guys get their hands on the ball, and two guys go down with it. When he called the TD, he was following the rulebook. The entire sequence took place over, what? a half a second? This error was forgivable and I would argue that even the full-time refs would have botched it 8/10 times.

What we should be talking about are all of the godawful penalties in the 2nd half that never really happened. It was as if the refs got together and decided, "hey! let's call some penalties in the 2nd half!"

/basically, the only real penalties were the false starts and the offsides

Your argument would have been fine had another ref on the field not gotten the call right

The other ref didn't see shiat, and he still got the call right as he was behind the action. Thus, all he did was signal stoppage and look at the other ref for the determination. The other ref made no other signals other than the standard timeout signal. If by "the call right" means that the time should have been stopped, then I follow. But all of the people saying he was getting ready to signal touchback are completely wrong. He signaled time, stopped, looked at the other ref (because he didn't see what had happened), and then followed the TD call. At no time did he move to show touchback.

 
2012-09-25 07:30:29 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-25 07:30:43 PM  

steamingpile: He is appointed by the owners to keep both sides in line.


He can't very well keep the owners in line when he's just doing what they want him to do.
 
2012-09-25 07:31:28 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do.

They never reverse the bad calls, made weekly, by the regular refs either.

But go ahead and get your panties in a wad and pretend that Green Bay lost because of a single call, and that their losing had NOTHING to do with Rodgers being sacked 9 times.

I have never seen more retarded people jump on a bandwagon as they have over these replacement refs - the old refs were atrocious as well.


Was the win due to that bad call or not? Yes or no. No other answer. No Romneyism. No BS. Yes or no.
 
2012-09-25 07:31:35 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-25 07:35:24 PM  
If you want to boycott, I say watch golf or NASCAR. Oh and tweet or fb a picture. Call it OccupyNFL. If you don't want to totally waste a ticket you already paid for, bring a newspaper with OccupyNFL on the front page and read it the entire game.
 
2012-09-25 07:37:40 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Nabb1: Benevolent Misanthrope: Marcus Aurelius: Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.

He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.

I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.

Faulkner's lengthy sentences are legendary, but every single on of them is grammatically correct. You'll not find any structural errors in any of his books. Stylistically they can be a bit of a chore, but he was far better than that two-bit hack Charles Dickens.

Perhaps. But I still just don't "get" him. As a Southerner, loving Faulkner supposed to be genetic, I think.


I don't think anyone bags on him for his syntax or grammar capabilities. Most people who criticize him don't find his writing style conducive to normal humans or think his story telling is lacking.

/both in my case
 
2012-09-25 07:38:27 PM  
soonerpsycho.com
 
2012-09-25 07:39:49 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-25 07:42:20 PM  
Is the money still flowing in? Then why should they give a fark. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Born_yesterday, I am entirely unsatisfied with the services rendered! Here is your money! Would you like some more money?

/That's what she said.
 
2012-09-25 07:43:00 PM  

steamingpile: bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly

Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.


The league-wide success rate is around 35-40%, so yeah its a huge deal (and I think your numbers are low).
 
2012-09-25 07:45:49 PM  

Dr J Zoidberg: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Dr J Zoidberg: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I've said it before, but here goes:

The refs' biggest error on the final play was missing the Tate OPI, but many refs let that stuff go on Hail Marys anyway. That said, the TD call was, in real time, very understandable. The only guy on the field to see it saw two guys go up, two guys get their hands on the ball, and two guys go down with it. When he called the TD, he was following the rulebook. The entire sequence took place over, what? a half a second? This error was forgivable and I would argue that even the full-time refs would have botched it 8/10 times.

What we should be talking about are all of the godawful penalties in the 2nd half that never really happened. It was as if the refs got together and decided, "hey! let's call some penalties in the 2nd half!"

/basically, the only real penalties were the false starts and the offsides

Your argument would have been fine had another ref on the field not gotten the call right

The other ref didn't see shiat, and he still got the call right as he was behind the action. Thus, all he did was signal stoppage and look at the other ref for the determination. The other ref made no other signals other than the standard timeout signal. If by "the call right" means that the time should have been stopped, then I follow. But all of the people saying he was getting ready to signal touchback are completely wrong. He signaled time, stopped, looked at the other ref (because he didn't see what had happened), and then followed the TD call. At no time did he move to show touchback.


Your ability to read minds is astounding. It happened like I said it did; if you want to infer that one ref was signalling a touchback, more power to you. Unfortunately, it never happened.
 
2012-09-25 07:46:04 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-25 07:46:44 PM  

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: He is appointed by the owners to keep both sides in line.

He can't very well keep the owners in line when he's just doing what they want him to do.


Bull*hit, he's negotiating the contract which the owners have to pay, and he does punish and fine the owners/teams, just ask Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.
 
2012-09-25 07:50:04 PM  

deadcrickets: Insatiable Jesus: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do.

They never reverse the bad calls, made weekly, by the regular refs either.

But go ahead and get your panties in a wad and pretend that Green Bay lost because of a single call, and that their losing had NOTHING to do with Rodgers being sacked 9 times.

I have never seen more retarded people jump on a bandwagon as they have over these replacement refs - the old refs were atrocious as well.

Was the win due to that bad call or not? Yes or no. No other answer. No Romneyism. No BS. Yes or no.


No. It was due to the fact that the Packers had scored not enough points.
 
2012-09-25 07:54:16 PM  
What we need to do is boycott all the products advertised during NFL games. How long do you think Badell and the owners of the teams would hold out once Bud, Burger King, Pepsi, Coors, Campbell Soups, Gatorade, and Tide start feeling some pain, and barking at them?

How do we get this organized?

They'll react when it hurts their bottom line enough.
 
2012-09-25 07:54:40 PM  

Nabb1: With all due respect, I think the only way you can conclude the refs did a good job with a difficult play is that you did not see it. They missed a PI call, were totally confused and ran around like idiots when one ref called it incomplete and the other called it a touchdown, didn't have a conference, and then went straight to the replay booth. It was the very definition of amateur hour.


Don't forget how they completely and totally lost control of the game and had to call the teams back out of the locker room for the PAT.
 
2012-09-25 07:59:12 PM  

Fark It: cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.

They missed the blatant OPI call (which the NFL admits should have been called) on the final play, and called it a touchdown when it was clearly an interception, capping off a drive that only got as far as it did because of a 30+ yard defensive pass interference call that was utter horseshiat and should have been called on the offense. Which team would have won? We don't really know, the officiating is that bad.


GB would've kicked a FG, Seattle would've attempted a FG, game would've ended 10-9.

Pretty much fark everyone who's all butthurt. I think this is HILARIOUS. So glad to see Seattle win after they farking destroyed GB in the first half. Next time, maybe GB will score more points and not let their QB get sacked that much.

Suck it, haters.
 
2012-09-25 08:00:12 PM  

redmid17: steamingpile: bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly

Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.

The league-wide success rate is around 35-40%, so yeah its a huge deal (and I think your numbers are low).


The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.

So stop your numbers are wrong.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/10/25/automatic-nfl-replay-boot h -playing-bigger-role
 
mjg
2012-09-25 08:11:41 PM  

Sachlpch: On Sunday Green Bay plays at home. Lord have mercy on the scabs assigned to Saints for that game.


/ftfy
 
2012-09-25 08:16:14 PM  

steamingpile: The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.


you article doesn't back that up...
 
2012-09-25 08:16:38 PM  
Youll get over it
 
2012-09-25 08:23:37 PM  
Media has taught the retarded masses that replacement refs are bad, and they ask you to forget all of the bad calls made last year. And you do so. Like good little consumer drones, you suck on anything a corp with a flashy logo puts to your lips.


Morons.
 
2012-09-25 08:24:14 PM  
The Packers have never benefitted from incorrect calls by the refs, and certainly never changed the outcome of the game.

And on top of that, when they do get free wins from the refs, they're nothing but class. See? Oh wait no, when it's their team benefitting then everyone just needs to shut up about the refs. Sorry, time to eat your crow. Karma is coming back this year in a major way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/27/carl-johnson-admits-v i santhe-shiancoe-td-should-have-counted/
 
2012-09-25 08:26:09 PM  
i don't get it. they made the right call, in the end. what's the big deal?
 
2012-09-25 08:27:35 PM  

WhyteRaven74: you article doesn't back that up...


He's never struck me as one to let facts get in the way of a good argument.
 
2012-09-25 08:30:08 PM  
I hope the replacement refs stay for the whole season. I hope they get worse over time. I hope the Super Bowl is decided by a controversial blown call. I hope all of this encourages more people to stop taking professional sports so seriously.
 
2012-09-25 08:31:34 PM  

Dr J Zoidberg: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I've said it before, but here goes:

The refs' biggest error on the final play was missing the Tate OPI, but many refs let that stuff go on Hail Marys anyway. That said, the TD call was, in real time, very understandable. The only guy on the field to see it saw two guys go up, two guys get their hands on the ball, and two guys go down with it. When he called the TD, he was following the rulebook. The entire sequence took place over, what? a half a second? This error was forgivable and I would argue that even the full-time refs would have botched it 8/10 times.

What we should be talking about are all of the godawful penalties in the 2nd half that never really happened. It was as if the refs got together and decided, "hey! let's call some penalties in the 2nd half!"

/basically, the only real penalties were the false starts and the offsides

Your argument would have been fine had another ref on the field not gotten the call right


Now I see the problem. You have substituted your own reality where the facts used to exist. That ref was calling stoppage of the clock, nothing more. I know Packer fans really, REALLY wish he was calling interception, but that is not the truth. That is the opinion you heard from some talking heads on TV and now you have translated that into a falsehood which you are perpetuating.

So I assume based on this fact and your statement that you now agree with the OP's assessment as you said you would.

Right?
 
2012-09-25 08:32:12 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Media has taught the retarded masses that replacement refs are bad, and they ask you to forget all of the bad calls made last year. And you do so. Like good little consumer drones, you suck on anything a corp with a flashy logo puts to your lips.


Morons.


i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-25 08:37:13 PM  

steamingpile: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: He is appointed by the owners to keep both sides in line.

He can't very well keep the owners in line when he's just doing what they want him to do.

Bull*hit, he's negotiating the contract which the owners have to pay, and he does punish and fine the owners/teams, just ask Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.


He only punished Snyder and Jones because that's what the other owners TOLD HIM TO DO. The owners collectively made a secret deal not to overspend in the uncapped year, Snyder and Jones reneged, and Goodell, on behalf of the owners, punished them for it.
 
2012-09-25 08:42:04 PM  
To summarize: "You didn't see what you saw."
 
2012-09-25 08:43:07 PM  

rugman11: He only punished Snyder and Jones because that's what the other owners TOLD HIM TO DO


Also it's the league, which has it's own separate accounting from the teams, that pays for the refs. The owners don't have to pay for it at all.
 
2012-09-25 08:43:40 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Media has taught the retarded masses that replacement refs are bad, and they ask you to forget all of the bad calls made last year. And you do so. Like good little consumer drones, you suck on anything a corp with a flashy logo puts to your lips.


Morons.


I... what? You do know that there's another "corp" with another flashy logo that wants us to believe the replacements are doing just fine, thank you very much?
 
2012-09-25 08:52:34 PM  
I wonder what would neo-con's tears mixed with packer fan's tears taste like? Nectar of the Gods perhaps?
 
2012-09-25 08:53:04 PM  
Bottom line is 200 million in legal bets changed hands because of this call, which the NFL now admits was wrong. We have TEMPORARY refs, meaning HIGHLY corruptable refs. They are used to making 50 bucks a game at low level colleges. Is it so hard to think they MIGHT be on the take to throw a game?

Im not saying they are, but *THIS* is why you dont use replacement temporary officials. The NFL has destroyed its own aura of credibility.
 
2012-09-25 08:55:56 PM  

kronicfeld: Aarontology: The Packers shouldn't have come out for the PAT.

According to TMQ there was a game in 1998 (I think) when the Pats' opponent didn't come out in protest, so the refs just let the Pats run the PAT try in their absence, and instead of kicking it Belichick had Vinatieri run it in for two.


I just saw a clip of that on YouTube. It was Bills/Pats and Pete Carrol was the coach.

I had to laugh when I saw them run it in.
 
2012-09-25 08:57:37 PM  
steamingpile

I understand that you are defending the replacement refs because your team is 3-0, and to be honest, they should be. They've been kicking everyone's ass so far.

But when Matty Ice gets a knee injury in the backfield due to a full-on brawl, which the refs are too scared to break up, don't come crying back here.

/just sayin'
 
2012-09-25 08:58:14 PM  

oryx: To summarize: "You didn't see what you saw We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."


Yeah, that's about it.
 
2012-09-25 09:00:51 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: So glad to see Seattle win after they farking destroyed GB in the first half


A 7-0 lead is "farking destroy[ing]" the other team?
 
2012-09-25 09:02:57 PM  

Nabb1: Benevolent Misanthrope: Perhaps. But I still just don't "get" him. As a Southerner, loving Faulkner supposed to be genetic, I think.

I think he tapped into that dark, gothic Southern familial dysfunction in a way that few have been able to do.


Ahem - Flannery O'Conner would like a word.

/Southern all my life
//Don't care for Faulkner OR O'Conner
///Also quite liberal
////How'd I get born in the wrong place?
 
rka
2012-09-25 09:09:43 PM  

I sound fat: Bottom line is 200 million in legal bets changed hands because of this call, which the NFL now admits was wrong. We have TEMPORARY refs, meaning HIGHLY corruptable refs. They are used to making 50 bucks a game at low level colleges. Is it so hard to think they MIGHT be on the take to throw a game?

Im not saying they are, but *THIS* is why you dont use replacement temporary officials. The NFL has destroyed its own aura of credibility.


Tim Donaghy was a full-time ref too. How incorruptible was he in the NBA?

How are the regular refs any more immune? Because they make $125K a year? Pfft. Even as part-time income that doesn't support many ex-wives or failed business ventures. If the money is high enough *any* of these refs could be bought.
 
2012-09-25 09:15:23 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Fark It: cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play, but it sounds like the refs actually did a good job with a very difficult play.

They missed the blatant OPI call (which the NFL admits should have been called) on the final play, and called it a touchdown when it was clearly an interception, capping off a drive that only got as far as it did because of a 30+ yard defensive pass interference call that was utter horseshiat and should have been called on the offense. Which team would have won? We don't really know, the officiating is that bad.

GB would've kicked a FG, Seattle would've attempted a FG, game would've ended 10-9.

Pretty much fark everyone who's all butthurt. I think this is HILARIOUS. So glad to see Seattle win after they farking destroyed GB in the first half. Next time, maybe GB will score more points and not let their QB get sacked that much.

Suck it, haters.


It's unfortunate you feel that way. I felt it was one of the best examples ever of adapting at halftime on Green Bay's part. To go from an O-line that would give the Bears a run for their money in suckitude, to having an effective time-chewing turnaround is stunning. Add in that the Packers' and Seahawks' defenses were about evenly matched(no insult to the Hawks' D, just Green Bay finally felt like they had their shiat together), and I felt it was a good game with poor officiating. I'll gladly take a low scoring slugfest.

I do hope for a suspension for the Hawks' LB(?) that hit Jennings in the open field helmet to helmet with no pass around.
 
2012-09-25 09:16:50 PM  
purplejesus.files.wordpress.com

BOO HOO

Suck it up you farking babies.

8 sacks in the first half. fail to convert a two-point attempt.

Watch the whole game.
 
2012-09-25 09:20:56 PM  

wotthefark: Watch the whole game.


Actually during the second half the teams were pretty even. And given Seattle could only muster 7 points in the first half...
 
2012-09-25 09:21:40 PM  

steamingpile: redmid17: steamingpile: bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly

Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.

The league-wide success rate is around 35-40%, so yeah its a huge deal (and I think your numbers are low).

The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.

So stop your numbers are wrong.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/10/25/automatic-nfl-replay-boot h -playing-bigger-role


In 2009, it was 38%. Link

This year...oh wait you're article says nothing about it. It also gives 7 of 17 weeks of NFL football as a full sample, so you're still full of shiat.
 
2012-09-25 09:22:51 PM  

redmid17: steamingpile: redmid17: steamingpile: bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly

Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.

The league-wide success rate is around 35-40%, so yeah its a huge deal (and I think your numbers are low).

The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.

So stop your numbers are wrong.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/10/25/automatic-nfl-replay-boot h -playing-bigger-role

In 2009, it was 38%. Link

This year...oh wait you're article says nothing about it. It also gives 7 of 17 weeks of NFL football as a full sample, so you're still full of shiat.


Your* fark
 
2012-09-25 09:27:47 PM  
I like that the players are threatening to go Galt if something isn't done. It's the perfect mix of stupid fun and brutal Randian prophecy coming together in a bloody orgy.
 
2012-09-25 09:33:17 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: deadcrickets: Insatiable Jesus: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do.

They never reverse the bad calls, made weekly, by the regular refs either.

But go ahead and get your panties in a wad and pretend that Green Bay lost because of a single call, and that their losing had NOTHING to do with Rodgers being sacked 9 times.

I have never seen more retarded people jump on a bandwagon as they have over these replacement refs - the old refs were atrocious as well.

Was the win due to that bad call or not? Yes or no. No other answer. No Romneyism. No BS. Yes or no.

No. It was due to the fact that the Packers had scored not enough points.


Translation: Yes.

In other words you don't want to admit that the team, of which some members are also saying it wasn't a win, won due to a bad call.
 
2012-09-25 09:36:02 PM  

Harv72b: oryx: To summarize: "You didn't see what you saw We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Yeah, that's about it.


As a matter of fact, it's the fans that blew the call, not the refs. Why do the fans hate football?

Don't be a bad fan, buy a jersey.
 
2012-09-25 09:42:12 PM  
I'm torn.

I mean, I recognize that the replacement refs just aren't cutting it, that a position that should be important-but-in-the-background has become a distraction, and in most situations I'd be happy with just turning off the game until the real refs are back.

But....my Cardinals are still undefeated...

/Though the 4-timeout debacle vs. the Seahawks almost gave us a loss we didn't deserve
//Thankfully our D stopped them in the red zone
///Slashies come in threes
 
2012-09-25 09:43:44 PM  
I like the substitute refs. The random shiat they do makes an otherwise boring game more interesting.
What will they do next, those adorable scallawags?
 
2012-09-25 09:46:08 PM  
MBK

Awesome Times Eleventy!
 
2012-09-25 09:49:09 PM  
seething packer butthurt...ed...ness(?) is seething...

Allllllllll the ref's fault guys.

The fact that belt-dancy-guy's offensive line did not even show up for the first half and let him go a-tumblin 8 times the first half had nothing to do with the loss at all. Of course once a class was given at half-time and the offensive line was reminded which direction they needed to face, things changed.
It is ironic that the packers are so up in arms about a game they clearly did not even bother to show up to the first half of.

If you let the troll-hawks stick around in a game, they will troll you. As america's premier breaker of hearts belonging to the fans entitled teams (The part where romo got trolled by a substitute teacher in the playoffs was especially tasty) I say they lived up to their job... Job? I meant to say universal need.

Don't worry packers, belt-dancy-guy will take you to the playoffs again.
Y U mad???
 
2012-09-25 09:52:29 PM  

I_C_Weener: I can't wait until this lockout is over so I can go back to complaining about the bad calls made by the regular refs.


You can start now. The officials in the replay booth, where the ultimate call came from, are not replacement refs, those are the regular officials.
They had a chance to watch the play, in slow motion, repeatedly, from multiple angles, and still blew the call; regular officials.
 
2012-09-25 09:59:39 PM  

omg bbq: Allllllllll the ref's fault guys.


The call at the end of the game is the ref's fault. And good luck finding any NFL player, even some Seahawks, to agree with your view.
 
2012-09-25 10:01:26 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Perhaps. But I still just don't "get" him. As a Southerner, loving Faulkner supposed to be genetic, I think.


You may want to have a serious sit down with your parents.

I keed, but I really love Faulkner. Then again, I also really love Wagner so I'm probably the twisted one.
 
rka
2012-09-25 10:07:11 PM  

farkstorm: I_C_Weener: I can't wait until this lockout is over so I can go back to complaining about the bad calls made by the regular refs.

You can start now. The officials in the replay booth, where the ultimate call came from, are not replacement refs, those are the regular officials.
They had a chance to watch the play, in slow motion, repeatedly, from multiple angles, and still blew the call; regular officials.


They are not regular officials in the sense that they are Ed Hochuli's union co-workers who just happened to avoid being locked out. They are league supervisors though and they've always been in the booth.
 
2012-09-25 10:07:15 PM  
yeah but are the saints losing enough yet?
 
2012-09-25 10:20:23 PM  
Goodell, fark you, you farking fark!!!
 
2012-09-25 10:20:32 PM  
This season is turning into Mario Kart Football. Wildly entertaining to watch, but only because you don't know who's going to end up with the zebra shell and go from worst to first.

You'll never see Ed Hochuli et al on an NFL field again. The owners are gaining short term and long term (as long as demand remains inelastic) by paying the refs less, and none of the TV networks, players, or fans are willing to take the short term loss for long term gain.
 
2012-09-25 10:21:03 PM  

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.

you article doesn't back that up...


Yes it does just keep reading or Google the shiat yourself, all of you are biatching yet not bothering to find facts while just believing everything spoon fed to you by the same moronic sports writers who can't pick games for shiat.
 
2012-09-25 10:21:38 PM  
I'm tired and I've got wicked acid reflux going on right now so I'm not going to bother going through and picking out individual posts or points to direct this response to, but you know who you are.

Too many people are focusing solely on the call itself (which was also wrong, but that's been argued to death & if you're not convinced now then you're never going to be). Okay, even we grant that it was a difficult/bang-bang call to make in real-time, or even if we for some reason grant the league's claim that the call was "correct" (more accurately, that there was not sufficient evidence to overturn it), let's look at the other contributing factors in this clusterfark. Factors which would have been extremely unlikely with a regular officiating crew on the field:

1) Both officials were woefully out of position when the pass was thrown. For some reason, the line judge (the one who eventually signaled touchdown) was up around the 10 yard line on what was obviously going to be a pass into the end zone. The back judge (the one who signaled...something other than a touchdown) was standing in the middle of the field underneath the goalposts. Neither official was able to get himself into a position where they could actually see what was happening until well after the ball arrived (which may be why both missed the flagrant OPI, because they were focusing instead on trying to get to where they should be).
2) When those two officials finally did meet around the players, both looked down at Jennings and Tate on the field. The back judge then looked up at the line judge to get an opinion, but the line judge remained locked on the two players until he made his signal. It's my belief that the BJ saw the LJ's arms move and assumed he was going to signal for a clock stoppage, and that's why he gave that signal. But that's just an opinion and there's no actual evidence to support it.
3) At no point did the referee (the head & most experienced member of the officiating crew) move down to the end zone to confer with his two judges, which would have been the first thing an experienced NFL referee would do. Instead, upon receiving the signal from the replay booth that the play should be reviewed, he went immediately to conduct that review. We can assume that he saw the LJ's signal, as the story is that he found insufficient evidence to overturn that official's call, but he never actually spoke to the LJ before reviewing the play.
4) The first official explanation that anyone in the stadium received was when the referee returned to the field, turned on his mic, and said that the ruling on the field had been confirmed.

So, again...even if a regular officiating crew might have, or even would have, made the same call under those circumstances...a regular crew would never have found itself in those circumstances. The judges would have been properly positioned, or at least would have reacted quickly enough to get into position to see what occurred. They then would have conferred among themselves before signalling anything and, if unsure, would have conferred with the referee as well. The referee, after talking to all members of the crew who might have seen what happened, would have made a decision and announced it before going under the hood to review it.

And, finally, all of this doesn't even begin to address the numerous other horrific calls (and no calls) made during this game, which I haven't seen anybody attempt to deny. Nor the similarly terrible calls made in Baltimore Sunday night, nor the debacle in Tennessee, nor any of the other examples of butchered officiating from this weekend which have been forgotten because of this most recent example. Anyone who for even a second tries to convince themselves, let alone others, that the officials this season are at the same level as those who are currently locked out is either blatantly lying or has lost touch with reality.

/rant
 
2012-09-25 10:25:50 PM  

farkstorm: I_C_Weener: I can't wait until this lockout is over so I can go back to complaining about the bad calls made by the regular refs.

You can start now. The officials in the replay booth, where the ultimate call came from, are not replacement refs, those are the regular officials.
They had a chance to watch the play, in slow motion, repeatedly, from multiple angles, and still blew the call; regular officials.


Unlike in college, the replay officials don't actually make the call, the referee does. The replay official only determines if a play should be reviewed. There are rumors that the replay officials are giving suggestions to the replacement guys, but it's still the referee on the field who makes the final call.
 
2012-09-25 10:26:00 PM  

steamingpile: HZS9PK: The only way this will ever end if Goodell resigns. It's too late for him now. This botched game is his legacy. Whatever he wanted to be known as will always be stained by this game. Even if the refs started Thursday, damage done. The game he was supposed to protect is marred.

All of you do realize he's only doing what he's told to do by the owners right?


Bunch of greedy farking 1%ers are destroying every last shred of integrity the game had.
 
2012-09-25 10:28:03 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.


Why are boobs great? Why are cats great? Greatness is subjective, but yeah, Faulkner is great, and I say that as a New Englander who generally hates all things Southern.
 
2012-09-25 10:28:20 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Media has taught the retarded masses that replacement refs are bad, and they ask you to forget all of the bad calls made last year. And you do so. Like good little consumer drones, you suck on anything a corp with a flashy logo puts to your lips.


1) You're a troll
2) There's a difference between officials who make judgment calls that many people do not agree with, and officials who routinely fark up calls because they simply don't know the rules or can't be bothered to pay attention to what's happened in the game. See, e.g. Teams getting extra timeouts, penalties being enforced from the wrong yard line, penalties being enforced the wrong distance, not knowing when to start or stop the clock, failing to control the game, failing to make calls in a timely manner so as not to break the flow of the game and keep the game under four hours, etc.
3) The NFL is a corporation with a shiny logo, and they're spending a lot of time and effort and money into convincing people that the replacement refs are fine. Why do you believe anything a corp with a shiny logo tries to shove down your ass?
 
2012-09-25 10:29:12 PM  

Harv72b: /rant


This.
 
2012-09-25 10:31:33 PM  
You know who we haven't heard from about this fiasco? The replacement refs themselves. Does the NFL dunk 'em in cosmoline, package them in bubble-wrap and ship 'em to the next game?
 
2012-09-25 10:32:07 PM  

MBK: [imageshack.us image 468x640]


Thank you! Any time Enrico Palazzo is brought into my life, I smile. Other characters in the same ilk include Ricky Rumble (from Chuck Klosterman), Buckaroo Banzai, and Groundskeeper Willie
 
2012-09-25 10:34:22 PM  

Dheiner: What we need to do is boycott all the products advertised during NFL games. How long do you think Badell and the owners of the teams would hold out once Bud, Burger King, Pepsi, Coors, Campbell Soups, Gatorade, and Tide start feeling some pain, and barking at them?

How do we get this organized?

They'll react when it hurts their bottom line enough.


You're talking about farking over a lot of American companies providing good American jobs there Komrade..
 
2012-09-25 10:37:03 PM  

dudemanbro: Congratulations NFL, you just completely alienated a lot of people including me. I have now stopped caring about football completely and don't even want to watch any more games this year.


I sincerely hope a majority of the fans feel the same way you do. It'll make my fantasy football league much easier to win this year.
 
2012-09-25 10:38:14 PM  
Monday reminded me of something... 
thumbnails104.imagebam.com
 
2012-09-25 10:39:09 PM  

cendojr: This season is turning into Mario Kart Football. Wildly entertaining to watch, but only because you don't know who's going to end up with the zebra shell and go from worst to first.


That's a beautiful analogy. So unpredictable that skill doesn't matter, but I'll be damned if it isn't some of the most fun you can have with your pants on. And since this statement reads like we'll be stuck with the replacements for the foreseeable future, I almost hope the lockout goes into next season so we get potato refs and potato coaches. It may be the closest we'll ever get to nationally televised Calvinball.

"CHALLENGE!"
"You can't challenge. You only have four timeouts left this round."
"CHALLENGE!"
"And you threw a necktie instead of the green flag."
"CHALLENGE!"
"That's it! Conduct unbecoming a sportsman, batting team number eleventeen. Two lap penalty, to be assessed after the free throw. Score remains thirty-love."
"..."
"..."
"SUPER CHALLENGE!"
"Okay. Get your broom."
 
2012-09-25 10:39:27 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: You know who we haven't heard from about this fiasco? The replacement refs themselves. Does the NFL dunk 'em in cosmoline, package them in bubble-wrap and ship 'em to the next game?


Or they are watching the world burn, knowing that they don't have to say anything.

Meanwhile, more importantly: are we calling this a Fail Mary or the Inaccurate Reception?
 
2012-09-25 10:43:05 PM  
I didn't have the patience to read through all the whining, so forgive if this has been said:

Tie goes to the offense.
Any questions?

//Eight farking sacks. EIGHT OF THEM.
 
2012-09-25 10:43:17 PM  
did you see that ludicrous display last night?
 
2012-09-25 10:44:59 PM  

redmid17: steamingpile: redmid17: steamingpile: bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly

Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.

The league-wide success rate is around 35-40%, so yeah its a huge deal (and I think your numbers are low).

The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.

So stop your numbers are wrong.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/10/25/automatic-nfl-replay-boot h -playing-bigger-role

In 2009, it was 38%. Link

This year...oh wait you're article says nothing about it. It also gives 7 of 17 weeks of NFL football as a full sample, so you're still full of shiat.


Ok here's an article you all hate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000 87239639044381680457800461370181 3 182.html

And here is the one from profootballtalk that even biatches about it to make you happy
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/21/replacement-ref-audit - misses-the-point/

Either way the articles tell you calls were overturned at a 52% in 2010, 45% in 2011, 31% now so face it that youre biatching about something that you're wrong about and I'm right.
 
2012-09-25 10:45:54 PM  
Oh wait, I misread that. I think the scab refs go home and read the rule book trying to catch up on the differences between the Lingerie league and the NFL

Tozmo: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: You know who we haven't heard from about this fiasco? The replacement refs themselves. Does the NFL dunk 'em in cosmoline, package them in bubble-wrap and ship 'em to the next game?

 
2012-09-25 10:48:07 PM  

Treefingers: I didn't have the patience to read through all the whining, so forgive if this has been said:

Tie goes to the offense.
Any questions?

//Eight farking sacks. EIGHT OF THEM.


It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

/thinks the Seahawks would have won a fair game
//eight sacks in one half
///you guys have an awesome D
 
2012-09-25 10:48:40 PM  

Tozmo: I think the scab refs go home and read the rule book trying to catch up on the differences between the Lingerie league and the NFL


i27.photobucket.com

 
2012-09-25 10:51:56 PM  

Nabb1: Benevolent Misanthrope: Marcus Aurelius: Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.

He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.

I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.

Faulkner's lengthy sentences are legendary, but every single on of them is grammatically correct. You'll not find any structural errors in any of his books. Stylistically they can be a bit of a chore, but he was far better than that two-bit hack Charles Dickens.


Thomas Jefferson did it as well. My take on it though is that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Yeah, great, you can write a grammatically correct 17 line sentence. Good for you. But it is a pain in the ass to read, so you should have found a better way of saying it.
 
2012-09-25 10:52:14 PM  
If this diminishes your joy for the game at ALL you need to get the f*ck over yourself. Sports have had disputed, game-altering calls with the pro referees too. Play well enough for the refs to be a non factor, period.

Green Bay is a bunch of whiny little biatches. They gave up 8 f*cking sacks in the first half and could not do diddly sh*t. They were beaten.

Dealwithit.jpg
 
2012-09-25 10:56:28 PM  
Get the f*ck over it already
 
2012-09-25 10:57:16 PM  

Owangotang: Play well enough for the refs to be a non factor, period.


Was that supposed to be addressed to Green Bay or Seattle?
 
2012-09-25 10:58:11 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-25 11:01:49 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Treefingers: I didn't have the patience to read through all the whining, so forgive if this has been said:

Tie goes to the offense.
Any questions?

//Eight farking sacks. EIGHT OF THEM.

It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

/thinks the Seahawks would have won a fair game
//eight sacks in one half
///you guys have an awesome D


The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.
 
2012-09-25 11:01:51 PM  

Owangotang: Green Bay is a bunch of whiny little biatches. They gave up 8 f*cking sacks in the first half and could not do diddly sh*t. They were beaten.


Statistically speaking, at the last play of the game Green Bay had a 96% chance of winning based on previous games' outcomes.

/didn't pull it out my ass just reading a lot of espn today
//yes a Packer fan
///Yes my butt still hurts
////slashies!!!!111!!!11
 
kab
2012-09-25 11:03:44 PM  
Fans can whine and biatch as much as they want. But until they stop handing money over, the league simply isn't going to give a fark.
 
2012-09-25 11:07:56 PM  

Treefingers: Tie goes to the offense.


Except there was no tie.
 
2012-09-25 11:08:50 PM  

Owangotang: Green Bay is a bunch of whiny little biatches.


Have you been paying attention to what all the other players in the NFL have been saying?
 
2012-09-25 11:09:29 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Treefingers: I didn't have the patience to read through all the whining, so forgive if this has been said:

Tie goes to the offense.
Any questions?

//Eight farking sacks. EIGHT OF THEM.

It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

/thinks the Seahawks would have won a fair game
//eight sacks in one half
///you guys have an awesome D


I suppose the argument lies in whether or not Jennings actually established control. If a player from the other team has both hands on the ball throughout your "catch", I say no. it was definitely not an interception. It was reviewed and the call stands. Let's all have a baseball moment and get over the fact it was a dicey call.
Pulling that off with 1 second left? I'll take it, no shame! GO HAWKS!
 
2012-09-25 11:11:04 PM  

Treefingers: Jennings actually established control.


One player has both hands on the ball, ball against his chest, other player, has maybe a hand on it. The first one has possession.
 
2012-09-25 11:11:50 PM  

justtray: Olympic Trolling Judge: Treefingers: I didn't have the patience to read through all the whining, so forgive if this has been said:

Tie goes to the offense.
Any questions?

//Eight farking sacks. EIGHT OF THEM.

It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

/thinks the Seahawks would have won a fair game
//eight sacks in one half
///you guys have an awesome D

The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.


This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.
 
2012-09-25 11:14:00 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Treefingers: Jennings actually established control.

One player has both hands on the ball, ball against his chest, other player, has maybe a hand on it. The first one has possession.


Tell that to calvin johnson... possession must be maintained through the ground or a football move is able to be made. Stopping rotation isn't enough - this isn't ultimate frisbee.
 
2012-09-25 11:15:00 PM  

justtray: Olympic Trolling Judge: Treefingers: I didn't have the patience to read through all the whining, so forgive if this has been said:

Tie goes to the offense.
Any questions?

//Eight farking sacks. EIGHT OF THEM.

It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

/thinks the Seahawks would have won a fair game
//eight sacks in one half
///you guys have an awesome D

The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.


You're conflating control and possession. Those are different things. The offical who signaled touchdown no doubt first infered Tate's control from Jennings releasing and reclutching the ball while laying on the ground. Based on that inferance (that Tate must have had control because Jennings felt the need to adjust his), he awarded Tate possession, which then became a touchdown.

That said, simultanious possession calls might be fairly rare, but it's not at all uncommon to see the team that appears to be demonstrating the lesser control be awared possession.

I just think it's hilarious that because at the end of a poorly officated game, but but not uncommonly so in any season, the obscure canadian soccer players had a call break their way, it's now involving the President of the United States and following the assassination of a diplomat on the national news. And people said Seahawks fans are whiney.

I'm fond of the observation that people beget the government they deserve, but now it's crystal clear to me that this is so in all things. Entertainment, government, and even sports.
 
2012-09-25 11:15:23 PM  

vaderstg: justtray: The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.

This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.


Sounds like you two are confusing "control" with "possession." "Control" just means having the ball in your arms. "Possession" requires control, landing in-bounds, and being able to make another move, all without the ball touching the ground. The simultaneous catch rule looks at who has control first.
 
2012-09-25 11:15:31 PM  
Goodell should show-up for the Packers/Saints game Sunday. Epic trolling.
 
2012-09-25 11:16:22 PM  

Tickle Mittens: You're conflating control and possession. Those are different things.


My tiny fist, let me show you it.
 
2012-09-25 11:17:13 PM  

vaderstg: This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.


Possession might be 9/10 of the law, but it's completely irrelevant in this debate.

It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

This is relevant.

The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

This is false.

The reasons behind all of my statements have typed dozens of times already in this and the other threads on this topic.
 
2012-09-25 11:18:54 PM  

vaderstg: This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.


Great follow up point. If you accepted Calvin's non-TD, then you have to accept this or you are a homer hypocrite. It's not right, but it's the way it is.
 
2012-09-25 11:22:11 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: vaderstg: justtray: The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.

This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.

Sounds like you two are confusing "control" with "possession." "Control" just means having the ball in your arms. "Possession" requires control, landing in-bounds, and being able to make another move, all without the ball touching the ground. The simultaneous catch rule looks at who has control first.


Since those terms aren't separated or exclusively defined anywhere I can find in any NFL rulebook, I'm going to go ahead an call "homer BS."

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions
 
2012-09-25 11:22:48 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: vaderstg: justtray: The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.

This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.

Sounds like you two are confusing "control" with "possession." "Control" just means having the ball in your arms. "Possession" requires control, landing in-bounds, and being able to make another move, all without the ball touching the ground. The simultaneous catch rule looks at who has control first.


Hmm. Maybe. I thought I read the rule pretty carefully. Far as I understood: one has to have control to have possession - they're inextricably linked as far as receptions go. (And, by extension, as far as interceptions go). And I did go through this thread beforehand, but not the 2600 original comment thread
 
2012-09-25 11:24:29 PM  

Harv72b: vaderstg: This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.

Possession might be 9/10 of the law, but it's completely irrelevant in this debate.

It's been said. Difficulty: it wasn't a tie. Jennings established control first, and by rule, an apparently simultaneous catch goes to the guy who does that. Only if the "establishing control" part is a tie does the ball default to the offense.

This is relevant.

The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

This is false.

The reasons behind all of my statements have typed dozens of times already in this and the other threads on this topic.


Weird, only one of us followed up our point with an explanation. The other one just said they've explained it, when in reality, they haven't.

Guess which one you are?

Address the Calvin Johnson ruling vs this one while citing the NFL rulebook to support your point, or kindly step away from this argument and let the non bias adults talk.
 
2012-09-25 11:25:30 PM  
Wait, there are people that actually think that was a touchdown?

TROLOLOLOL
 
2012-09-25 11:25:33 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Tickle Mittens: You're conflating control and possession. Those are different things.

My tiny fist, let me show you it.


There's still room for you to one up me by being technically correct, don't ever quit, keep fighting to the very last tick on the clock something great could happen!!

/Bonus pot sweetener, if you manage to haul this one in, if you ever find me on the streets of Seattle, and you come up behind me, cover my eyes and say, "Guess who!?" I will offer you a second, BONUS, strawberry-vanilla Pez as a greeting.
//I have a very strict one Pez per greeting policy, so you should be very excited for this unusual opportunity.
///*Offer not strictly limited to the greater Seattle area, good ANYWHERE in the lower 48 states!
 
2012-09-25 11:27:57 PM  

justtray: Olympic Trolling Judge: vaderstg: justtray: The only problem being that it's technically impossible for Jennings to have established control. See - every non fumble call by a receiver that was ruled incomplete, ever.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad call, but as per the rule, and in real time, this isn't really all that outrageous.

This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.

Sounds like you two are confusing "control" with "possession." "Control" just means having the ball in your arms. "Possession" requires control, landing in-bounds, and being able to make another move, all without the ball touching the ground. The simultaneous catch rule looks at who has control first.

Since those terms aren't separated or exclusively defined anywhere I can find in any NFL rulebook, I'm going to go ahead an call "homer BS."

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions


I have to apologize here, because as per the simultaneous tuck rule's interpretation, it does seem as though they distinguish between control, though it doesn't mention possession. Good point.
 
2012-09-25 11:28:35 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Treefingers: Jennings actually established control.

One player has both hands on the ball, ball against his chest, other player, has maybe a hand on it. The first one has possession.


You would be shocked what constitutes possession in the NFL, if the Seahawks guy had both hands on it to the ground I would bet the regular refs would have also called it a td. I don't think it was the way the play went but its not as cut and dry as everyone is trying to say it is, the rule is crazy and I know the falcons have been burned by it in the past.

Oh and none of you even bothered to comment on the other new links showing the replays being overturned are down this year. But then I can see why none of you would want to admit that or let the goalposts get moved like the article writer tries to do.
 
2012-09-25 11:30:31 PM  
The more I read about control and possession, the more confused I am. Here's one article's explanation....

"The officials most likely saw this as a simultaneous catch. In this event, the catch goes to the offense and is ruled a touchdown. Upon review, it is clear that M.D. Jennings had possession first, before Golden Tate "subsequently gained joint control." In this event the catch should belong to M.D. Jennings and be ruled an interception; therefore, the Packers win.

However, officials are not allowed to reverse possession of the ball via replay; they can only confirm that the player had possession. Once it was signaled on the field that both receivers came down with the ball together (one referee signaled a touchdown, the other an interception), the NFL Rulebook states that the catch is ruled a touchdown. (Video below)"
 
2012-09-25 11:32:52 PM  

justtray: Weird, only one of us followed up our point with an explanation. The other one just said they've explained it, when in reality, they haven't.

Guess which one you are?


Link
Link
Link

I don't know, which one am I?

/That's half of one thread. I'll leave the rest of the searching to you.
 
2012-09-25 11:35:00 PM  

justtray: Olympic Trolling Judge: Sounds like you two are confusing "control" with "possession." "Control" just means having the ball in your arms. "Possession" requires control, landing in-bounds, and being able to make another move, all without the ball touching the ground. The simultaneous catch rule looks at who has control first.

Since those terms aren't separated or exclusively defined anywhere I can find in any NFL rulebook, I'm going to go ahead an call "homer BS."


See, that's funny, because I'm a Bengals fan who couldn't care less about any of these NFC teams. Here's the official NFL Rule regarding passes. Scroll down to Section 1, Article 3: Completed or Intercepted Pass. It defines a completed pass (which establishes "possession") in terms of "control" and other elements.

Also, after a closer look, it looks like I made a mistake. If the ball touches the ground while the guy has control, it's still good. (Item 4: Ball Touches Ground.)
 
2012-09-25 11:35:37 PM  

justtray: vaderstg: This. If you accept the Calvin Johnson rule, then Jennings cannot have established "possession" before Tate's hands were also jointly wrapped - which happened just prior to them both hitting the ground. Dual possession. Tie. Touchdown.

Great follow up point. If you accepted Calvin's non-TD, then you have to accept this or you are a homer hypocrite. It's not right, but it's the way it is.


Actually, I would argue the opposite. If you look at the images of the players on the ground, Jennings has his hands around the ball and Tate has his hand around Jennings.

assets.sbnation.com

curtiskitchen.com

distilleryimage6.s3.amazonaws.com

If both players had possession of the ball just before hitting the ground then the ball jostled when they hit the ground (because Tate lost possession). According to the rules, in order for it to be a simultaneous catch both players much retain the ball throughout the catch. According to the "going to the ground" rule, if it was simultaneous possession until they hit the ground and they both lost control once they hit the ground, then whoever gets possession back first has the ball, thus: interception.

I don't see how you can use the Calvin Johnson rule to argue this as a catch, since Tate was the only player to conclusively lose possession after hitting the ground.
 
2012-09-25 11:35:42 PM  

rka: I sound fat: Bottom line is 200 million in legal bets changed hands because of this call, which the NFL now admits was wrong. We have TEMPORARY refs, meaning HIGHLY corruptable refs. They are used to making 50 bucks a game at low level colleges. Is it so hard to think they MIGHT be on the take to throw a game?

Im not saying they are, but *THIS* is why you dont use replacement temporary officials. The NFL has destroyed its own aura of credibility.

Tim Donaghy was a full-time ref too. How incorruptible was he in the NBA?

How are the regular refs any more immune? Because they make $125K a year? Pfft. Even as part-time income that doesn't support many ex-wives or failed business ventures. If the money is high enough *any* of these refs could be bought.


Yeah, but when you dont have to worry about reffing ever again it becomes a much smaller leap.
 
2012-09-25 11:37:39 PM  

Harv72b: I don't know, which one am I?

/That's half of one thread. I'll leave the rest of the searching to you.


Yeah but you also didnt see that even other sites backed up the fact over turned calls are down this year as well, and even replays initiated by the replay booth officials(who are not on strike), the calls are for the most part correct, except for a few glaring examples but people are ignoring this has been on of the best first month's of football in a long long time. It just sucks this is all anyone will remember from this month.

The replacements biggest problem is that the game is too fast for them which is why they let too many plays continue and allow hits to happen without getting flagged, they also take too much time which disrupts the game, and the biggest issue they have is that they need to be more decisive, there have been a few games where the old refs would have tossed players out.
 
2012-09-25 11:39:01 PM  
If Jennings had done what the a defensive player is instructed to do (BAT IT DOWN) this would not be an issue. But he tried for an interception, and the vagaries of possession came into play. Pack deserved to lose.
 
2012-09-25 11:41:00 PM  

rugman11: If both players had possession of the ball just before hitting the ground then the ball jostled when they hit the ground (because Tate lost possession). According to the rules, in order for it to be a simultaneous catch both players much retain the ball throughout the catch. According to the "going to the ground" rule, if it was simultaneous possession until they hit the ground and they both lost control once they hit the ground, then whoever gets possession back first has the ball, thus: interception.

I don't see how you can use the Calvin Johnson rule to argue this as a catch, since Tate was the only player to conclusively lose possession after hitting the ground.


Wait wait wait. If that's how this went down, shouldn't they have been able to overturn it on review? They couldn't have given it to Jennings (because... I don't know, but other people have explained it pretty well), but at least they could have taken it away from Tate. Completions are reviewable, right?
 
2012-09-25 11:41:09 PM  

justtray: The more I read about control and possession, the more confused I am. Here's one article's explanation....


The third comment I linked above has what I think is a pretty good explanation. But in short (because I am tired of typing this/seeing it typed, and apologies if I came off douchey towards you in particular) and addressing that question specifically, "control" occurs when a player grasps the ball in such a way as to demonstrate...well, control over it. In the Megatron (non)catch, Johnson did establish control. However, the receiver must retain control throughout the entire act of the catch in order to establish possession...which is why the Johnson play was ruled incomplete (FWIW, I think that was a BS application of the rule).

In the play last night, Jennings established control when he grasped the ball with both hands and moved it from his facemask to his chest. Tate established some form of control a split second later, lost that control briefly as they fell to the ground (when his right arm swung away from Jennings), and then re-established it as they hit the ground. Jennings maintained control over the ball throughout the entire action. Therefore, since Jennings established control first and did not lose control of the ball at any point (at least, until after the official signaled touchdown), by rule he should have been awarded possession.

/If you already flamed me back don't worry about, long day & a lot of assholes arguing about this.
 
2012-09-25 11:42:45 PM  

hulk hogan meat shoes: If Jennings had done what the a defensive player is instructed to do (BAT IT DOWN) this would not be an issue. But he tried for an interception, and the vagaries of possession came into play. Pack deserved to lose.


I'm not sure if you are trolling here, but screw it if you are, others are actually MAKING this stupid point.

Whether or not he SHOULD have gone for the interception or not is not at issue. He shouldnt have. But he did, and he MADE the interception. So the packers deserved to lose because he made an interception?

What?
 
2012-09-25 11:44:41 PM  

Sachlpch: On Sunday Green Bay plays at home. Lord have mercy on the scabs assigned to that game.


This. Green Bay will win for this reason. Either that or the scabs will need a witness protection program...
 
2012-09-25 11:45:02 PM  

hulk hogan meat shoes: If Jennings had done what the a defensive player is instructed to do (BAT IT DOWN) this would not be an issue. But he tried for an interception, and the vagaries of possession came into play. Pack deserved to lose.


I'm wondering if that instruction is actually changing, now. It seems like offenses are planning for that and keeping a trailing receiver to catch a potential batted ball. If you watch the Detroit Hail Mary from Sunday, Tennessee bats it down, but Titus Young is there waiting to catch it. I don't know that it is changing, but it seems like batting it down isn't really foolproof anymore.
 
2012-09-25 11:45:37 PM  

jonjr215: Sachlpch: On Sunday Green Bay plays at home. Lord have mercy on the scabs assigned to that game.

This. Green Bay will win for this reason. Either that or the scabs will need a witness protection program...


That's funny. I thought Green Bay would win because they're playing the Saints. ;-)
 
2012-09-25 11:45:58 PM  

hulk hogan meat shoes: If Jennings had done what the a defensive player is instructed to do (BAT IT DOWN) this would not be an issue. But he tried for an interception, and the vagaries of possession came into play. Pack deserved to lose.


To be fair, with the way the players, and Jennings in particular, were positioned he might not have been able to knock it down. I believe the only way he could have safely deflected the ball away would have been to either bat it backwards over his head, or bat it across his body towards the near sideline. Attempting either of those actions could easily have resulted in his just batting it directly into the arms of Tate or another Seahawk.

Not saying all of that went through his mind as the play occurs, but with the benefit of hindsight it seems like this might have been a spot where it was better to go for the pick.
 
2012-09-25 11:47:40 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: rugman11: If both players had possession of the ball just before hitting the ground then the ball jostled when they hit the ground (because Tate lost possession). According to the rules, in order for it to be a simultaneous catch both players much retain the ball throughout the catch. According to the "going to the ground" rule, if it was simultaneous possession until they hit the ground and they both lost control once they hit the ground, then whoever gets possession back first has the ball, thus: interception.

I don't see how you can use the Calvin Johnson rule to argue this as a catch, since Tate was the only player to conclusively lose possession after hitting the ground.

Wait wait wait. If that's how this went down, shouldn't they have been able to overturn it on review? They couldn't have given it to Jennings (because... I don't know, but other people have explained it pretty well), but at least they could have taken it away from Tate. Completions are reviewable, right?


I'm basing my comments on the pictures released after the game. I don't know that I would have been able to make the same decision based on the video replays. There's no indication of Tate having and losing possession on the replay, I'm inferring based on him not having possession after he hit the ground in the photos.
 
2012-09-25 11:48:18 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: jonjr215: Sachlpch: On Sunday Green Bay plays at home. Lord have mercy on the scabs assigned to that game.

This. Green Bay will win for this reason. Either that or the scabs will need a witness protection program...

That's funny. I thought Green Bay would win because they're playing the Saints. ;-)


Oh...yeah... I forgot they to consider the opponent. Good catch.
 
2012-09-25 11:48:41 PM  

hulk hogan meat shoes: If Jennings had done what the a defensive player is instructed to do (BAT IT DOWN) this would not be an issue. But he tried for an interception, and the vagaries of possession came into play. Pack deserved to lose.


I dont, instinct means he tries to catch it, and he did.

Harv72b: /If you already flamed me back don't worry about, long day & a lot of assholes arguing about this.


Well the problem is you refuse to see how they could make the call they did, its not that hard to see and not as easy a call as you want to make out on these threads, your main issue is you think you could do a better job than these refs and thats just not the case. Sure they have farked up but not nearly as bad as you believe.......

Personally I dont think it was a TD but I could see how someone could make that mistake in the flow of the game, doesnt make it right but I could see how the fark up could have happened and its easier to admit if people realize numerous fark ups have happened before, that is why replay came along in the first place.
 
2012-09-25 11:52:20 PM  

rugman11: I'm basing my comments on the pictures released after the game. I don't know that I would have been able to make the same decision based on the video replays. There's no indication of Tate having and losing possession on the replay, I'm inferring based on him not having possession after he hit the ground in the photos.


There's a still somewhere of Tate's right arm flying away from the ball/Jennings as they lose momentum and start to fall towards the ground. Brief search found this one, but it isn't the exact frame I'm thinking of:

static3.businessinsider.com
 
2012-09-25 11:59:16 PM  

dudemanbro: Congratulations NFL, you just completely alienated a lot of people including me. I have now stopped caring about football completely and don't even want to watch any more games this year.


Oh good, maybe you'll get yourself a life then and go talk to your family for once. I'm sick of football fans who are too busy worshiping their team to care about anything or anyone else besides themselves. Maybe get yourself an edukashun and read a book! :P
 
2012-09-26 12:00:35 AM  
At its core, the NFL is just about entertainment. As the product is entertaimnent and nothing more, the product is as good as ever as evidenced by the record ratings. Even with scab refs, the NFL beat the Emmys in the ratings.

Its kinda like in pro wrestling where the refs are part of the story and make the entertainment product better.
 
2012-09-26 12:00:57 AM  

Harv72b: justtray: The more I read about control and possession, the more confused I am. Here's one article's explanation....

The third comment I linked above has what I think is a pretty good explanation. But in short (because I am tired of typing this/seeing it typed, and apologies if I came off douchey towards you in particular) and addressing that question specifically, "control" occurs when a player grasps the ball in such a way as to demonstrate...well, control over it. In the Megatron (non)catch, Johnson did establish control. However, the receiver must retain control throughout the entire act of the catch in order to establish possession...which is why the Johnson play was ruled incomplete (FWIW, I think that was a BS application of the rule).

In the play last night, Jennings established control when he grasped the ball with both hands and moved it from his facemask to his chest. Tate established some form of control a split second later, lost that control briefly as they fell to the ground (when his right arm swung away from Jennings), and then re-established it as they hit the ground. Jennings maintained control over the ball throughout the entire action. Therefore, since Jennings established control first and did not lose control of the ball at any point (at least, until after the official signaled touchdown), by rule he should have been awarded possession.

/If you already flamed me back don't worry about, long day & a lot of assholes arguing about this.


This is an interesting argument which leads me back to the definition of a simultaneous catch - does the definition use 'possession' or 'control'?

Also, while Tate's right arm swung away, his left was up through Jennings' arms, retaining control (of a sort) around the football's long axis, until the jostling started and stuff shifted around. The photos above are about two frames too late. Jennings hip hitting the ground is where you have to (start to) look at it.

Anyway, blown call or not, it shouldn't lead to the pitchforkery it has and, were it not for the raft of egregious calls to date, it wouldn't have. Straw. Camel. Back. Etc.

Start your packers this week in FF... they're gonna be raging.
 
2012-09-26 12:04:38 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Owangotang: Green Bay is a bunch of whiny little biatches.

Have you been paying attention to what all the other players in the NFL have been saying?


Of course the players are whining en masse, the NFLPA is not exactly best buddies with the NFL. The Teamsters are not going to side with Caterpillar when the AFL/CIO is striking.
 
2012-09-26 12:04:40 AM  

LtDarkstar: dudemanbro: Congratulations NFL, you just completely alienated a lot of people including me. I have now stopped caring about football completely and don't even want to watch any more games this year.

Oh good, maybe you'll get yourself a life then and go talk to your family for once. I'm sick of football fans who are too busy worshiping their team to care about anything or anyone else besides themselves. Maybe get yourself an edukashun and read a book! :P


i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-26 12:07:50 AM  

vaderstg: Start your packers this week in FF... they're gonna be raging.


Maybe. Maybe not.
 
2012-09-26 12:15:15 AM  
It's funny that people think the Packers would have won a tightly officiated game
 
2012-09-26 12:17:36 AM  

Harv72b: vaderstg: Start your packers this week in FF... they're gonna be raging.

Maybe. Maybe not.


Wow, this could end up like the 1912 Detroit Tigers. Link
 
2012-09-26 12:25:39 AM  

Triumph: Given that the NFL moved the start time on late games to 4:25 so that gamblers who lose big on the 1:00 games now have a chance to try and make it up on the late games, I'm thinking when Vegas starts screaming that these refs are seriously messing up their handicappers, maybe the NFL will pay more attention.


Given that 85% of bets were on the Packers I'd say the sports books dont mind that the call was blown.
 
2012-09-26 12:32:53 AM  

jonjr215: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The NFL could never admit that the TempRefs were wrong, as that would be admitting that the owner's shouldn't have locked out the RealRefs in the first place.

You may be right, but if the NFL doesn't pull its head out of its ass pretty quick, it won't matter because every week that passes devalues the season. You might be able to recover from a three week mess, but after that it's going to get to the point that the viewers will put an asterisk next to this season, viewership will plummet, and the fans will write the season off as a joke. Same thing happense when there's a player's strike.

When you consider it's a multi-billion dollar business, getting into a pissing contest over what amounts to about $100,000 per club seems like a pretty short-sighted decision IMO. They should end this thing and try to salvage the season. Today.


Listening to sports shows today its not so much about the $$ as the NFL keeping back up crews on hand to replace crews that suck. So this whole episode of entirely shiatty refereeing is the result of an initiative to improve officiating and replace struggling crews. I with there was a word to describe a situation like this.
 
2012-09-26 12:43:52 AM  

Harv72b: justtray: The more I read about control and possession, the more confused I am. Here's one article's explanation....

The third comment I linked above has what I think is a pretty good explanation. But in short (because I am tired of typing this/seeing it typed, and apologies if I came off douchey towards you in particular) and addressing that question specifically, "control" occurs when a player grasps the ball in such a way as to demonstrate...well, control over it. In the Megatron (non)catch, Johnson did establish control. However, the receiver must retain control throughout the entire act of the catch in order to establish possession...which is why the Johnson play was ruled incomplete (FWIW, I think that was a BS application of the rule).

In the play last night, Jennings established control when he grasped the ball with both hands and moved it from his facemask to his chest. Tate established some form of control a split second later, lost that control briefly as they fell to the ground (when his right arm swung away from Jennings), and then re-established it as they hit the ground. Jennings maintained control over the ball throughout the entire action. Therefore, since Jennings established control first and did not lose control of the ball at any point (at least, until after the official signaled touchdown), by rule he should have been awarded possession.

/If you already flamed me back don't worry about, long day & a lot of assholes arguing about this.


I understand this and I think it's a valid argument for why their judgement was incorrect. I think the problem arises where they already made the call, then couldn't overturn it. Sucks.
 
rka
2012-09-26 12:50:15 AM  
Hey guys, you know what would be really helpful? If someone posted a few screenshots of the play in question. I don't think anyone has done that yet in the 20 other threads or anywhere on the intertubes.

That would be super duper helpful. I really think it will convince all of you fence sitters.

Also, can someone point me to the relevant rule section on simultaneous possession? I'm not quite sure how it works and I can't find it written down anywhere.
 
2012-09-26 12:57:35 AM  
And, next Thursday, record ratings, for a NFL game!
 
2012-09-26 01:02:19 AM  
Pretty much what Seattle was told after losing Super Bowl XL due to bad refs.

/at least they're consistent.
 
2012-09-26 01:02:48 AM  

Harv72b: rugman11: I'm basing my comments on the pictures released after the game. I don't know that I would have been able to make the same decision based on the video replays. There's no indication of Tate having and losing possession on the replay, I'm inferring based on him not having possession after he hit the ground in the photos.

There's a still somewhere of Tate's right arm flying away from the ball/Jennings as they lose momentum and start to fall towards the ground. Brief search found this one, but it isn't the exact frame I'm thinking of:

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x547]


This is the clearest view of the play I've seen:

Link

As the ball comes in, Tate gets his left hand hand under the ball and his right hand falls away from it as both players go to the ground. Jennings gets both hands on the ball and has it in his grasp/control. Tate then brings his right hand back to the ball after both players go to the ground.

That play aside, I'm pretty sure we're about 2-3 weeks away from some drunk fan pulling a William Ligue on an unsuspecting referee.
 
2012-09-26 01:06:26 AM  

Harv72b: rugman11: I'm basing my comments on the pictures released after the game. I don't know that I would have been able to make the same decision based on the video replays. There's no indication of Tate having and losing possession on the replay, I'm inferring based on him not having possession after he hit the ground in the photos.

There's a still somewhere of Tate's right arm flying away from the ball/Jennings as they lose momentum and start to fall towards the ground. Brief search found this one, but it isn't the exact frame I'm thinking of:

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x547]


Was it this one?


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net 

/not only are both his hands on the ball (along with the Green Bay player), but his feet are also on the ground (unlike the Green Bay player).
 
2012-09-26 01:23:28 AM  
Dear Commissioner's proclamation is final. None shall dispute Dear Commissioner.

i1222.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 01:27:24 AM  

kingflower: (which was a legit touchdown


No, no it wasn't.
 
2012-09-26 01:30:53 AM  

cuzsis: /not only are both his hands on the ball (along with the Green Bay player), but his feet are also on the ground (unlike the Green Bay player).


That's all well and good, but has no bearing whatsoever on the play. This post contains links to a few other posts I made explaining why.
 
2012-09-26 01:35:47 AM  

justtray: I understand this and I think it's a valid argument for why their judgement was incorrect. I think the problem arises where they already made the call, then couldn't overturn it. Sucks.


But then the league had to go & screw that up by saying that they could have overturned it, but didn't. :headbangingonwall:

My guess is that Goodell & his chiefs had a huddle & figured it was better to support the replacement referee than to admit that it was a bad call. Truth is, from their point of view they're probably correct in that assessment.
 
2012-09-26 01:37:47 AM  

cuzsis: but his feet are also on the ground


completely irrelevant
 
2012-09-26 01:51:50 AM  
I've now heard two and read one former NFL official, say the same thing - the rule interpretation is fine but they made the wrong call on the field. It was a pick, which, when you watch it, damn... of course that's a pick.
 
2012-09-26 01:54:08 AM  

Harv72b: justtray: I understand this and I think it's a valid argument for why their judgement was incorrect. I think the problem arises where they already made the call, then couldn't overturn it. Sucks.

But then the league had to go & screw that up by saying that they could have overturned it, but didn't. :headbangingonwall:

My guess is that Goodell & his chiefs had a huddle & figured it was better to support the replacement referee than to admit that it was a bad call. Truth is, from their point of view they're probably correct in that assessment.


Went back and rethought about it. I now understand what your points are and I have to say, I pretty much agree with you. The difficulty in overturning it on review, I think, arises from the premise that you now have to prove a negative: prove Jennings did not, even for a split second, lose control through the ground.

Anyway, thanks for being patient.
 
2012-09-26 02:16:19 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The first ref on the scene ruled interception. It was another ref that had no view of the play that ran in afterward and ruled touchdown. The first ref gave up at that point.


Dude....there's only one ref........The rest are judges and even an umpire. Your argument is invalid.

I'll try to find the replay. Surely there is some type of video playing mechanism that I can do that with.
 
2012-09-26 02:16:30 AM  
This undermines the integrity of the entire league.

Might as well go watch some soccer.
 
2012-09-26 02:45:10 AM  
Ima leave this right here:

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-26 02:47:51 AM  

vaderstg: Went back and rethought about it. I now understand what your points are and I have to say, I pretty much agree with you. The difficulty in overturning it on review, I think, arises from the premise that you now have to prove a negative: prove Jennings did not, even for a split second, lose control through the ground.


Oh, I think I missed one of your posts. The rule defines it in terms of "control"; specifically, it's Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5.

My opinion (and it seems to be the opinion of most of the talking heads on ESPN & NFL Network as well) is that the video replay shows pretty conclusively that Jennings gained control first and maintained control (joint control at times) throughout the process of falling to the ground. My guess (and we'll probably never know for sure) is that the replacement referee was either unaware of that particular item or didn't think of it at the time, and therefore did not overturn the initial ruling of a simultaneous catch. I have no idea how the rule might vary between the NFL interpretation and college or other levels of football, but that could also have played a part in it. As far as the league's video review people, again...I suspect (based on no hard facts) that league leadership made the determination that it would be more harmful to their position to admit that a bad call decided the outcome of a game than it would be to deny that the call was bad, even with video evidence which seems to suggest rather conclusively that the official did screw it up. And yeah, from their point of view and with their short- and long-term goals in mind, I completely understand why they went in that direction.
 
2012-09-26 02:50:46 AM  

Treefingers: Ima leave this right here:


Leave it wherever you want, it won't change the fact that whose feet touched the ground first has no bearing whatsoever on the call.
 
2012-09-26 02:57:16 AM  
Simultaneous possession.


Tie goes to the receiver.


Kthxbye.
 
2012-09-26 03:00:52 AM  

Argyle82: Simultaneous possession.


Tie goes to the receiver.


Kthxbye.


Wow! I haven't heard such a compelling argument from anybody in this thread! You have truly convinced me. It was a touchdown.
 
2012-09-26 03:06:11 AM  

Treefingers: Ima leave this right here:

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x480]


Too bad he didn't catch the farking ball.
 
2012-09-26 03:11:20 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Argyle82: Simultaneous possession.


Tie goes to the receiver.


Kthxbye.

Wow! I haven't heard such a compelling argument from anybody in this thread! You have truly convinced me. It was a touchdown.


Did they both have their hands on the ball when they hit the ground?

T/F?

Most people would agree true.

Contrary to popular belief, you cannot have "more" of your hands on the ball than an opponent. Your hands are either on the ball or they are not. If, when you fall, you are both clutching the same ball, the tie goes to the receiver, whether or not the defender rolls over after hitting the ground and the receiver is reaching around the defenders chest, still with both hands on the ball. Hands on ball = possession. If Tate's hands came off the ball, then he no longer has a claim to possession, but they didn't.
 
2012-09-26 03:15:27 AM  

Argyle82: Contrary to popular belief, you cannot have "more" of your hands on the ball than an opponent. Your hands are either on the ball or they are not. If, when you fall, you are both clutching the same ball, the tie goes to the receiver, whether or not the defender rolls over after hitting the ground and the receiver is reaching around the defenders chest, still with both hands on the ball. Hands on ball = possession. If Tate's hands came off the ball, then he no longer has a claim to possession, but they didn't.


Know how I know you haven't read any of this thread? Or the other threads? Or the NFL Rulebook?
 
2012-09-26 03:16:39 AM  
I never liked the NFL, never watched it or don't care for it, I prefer watching college football. After watching this way, I can only laugh at the stupid idiots who bet on football, or play fantasy football. Because this season will certainly make the NFL owners rich and the fans poor as HELL..

Go Refs, you might of actually made this crap interesting.
 
2012-09-26 03:25:14 AM  

Treefingers: sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net


The feet are completely irrelevant

Argyle82: . Hands on ball = possession.


Except one guy always had two hands on the ball, and one didn't. Also there's more to possession than just putting a hand on the ball.
 
2012-09-26 03:29:25 AM  
If the outcome of a game in a particular sport rests on such ambiguity (and don't farking tell me it's clear one way or the other) then there is a problem with the sport itself.
 
2012-09-26 03:33:36 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: If the outcome of a game in a particular sport rests on such ambiguity (and don't farking tell me it's clear one way or the other) then there is a problem with the sport itself.


I get what you're trying to say, but every sport could possibly end with such ambiguity.

/Unless you're trying to say that there is a problem with all sports, in which case I didn't get what you're trying to say.
 
2012-09-26 03:55:06 AM  
If they overturned the touchdown, would the Seahawks have standing to force the NFL to go back through the game and overturn the even worse calls that impacted both teams scoring drives? Would they then have to go back to the games over the weekend and review those horrible calls?

Sounds like the NFL is preventing a fairly slippery slope.
 
2012-09-26 04:13:43 AM  

Harv72b: The All-Powerful Atheismo: If the outcome of a game in a particular sport rests on such ambiguity (and don't farking tell me it's clear one way or the other) then there is a problem with the sport itself.

I get what you're trying to say, but every sport could possibly end with such ambiguity.

/Unless you're trying to say that there is a problem with all sports, in which case I didn't get what you're trying to say.


Some sports are much worse than others in that regard.

I can't recall a single baseball game that rested on a blown call, let alone an ambiguous one. I'm sure there are some because they play SO MANY games, but I don't remember any. And I'm not referring to a blown call taking away a perfect game or something, but a call that was not clear one way or the other and that actually changed the outcome of the game definitively.
 
2012-09-26 04:27:47 AM  
I love all of the comments from people on different forums who claim that the normal refs are asking for too much in compensation. It's hilarious. Just because you don't make that much doesn't mean that their function isn't worth what they're claiming or more. The NFL is finding out how much employee retention was really worth to them the hard way. Oh, they could have cracked a book or hired a consultant with that background, but they didn't. They lead with bravado like a child on a power trip. I want to feel bad for them, but I just can't. This wasn't even close to unpredictable. They disregarded decades of good business practices. Now, I know that this will be a weird statement for some folks, but the following sentiment is extremely important in modern business:

Price is meaningless without quality. (Deming)
 
2012-09-26 04:31:30 AM  

Harv72b: Argyle82: Contrary to popular belief, you cannot have "more" of your hands on the ball than an opponent. Your hands are either on the ball or they are not. If, when you fall, you are both clutching the same ball, the tie goes to the receiver, whether or not the defender rolls over after hitting the ground and the receiver is reaching around the defenders chest, still with both hands on the ball. Hands on ball = possession. If Tate's hands came off the ball, then he no longer has a claim to possession, but they didn't.

Know how I know you haven't read any of this thread? Or the other threads? Or the NFL Rulebook?


I'm sorry by basis of knowledge isnt by internet threads. I'm not as badass of an internet thread reader as you. Answer me this. Did Golden Tate hit the ground with both hands on the ball? If yes, then he has possession. It is possible for another person to also have possession at the same time. Then it's simultaneous possession.
 
2012-09-26 04:31:46 AM  

Owangotang: Green Bay is a bunch of whiny little biatches. They gave up 8 f*cking sacks in the first half and could not do diddly sh*t. They were beaten.


The Vikings had their own problems in the 2009 NFCCG. They blame the refs for a bad spot giving the Saint go-ahead FG. And they whine to this farking day, conveniently forgetting their special teams, the interception, and a ton of other clusterf*ck play I can't recall without looking it up.

Thing is, suspect calls like that are now being made 5 times daily in damn near every game.

I used to agree with you - as recently as a few days ago - that a team that can't overcome bad officiating, a missed FG, whatever, did not deserve to win. Then I saw the Saints were robbed of points and momentum against KC, and it likely doomed our season. Defense or not, that offense scored the fark out of the Chefs, but the scabs saw things differently in a night and day sorta way.
 
2012-09-26 04:34:50 AM  

Argyle82: I'm sorry by basis of knowledge isnt by internet threads. I'm not as badass of an internet thread reader as you. Answer me this. Did Golden Tate hit the ground with both hands on the ball? If yes, then he has possession. It is possible for another person to also have possession at the same time. Then it's simultaneous possession.


Bless your heart.
 
2012-09-26 04:35:58 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Treefingers: sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

The feet are completely irrelevant

Argyle82: . Hands on ball = possession.

Except one guy always had two hands on the ball, and one didn't. Also there's more to possession than just putting a hand on the ball.


Look at the pics that Cuzsis and Treefinger posted and talk some more.  Makes your argument seem really valid.
 
2012-09-26 05:12:29 AM  

cuzsis: Harv72b: rugman11: I'm basing my comments on the pictures released after the game. I don't know that I would have been able to make the same decision based on the video replays. There's no indication of Tate having and losing possession on the replay, I'm inferring based on him not having possession after he hit the ground in the photos.

There's a still somewhere of Tate's right arm flying away from the ball/Jennings as they lose momentum and start to fall towards the ground. Brief search found this one, but it isn't the exact frame I'm thinking of:

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x547]

Was it this one?


[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 837x720] 

/not only are both his hands on the ball (along with the Green Bay player), but his feet are also on the ground (unlike the Green Bay player).



Both? Are you superman? how can you see where EITHER hand is?
 
2012-09-26 06:04:13 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play

Neither did the refs.


And..... We're done here folks, goodnight
 
2012-09-26 06:21:33 AM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2012-09-26 06:46:57 AM  
Seattle fans are sure being classy about this.
 
2012-09-26 07:18:47 AM  

Dracolich: I love all of the comments from people on different forums who claim that the normal refs are asking for too much in compensation. It's hilarious. Just because you don't make that much doesn't mean that their function isn't worth what they're claiming or more. The NFL is finding out how much employee retention was really worth to them the hard way. Oh, they could have cracked a book or hired a consultant with that background, but they didn't. They lead with bravado like a child on a power trip. I want to feel bad for them, but I just can't. This wasn't even close to unpredictable. They disregarded decades of good business practices. Now, I know that this will be a weird statement for some folks, but the following sentiment is extremely important in modern business:

Price is meaningless without quality. (Deming)


This may be the smartest thing I've seen posted on this subject. It doesn't matter if the refs blew this call. It doesn't matter if the replacements called perfect games from the beginning of the season. None of this should have happened. And it all came about because the feckless owners just aren't rich enough!

/every time Roger Goodell says the phrase "NFL family", someone should kick him in the mouth
 
2012-09-26 07:32:57 AM  

crab66: Seattle fans are sure being classy about this.


As are the whining Packer fans?

These refs suck & they're ruining games, but not because of that one call.

To the Packers & their fans
Your uber elite offense scored 12....TWELVE
You gave up 9 sacks, 8 in the first half by not running the damn ball.
You didn't deserve 12 because your TD drive was stopped 7 plays earlier but extended by a phantom DPI call.
Your 2-point conversion failed.
Correct final score: 7-6 Seahawks

To the NFL
These refs make the same mistakes as the normal refs......However they make the same mistakes on every other play of the damn game. We get a season's worth of bad calls every week.
Fix this shiat.
 
2012-09-26 07:36:05 AM  

I sound fat: Bottom line is 200 million in legal bets changed hands because of this call, which the NFL now admits was wrong. We have TEMPORARY refs, meaning HIGHLY corruptable refs. They are used to making 50 bucks a game at low level colleges. Is it so hard to think they MIGHT be on the take to throw a game?

Im not saying they are, but *THIS* is why you dont use replacement temporary officials. The NFL has destroyed its own aura of credibility.


It's interesting that during the game there was a tendency for the refs to not call any penalties on the team that was behind, ensuring a close game. They didn't call a penalty on the packers that would have ended their second touchdown drive. Whichever team was ahead was nailed with penalties. Interestingly, the Las Vegas spread was Packers by 5 and 80% of the gamblers bet it would happen. You could make a lot of money if you knew that the game would be closer or the refs would give it to the other team. I wouldn't be shocked if someone paid the replacement refs to engage in a bit of point shaving that then wound up giving the game to the Seahawks.
 
2012-09-26 07:51:26 AM  
Yeah, I restrained myself yesterday from being "that guy," but holy shiat I wish this kind of attention, analysis, and outrage could be saved for something that matters.

I love sports as much as the next guy, but you have to have some perspective in life.
 
2012-09-26 08:45:35 AM  
i.imgur.com

I would not want to be a N'awlins defender.
 
2012-09-26 08:50:48 AM  
The funniest thing about this whole retarded thread? Multiple professional referees have given their opinion on the play, stating that it was clearly an interception by their standards and that no simultaneous catch ruling should have been made. They even did so AFTER the league had to save face by saying it wasn't. And people are still trying to believe it wasn't.

I'm so glad I gave up around 2 yesterday, because this flamewar just is beyond stupid. And yes, everyone who's pointed out every other flaw in the play is also right. We can discuss certain calls up and down the thread til the sky turns red and the sun turns blue. The simple fact is, the contributing factors to this play (missed PI excluded) couldn't have happened with them because they wouldn't have been out of position, they wouldn't have ruled without conferring, and the head referee wouldn't have been so disconnected from everything.

As for *those* guys, let me just say this: We can't convince certain people of the above. What makes you think any of said energy spent in better ways would convince them of more important and pressing matters?
 
2012-09-26 08:57:58 AM  

ArtosRC: [i.imgur.com image 850x634]

I would not want to be a N'awlins defender.


Dunno about that. How many times did Mr. Discount Double Check get sacked?
 
2012-09-26 09:13:49 AM  

FriarReb98: The funniest thing about this whole retarded thread? Multiple professional referees have given their opinion on the play, stating that it was clearly an interception by their standards and that no simultaneous catch ruling should have been made. They even did so AFTER the league had to save face by saying it wasn't. And people are still trying to believe it wasn't.


Don't you get it? Seahawks fans know more about NFL rules than (non-scab) NFL referees! And they are totally non-biased, unlike every non-Packer NFL player and commentator that has commented on it.
 
2012-09-26 09:19:39 AM  

wooden_badger: ArtosRC: [i.imgur.com image 850x634]

I would not want to be a N'awlins defender.

Dunno about that. How many times did Mr. Discount Double Check get sacked?


You're assuming that New Orleans has a pass rush in the first place.
 
2012-09-26 09:20:17 AM  

I sound fat: They are used to making 50 bucks a game at low level colleges. Is it so hard to think they MIGHT be on the take to throw a game?


If they wanted to throw the game, they could've just called it legitimately the whole way, rather than giving Green Bay the lead in the first place.

FriarReb98: Multiple professional referees have given their opinion on the play, stating that it was clearly an interception by their standards and that no simultaneous catch ruling should have been made.


Well, I'm sure that the professional refs, who are currently locked out of their jobs, would have no reason to openly criticize decisions made by people who are replacing them in order to put pressure on the NFL.

Frankly, I know that the regular refs would've called it an INT whether it was intercepted or not, and that's why I'm fine with them not being hired back. I like that the current refs don't seem to have the "always make sure that critical calls benefit the more popular team league-wide" mandate that the regular refs had.
 
2012-09-26 09:24:01 AM  

kronicfeld: Your Average Witty Fark User: So glad to see Seattle win after they farking destroyed GB in the first half

A 7-0 lead is "farking destroy[ing]" the other team?


8 sacks is destroying, dipshiat. Or did you only tune in to GB's bogus TD drive?
 
2012-09-26 09:35:45 AM  

ArtosRC: [i.imgur.com image 850x634]

I would not want to be a N'awlins defender.

 

i36.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 10:22:39 AM  
So wasnt it a regular ref in the replay booth anyway? He will still be there making the same replay calls no matter who is on the field
 
2012-09-26 10:23:13 AM  

IAmRight: Frankly, I know that the regular refs would've called it an INT whether it was intercepted or not, and that's why I'm fine with them not being hired back. I like that the current refs don't seem to have the "always make sure that critical calls benefit the more popular team league-wide" mandate that the regular refs had.


ITS A CONSPIRACY.jpg
 
2012-09-26 10:24:12 AM  

mikaloyd: So wasnt it a regular ref in the replay booth anyway? He will still be there making the same replay calls no matter who is on the field


Well, apparently you can't review simultaneous possession, just like you can't review FGs that go above the uprights.

It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not be allowed to review the closest plays, but that's how the NFL rolls.
 
2012-09-26 10:26:06 AM  

machoprogrammer: ITS A CONSPIRACY.jpg


You're right, that explains why this season is the first time the Seahawks have been on the good end of questionable game-winning calls.
 
2012-09-26 10:26:46 AM  

mikaloyd: So wasnt it a regular ref in the replay booth anyway? He will still be there making the same replay calls no matter who is on the field


the guy in the booth can't actually overturn anything or make judgement calls on stuff like simultaneous catches
 
2012-09-26 10:35:34 AM  

Orgasmatron138: outrage could be saved for something that matters.

I love sports as much as the next guy


No, you DON'T love sports as much as the next guy. You probably even dislike it.
 
2012-09-26 10:36:18 AM  

IAmRight: machoprogrammer: ITS A CONSPIRACY.jpg

You're right, that explains why this season is the first time the Seahawks have been on the good end of questionable game-winning calls.


Seahawks fan? That explains why you're defending the call, despite everyone and their mother saying it was awful.
 
2012-09-26 10:37:25 AM  

machoprogrammer: Seahawks fan? That explains why you're defending the call, despite everyone and their mother saying it was awful.


It's not even in the top 100 of terrible calls for the weekend. If it happened in the 2nd quarter of a Sunday game, no one would even have batted an eye at the call.
 
2012-09-26 10:53:02 AM  
Various Trolls: "8 sacks, Packers sucks. Shouldn't have some down to the last play. Packers deserve to lose."

Seattle couldn't capitalize on a terrible offensive line and deserve to lose and shouldn't rely on one last play to win.
 
2012-09-26 10:56:33 AM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: kronicfeld: Your Average Witty Fark User: So glad to see Seattle win after they farking destroyed GB in the first half

A 7-0 lead is "farking destroy[ing]" the other team?

8 sacks is destroying, dipshiat. Or did you only tune in to GB's bogus TD drive?



Oh, so that's how the winner of a game is determined, by the number of sacks? Thanks for explaining the whole NFL thing for us!
 
2012-09-26 11:03:10 AM  
Tate had his hand on the ball first.

You can also see form multiple shots that he maintained his left hand on the ball and was also pulling it in with his right. Tate had both his hands on the ball and his feet on the ground before Jennings pulled the ball into his chest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnSdkefYAA&feature=player_embedded
 
2012-09-26 11:07:49 AM  

Tarkus: Maybe fans should boycott this football season. I'm seriously contemplating giving up on the season. The only thing that will get the owners back to the table and bargain in good faith is us hitting them in their pocketbooks.


The problem is that most people can't boycott this year. They already bought their tickets...they don't want to flush away $100-200 (maybe even $400 or $500 dollars) to prove a point.

If they don't fix this soon, they're going to have problems in the next few years. People don't want to tune in and watch the ravens/patriots and the packers/seahawks turn in a comedy of errors.

Where I think the hugest drop is going to be is on games that don't feature their home team. I know people who watch football from 1pm to 11pm every Sunday (and Monday and Thursday). Game after game after game...(to a lesser extent, many people watch 2 games a day). I think you're going to see huge drops in that. People will still tune in for their team play, but they will turn off the other games because what little concern they had for these other games is now gone.

/as a side note, I can't wait see how the "The League" handles this
//I'm thinking andre and/or taco are somehow recruited to be refs.
 
2012-09-26 11:09:03 AM  

FriarReb98: The funniest thing about this whole retarded thread? Multiple professional referees have given their opinion on the play, stating that it was clearly an interception by their standards and that no simultaneous catch ruling should have been made. They even did so AFTER the league had to save face by saying it wasn't. And people are still trying to believe it wasn't.

I'm so glad I gave up around 2 yesterday, because this flamewar just is beyond stupid. And yes, everyone who's pointed out every other flaw in the play is also right. We can discuss certain calls up and down the thread til the sky turns red and the sun turns blue. The simple fact is, the contributing factors to this play (missed PI excluded) couldn't have happened with them because they wouldn't have been out of position, they wouldn't have ruled without conferring, and the head referee wouldn't have been so disconnected from everything.

As for *those* guys, let me just say this: We can't convince certain people of the above. What makes you think any of said energy spent in better ways would convince them of more important and pressing matters?


When they see it on REPLAY. The ref who was in position only saw two guys go up, two guys catch it, and two guys end up on the ground with it. It happened in less than a second. I would put down money that 8 times out of 10, a regular ref would make the same call. Once the TD was signaled, the only reviewable portion of the play was if the players retained possession. All in all, the call is controversial, but I don't think it was a bad one, and perfectly ordinary in the context of what the ref who made the call actually saw. Not in the context of refs sitting at home watching the catch from 60 gazillion angles in slow motion.

If you want to talk about shiatty calls, that TD catch was probably the most minor one of the night. The 3rd and 4th quarters were a cornucopia of shiatty calls on both sides.

/most egregious, and the one no one talks about from the week was the end of the 49ers/Vikes game
//49ers ended up with basically 5 timeouts
///if the 49ers had won, would everyone be up in arms?
 
2012-09-26 11:09:48 AM  

rugman11: farkstorm: I_C_Weener: I can't wait until this lockout is over so I can go back to complaining about the bad calls made by the regular refs.

You can start now. The officials in the replay booth, where the ultimate call came from, are not replacement refs, those are the regular officials.
They had a chance to watch the play, in slow motion, repeatedly, from multiple angles, and still blew the call; regular officials.

Unlike in college, the replay officials don't actually make the call, the referee does. The replay official only determines if a play should be reviewed. There are rumors that the replay officials are giving suggestions to the replacement guys, but it's still the referee on the field who makes the final call.


All scoring plays are automatically reviewed by the replay officials (no suggestions required).
You should review how review works, paying particular attention to the terms "over-turned" and "the call on the field stands", which is the final call, from the replay booth official (announced by the ref on the field).
 
2012-09-26 11:11:39 AM  

steamingpile: redmid17: steamingpile: redmid17: steamingpile: bionicjoe: Reasons not to care about the refs.
Somebody lost because of one bad call. (Go cry to the tuck rule gods & Testeverde's 1.5 yard short TD)

Reasons to care about the refs
Player injuries with no flags
Rulings overturned: 80%
Twice as many penalties per game
Games running 30 minutes long
5 plays: 5 penalties (2 of these called on jersey numbers that didn't exist)
Penalty yardage marked off incorrectly

Rulings overturned are in the 50-60% range, just a little higher than regular refs, there are not twice as many penalties per game, and jersey numbers have been called wrong for years people laugh it off. And players that were injured have taken hits that were close to penalties, if they would have called them the people would still biatch.

Complaints are at an all time high though because these guys are under a spotlight, people take sports way to seriously.

The league-wide success rate is around 35-40%, so yeah its a huge deal (and I think your numbers are low).

The overturned rate is around 31% this year last year the overturned rate was 45-51% all year.

So stop your numbers are wrong.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/10/25/automatic-nfl-replay-boot h -playing-bigger-role

In 2009, it was 38%. Link

This year...oh wait you're article says nothing about it. It also gives 7 of 17 weeks of NFL football as a full sample, so you're still full of shiat.

Ok here's an article you all hate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000 87239639044381680457800461370181 3 182.html

And here is the one from profootballtalk that even biatches about it to make you happy
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/21/replacement-ref-audit - misses-the-point/

Either way the articles tell you calls were overturned at a 52% in 2010, 45% in 2011, 31% now so face it that youre biatching about something that you're wrong about and I'm right.


The 2nd article completely trashes the 1st one, as you indicate. The challenge success rate is pretty much trash anyway as the replacement refs are the ones deciding if they got their initial call right anyway, not the replay official (who admittedly can influence the replacement ref). Either way it's clear that the replacement refs take much longer to make calls, routinely penalties unique to the NFL, routinely fark up yardage amounts, and cannot control the games like regular refs did.
 
2012-09-26 11:13:13 AM  

stappawho: Tate had his hand on the ball first.

You can also see form multiple shots that he maintained his left hand on the ball and was also pulling it in with his right. Tate had both his hands on the ball and his feet on the ground before Jennings pulled the ball into his chest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnSdkefYAA&feature=player_embedded


Stay gold, Ponyboy.
 
2012-09-26 11:19:04 AM  
Funny to me: We've now seen half a dozen qualified refs weigh in saying the same thing - that was an interception. Yet amidst all this uproar and constant nationwide conversations about how absolutely horrible the referees have been we have about nine seahawk fans working on their forensic photo analysis skills who have absolutely convinced themselves, "Yeah, these refs are horrible, but they actually got THIS call right."
 
2012-09-26 11:21:47 AM  

JohnBigBootay: Funny to me: We've now seen half a dozen qualified refs weigh in saying the same thing - that was an interception.


The qualified refs are just as vested in saying that the replacements got it wrong, if not moreso, than anyone else. Do you really think that they'd say "yeah, that wasn't a bad call," knowing that would completely kill the groundswell of support they just got?
 
2012-09-26 11:22:08 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Yeah, I restrained myself yesterday from being "that guy," but holy shiat I wish this kind of attention, analysis, and outrage could be saved for something that matters.

I love sports as much as the next guy, but you have to have some perspective in life.


I too have saved all my outrage to vent on people who are outraged at things not worthy of outrage! I am now so livid I must challenge you to a duel!
 
2012-09-26 11:29:07 AM  

JohnBigBootay: Funny to me: We've now seen half a dozen qualified refs weigh in saying the same thing - that was an interception.


You know the guy in the review booth who had the only opinion that mattered was a "qualified" referee too and not a scab right? And that he, the normal everyday non-scab NFL review official would have reviewed that play no matter what was called on the field and no matter who called it because it was in the final two minutes of the game. And thats the normal NFL non-scab review officials job.
 
2012-09-26 11:32:16 AM  
I say put scabs in the review booths. At least they have a better chance of getting the reviews right than the "normal" NFL review officials in the Packers and Saints games did.
 
2012-09-26 11:34:28 AM  
if you don't like it, don't watch it. farking losers. don't watch, get a farking life.

"it's only a couple million dollars"? fark you. it's not your money.

complain about the refs, and then watch the games, and complain some more? E"S"PN and the media owns your asses, you losers. this contrived controversy shiat is music to them, and you are being played by continuing to tune in.
 
2012-09-26 11:37:07 AM  

Headso: I haven't watch the games more than just casually, are the games noticeably longer with the scab refs?


YUP, they most certainly are. Even week 1 games were so much longer. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but there were and are tons of weird ass playstopping calls.

Just pay the real refs and let's move on with disparaging the Jets for a few weeks, as planned.
 
2012-09-26 11:47:46 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Marcus Aurelius: Benevolent Misanthrope: eurotrader: So the NFL position is no matter how egregious the calls by scabs there is nothing they will ever do. If they want to review just how much in the pocket of either gamblers or are gamblers themselves the refs are look at the not just blown but outright wrong call on the packers defensive interference when the Seattle player had both hands around the back of shields and even grabbed the facemask and the refs with money obviously on the Seahawks rewarded the foul by Seattle with a first down instead of 4th and 32 and that is the drive that went for a score. The refs have to be taking money.

Wow. I guess you were absent the day the English teacher talked about sentence construction and avoiding run-ons.

I have a headache now. And I still don't understand exactly what you were ranting about. But I do agree with you that the farking scab refs are egregious.

He's channeling his inner Faulkner. Let him go, he's on a roll.

I think I'm the only Southerner I know who admits to wondering why everyone thinks Faulkner is great.


His best book: As I Die Reading
 
2012-09-26 12:01:39 PM  

mikaloyd: You know the guy in the review booth who had the only opinion that mattered was a "qualified" referee too and not a scab right?


Doesn't matter and I think you know that. He can only rule on what was given him. Not much you can do from the booth if the call on the field was incorrect. Now I'm fine with the hawks winning and I think we should just shut up about it and move on and we certainly don't need to think about overturning calls after the game. The seahawks won this game and that's it - them's the breaks. I just find it amusing that amidst all the national uproar that there are some Seahawk fans (and probably a few packer haters) who have convinced themselves that on this one call amidst all the scandalous calls, the one everyone has talked about the most as an example of horrible officiating, the correct ruling was made. I'm just getting deja vu regarding 'the tuck rule' game when virtually the entire football world was "bullshiat!" and patriot backers were all like, 'now that I look at it really closely in frame by from I am satisfied the ruling was properly applied.' Human nature is funny. That's all.
 
rka
2012-09-26 12:02:00 PM  

AngryPanda: YUP, they most certainly are.


AngryPanda: I don't have the numbers in front of me,


Interesting.
 
2012-09-26 12:05:04 PM  

Treefingers: Ima leave this right here:

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x480]


Irrelevant... It's not a race to see who can get their feet down first. If Jennings had both hands on the ball at the same time Tate did, and Jennings maintained possession to the ground, then Jennings gets the TD, even if Tate's feet were firmly planted the entire time. The simultaneous possession rule is based on the hands.

In this case, not only did Jennings seems to have full control and keep control all the way to the ground, Tate appears to have lost control while falling. It looks like the TD ruling was correct.

The PI was missed, but they usually don't call those on Hail Marys, because there almost certainly would have been offsetting penalties.

And finally, the ref didn't confer with the line judge before going to the review because the de novo review was required and the replay booth was already telling him to review it.
 
2012-09-26 12:06:50 PM  

JohnBigBootay: mikaloyd: You know the guy in the review booth who had the only opinion that mattered was a "qualified" referee too and not a scab right?

Doesn't matter and I think you know that. He can only rule on what was given him. Not much you can do from the booth if the call on the field was incorrect. Now I'm fine with the hawks winning and I think we should just shut up about it and move on and we certainly don't need to think about overturning calls after the game. The seahawks won this game and that's it - them's the breaks. I just find it amusing that amidst all the national uproar that there are some Seahawk fans (and probably a few packer haters) who have convinced themselves that on this one call amidst all the scandalous calls, the one everyone has talked about the most as an example of horrible officiating, the correct ruling was made. I'm just getting deja vu regarding 'the tuck rule' game when virtually the entire football world was "bullshiat!" and patriot backers were all like, 'now that I look at it really closely in frame by from I am satisfied the ruling was properly applied.' Human nature is funny. That's all.


I don't know if people are arguing it was correct. I have said since I've seen it, that, looking at the replay in slo mo, it certainly appears to be an INT. But, considering where the ref was at the time, and what he saw, it was a bad call, but, by no means, the worst call of the night. We wouldn't be talking about this at all had there not been a string of about seven or eight calls against both teams that were just absolutely absurd. Ironically, the TD call was probably the most forgivable sin of the night.
 
2012-09-26 12:06:52 PM  

stappawho: Tate had his hand on the ball first.

You can also see form multiple shots that he maintained his left hand on the ball and was also pulling it in with his right.


One hand isn't necessarily possession.

Tate had both his hands on the ball and his feet on the ground before Jennings pulled the ball into his chest.

Irrelevant, under the simultaneous possession rule. There's no race to the ground.
 
2012-09-26 12:08:33 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: FriarReb98: ***snip***

When they see it on REPLAY. The ref who was in position only saw two guys go up, two guys catch it, and two guys end up on the ground with it. It happened in less than a second. I would put down money that 8 times out of 10, a regular ref would make the same call. Once the TD was signaled, the only reviewable portion of the play was if the players retained possession. ***snip***


I assume you meant to say that possession was not reviewable since that is the entire crux of the why the call is wrong, but from the NFL's statement, "The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review."

Even with replay the on-field ref missed it, and then the league using replay backed up the erroneous call, though they admitted that the OPI should have been called. The NFL is insulting the intelligence of every commentator, writer, and fan that can read the rules. There are several trolls in these threads that are willfully misinterpreting the rules or are arguing against Jennings being the first to establish control, but they are simply wrong and are making things up to justify there erroneous conclusion that the call was correct.

On replay several items are indisputable:

1. Jennings establishes control before Tate by bringing the ball to his chest.

2. Tate's hand is between Jennings' chest and the ball, but merely touching the ball does not establish control. The precedent for that ruling was set when Calvin Johnson was ruled as not having control through the process of the catch, even though he was touching the ball the entire time.

3. Jennings maintains control through the entire process of the catch. After the players have hit the ground and the play blown dead, Tate pulls the ball away from Jennings.

The fact that the refs missed this call during live action is understandable. The fact that they missed it on replay, and additionally, the league tried to justify it afterwards by calling a simultaneous catch is insulting.
 
2012-09-26 12:09:11 PM  

Theaetetus: stappawho: Tate had his hand on the ball first.

You can also see form multiple shots that he maintained his left hand on the ball and was also pulling it in with his right.

One hand isn't necessarily possession.

Tate had both his hands on the ball and his feet on the ground before Jennings pulled the ball into his chest.

Irrelevant, under the simultaneous possession rule. There's no race to the ground.


Also, Tate's feet are even more irrelevant:
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).


Assuming he had (a), and yes, his feet were on the ground inbounds (b), but he didn't maintain control of the ball long enough to do anything - by the time he hit the ground with his body, he only had one hand on the ball.
 
2012-09-26 12:09:21 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Doesn't matter and I think you know that. He can only rule on what was given him. Not much you can do from the booth if the call on the field was incorrect.


He makes that call in the final 2 minutes whether they call it a touchdown an interception or incomplete pass or a home run on the field. Because its the final two minutes and all plays are in the review booths hands. Final two minutes the game is in the review booth officials hands. I think you know that.
 
2012-09-26 12:09:31 PM  

jakepowers: tallguywithglasseson: cretinbob: I didn't see the game or the play

Neither did the refs.

And..... We're done here folks, goodnight


lulz.

Now that I did see it, the dipshiat who was calling end of time should be kicked in the nuts. If he hadn't done that, I think there'd be a lot less confusion. Yes, there would be outrage and butthurt, but less confusion.

profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-26 12:12:01 PM  
People were quasi-raging at the bar yesterday night.

Fortunately, they had a football, and I explained to them quite patiently how Golden Tate controlled the ball with his LEFT HAND which was between the ball and Jennings chest.

We went so far as to partially act it out over by the pool tables.

After doing that, everyone was convinced that it was a proper call.
 
2012-09-26 12:12:02 PM  

JohnBigBootay: I just find it amusing that amidst all the national uproar that there are some Seahawk fans (and probably a few packer haters) who have convinced themselves that on this one call amidst all the scandalous calls, the one everyone has talked about the most as an example of horrible officiating, the correct ruling was made. I'm just getting deja vu regarding 'the tuck rule' game when virtually the entire football world was "bullshiat!" and patriot backers were all like, 'now that I look at it really closely in frame by from I am satisfied the ruling was properly applied.'


In the Tuck Rule game, the rule was properly applied. As it may have been in this game. It's just a dumb rule. Why award tie to the offense? Dammit just say "if two people have the ball, then whoever wrestles it away first gets possession." Then there's no question about the definition of control, when it is established, etc.

Also, there's no evidence to support the claim that either ref called it an interception - many times when there is a dispute over who has the ball, the ref waves his hands over his head like that to delay before making the call.

Actually, it could be kinda similar to the Tuck Rule in that, based on what actually happened, it looked like something that technically, by the rules, it wasn't. I mean, common sense would tell you that was a Brady fumble. But because the Tuck rule exists, there's confusion and it's probably a legit call. Similarly, it looked like Jennings pulled the ball in. But because the simultaneous possession rule exists, you're now stuck defining "had control of it/had control of it first" on a frame-by-frame basis and basically saying that the ball continuing toward your head constitutes control. I mean, do we know that Jennings had full control into his helmet or was that the ball's momentum carrying it there? If it's the ball's momentum, then you can't say he exerted control first, since Tate pulled him and the ball over on top of him.

Now, what WAS an obvious call that was ignored was the OPI. Or the half-dozen other questionable-to-godawful calls throughout the fourth quarter, which is what people SHOULD be mad at.
 
2012-09-26 12:13:03 PM  

Argyle82: I'm sorry by basis of knowledge isnt by internet threads. I'm not as badass of an internet thread reader as you.


Yeah, I was referring to the numerous times that I (and many, many others) explained in painstaking detail how the NFL Rulebook makes it stunningly clear that it doesn't matter whose feet hit the ground first, to include earlier on the same page where you rode in to make that oh-so-original argument. If reading is too difficult for you, though, you could always have just tuned into any sports report aired since the game concluded.
 
2012-09-26 12:13:13 PM  

farkstorm: All scoring plays are automatically reviewed by the replay officials (no suggestions required).
You should review how review works, paying particular attention to the terms "over-turned" and "the call on the field stands", which is the final call, from the replay booth official (announced by the ref on the field).


FTFRulebook:

"After the two-minute warning of each half, throughout any overtime period, and after all scoring plays, and Referee Review will be initiated by a Replay Official...All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the other covering official(s), prior to review."

The replay official decides whether a play SHOULD be reviewed. The referee does the actual reviewing. As I said earlier, there have been some rumors that replay officials, who are not replacements, have been making "suggestions" to the officials, but ultimately it is the referee's decision to make.
 
2012-09-26 12:13:35 PM  

IAmRight: It's just a dumb rule. Why award tie to the offense? Dammit just say "if two people have the ball, then whoever wrestles it away first gets possession." Then there's no question about the definition of control, when it is established, etc.


Because that just encourages UFIAs in the scrum.
 
2012-09-26 12:15:03 PM  

Theaetetus: Tate appears to have lost control while falling. It looks like the TD ruling was correct.


Tate was re-establishing his grip with one hand, can't really say he lost control unless you say that no one who has a one-handed catch has control.

Theaetetus: One hand isn't necessarily possession.


Neither is two.

Theaetetus: by the time he hit the ground with his body, he only had one hand on the ball.


Incorrect. He'd already gotten his second hand back on the ball.
 
2012-09-26 12:15:37 PM  

IAmRight: Now, what WAS an obvious call that was ignored was the OPI. Or the half-dozen other questionable-to-godawful calls throughout the fourth quarter, which is what people SHOULD be mad at.


I agree, but they didn't throw a flag on the fact that Charley Martin got absolutely raped on the play either, now did they?
 
2012-09-26 12:16:22 PM  

Theaetetus: Because that just encourages UFIAs in the scrum.


Which is why the refs clear the bodies away so it's one on one.

Besides, it's acceptable for fumbles, why not in this case?
 
2012-09-26 12:16:32 PM  

mikaloyd: He makes that call in the final 2 minutes whether they call it a touchdown an interception or incomplete pass or a home run on the field. Because its the final two minutes and all plays are in the review booths hands. Final two minutes the game is in the review booth officials hands. I think you know that.


What he can't do - and I think you know this, is say, 'the ruling on the field was TD. I'm going to exceed my mandate and say not only was it not a touchdown, it was actually an interception.' He can't do that and... you know he can't do that.
 
2012-09-26 12:18:26 PM  

halfof33: I agree, but they didn't throw a flag on the fact that Charley Martin got absolutely raped on the play either, now did they?


Yeah, but everyone would still complain if the Seahawks got another chance because of DPI.

The important thing to the national media is that the Seahawks came out getting the benefit of the doubt on a questionable call that determined a game and that is unacceptable. My God, there's not even such a thing as Seahawks bars in other cities! How the hell can they get the benefit of a call?!?!
 
2012-09-26 12:21:59 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Tate appears to have lost control while falling. It looks like the TD ruling was correct.

Tate was re-establishing his grip with one hand, can't really say he lost control unless you say that no one who has a one-handed catch has control.


I believe that generally, one-handed catches aren't ruled catches until the receiver has full possession - both hands, to the chest, crook of an arm, etc. Like, a one-hand catch while going out of bounds would be incomplete if the receiver never gets a second hand on it.

Theaetetus: One hand isn't necessarily possession.

Neither is two.


Nope, but in this case, Jennings hands never move again once he's got both hands on it.

Theaetetus: by the time he hit the ground with his body, he only had one hand on the ball.

Incorrect. He'd already gotten his second hand back on the ball.


Pretty sure he was still fighting with his second hand when he first hit the ground.
 
2012-09-26 12:22:37 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Tate appears to have lost control while falling. It looks like the TD ruling was correct.

Tate was re-establishing his grip with one hand, can't really say he lost control unless you say that no one who has a one-handed catch has control.

Theaetetus: One hand isn't necessarily possession.

Neither is two.

Theaetetus: by the time he hit the ground with his body, he only had one hand on the ball.

Incorrect. He'd already gotten his second hand back on the ball.


The problem is that it happened to the packers and not the browns or dolphins etc...

The other problem is that people and the media continue to go on about how this is CLEARLY the WORST call in the history of the NFL.

It is not clearly and interception and not clearly a TD. None of it is clear. There is plenty of video and photographic evidence available that supports both arguments. Lots of different interpretations of 'control' and 'possession'.

It was called a TD and wasn't going to be overturned. I would also wager that if it were called an interception that would also not have been overturned.

May have been some rioting though...
 
2012-09-26 12:22:52 PM  

Theaetetus: Theaetetus: stappawho: ***snip***


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-26 12:24:09 PM  

IAmRight: The important thing to the national media is that the Seahawks came out getting the benefit of the doubt on a questionable call that determined a game and that is unacceptable. My God, there's not even such a thing as Seahawks bars in other cities! How the hell can they get the benefit of a call?!?!


What is really amazing is all this Packer hysteria is based on a claim that Jennings "controlled the ball" a millisecond in real time before Tate.

The thing is, all you have to do is act it out, with Tate's left arm between the ball and the defender, and you'll see that it was a correct call.
 
2012-09-26 12:26:19 PM  

Theaetetus: Like, a one-hand catch while going out of bounds would be incomplete if the receiver never gets a second hand on it.


No
 
2012-09-26 12:27:59 PM  

IAmRight: Now, what WAS an obvious call that was ignored was the OPI. Or the half-dozen other questionable-to-godawful calls throughout the fourth quarter, which is what people SHOULD be mad at.


I think it's telling if you go back and look at the live thread I'd say 3/4 of the seahawks fans there thought that was a bullshiat call. But I'm Sort of done with it. I'm not all that concerned about the replacements because it's a temporary situation and will be resolved soon enough - at which point we will go back to complaining about the regular refs whenever they rule against our team. If I'm upset about anything it's the absurd legalese that's crept into the 'what's a catch' rules language. I've lived my entire life knowing a catch when I saw it, as have most of us. But in recent years it has been interpreted to death to the point that we can turn just about any close play into a controversy that requires detailed analysis and analyses usually end up breaking on party lines. Clear, no doubt about it, why would anyone question that catches are now overturned because of some microscopic movement discovered on replay and bang, bang plays where the guy didn't possess the ball for a microsecond satisfy the wording enough to be ruled complete. Kind of like the old way better. I think they got just as many correct and there was waaaaaay less arguing about it.
 
2012-09-26 12:28:51 PM  

mikaloyd: JohnBigBootay: Doesn't matter and I think you know that. He can only rule on what was given him. Not much you can do from the booth if the call on the field was incorrect.

He makes that call in the final 2 minutes whether they call it a touchdown an interception or incomplete pass or a home run on the field. Because its the final two minutes and all plays are in the review booths hands. Final two minutes the game is in the review booth officials hands. I think you know that.


Ummm, that's not right. In the final 2 minutes, the booth official decides whether or not something SHOULD be reviewed (obviously excluding mandatory reviews), but the Head Ref always makes the decision on what the final call is.
 
2012-09-26 12:29:52 PM  

stappawho: The other problem is that people and the media continue to go on about how this is CLEARLY the WORST call in the history of the NFL.


I'd say the Edelman OPI call was worse.
cdn.bleacherreport.net
 
2012-09-26 12:31:18 PM  

Theaetetus: Like, a one-hand catch while going out of bounds would be incomplete if the receiver never gets a second hand on it.


If they continue to have it and the ball is just stuck in their hands, it's still a catch.

Theaetetus: Pretty sure he was still fighting with his second hand when he first hit the ground.


He was fighting with it but he had it on the ball. Both of his hands were on the ball the entire time they were on the ground, which is why they ruled simultaneous possession in the first place. Also, since you CAN have possession with one hand, we can also say that two hands doesn't equal "more possession" than one.

Again, if Jennings had so much more control over the ball, why didn't he walk away with it? There are people here who claim that Tate didn't even have a hand on the ball at all when they were on the ground. Why wouldn't Jennings have clearly emerged with the ball at that point? Tate ended up with the ball!
 
2012-09-26 12:33:26 PM  

stappawho: Theaetetus: Like, a one-hand catch while going out of bounds would be incomplete if the receiver never gets a second hand on it.

No


... or the other two ways I mention in the previous sentence. Cut much?

Here's Reggie Wayne's catch... Notice that he gets full possession by bringing it to his chest?
 
2012-09-26 12:35:36 PM  

JohnBigBootay: I think it's telling if you go back and look at the live thread I'd say 3/4 of the seahawks fans there thought that was a bullshiat call.


At the time even Pats fans or people rooting for the Pats thought the Tuck Rule play was a bullsh*t call. Now pretty much everyone just feels that it's a bullsh*t rule, but it was the correct call.

Of course, the NFL SHOULD have ANY OTHER LEAGUE'S review system, and they'd be better off.

NCAA: reviewed in the booth by someone watching a real TV and who isn't the head ref.
AFL: reviewed using a regular TV, but with the ref mic'd up to the TV and you can hear what angles he's requesting and he talks through his decision-making process as it's happening so you can actually see why it's being called what it is.

Also, it seems dumb to have the most contentious calls be non-reviewable. Like the FG - oh, you can't review it if it's over the top, which is where the only difficult part of calling a FG is! Oh, you can review to see whether it was a catch or not but you can't review who caught it!
 
2012-09-26 12:36:38 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Like, a one-hand catch while going out of bounds would be incomplete if the receiver never gets a second hand on it.

If they continue to have it and the ball is just stuck in their hands, it's still a catch.


See above.

Theaetetus: Pretty sure he was still fighting with his second hand when he first hit the ground.

He was fighting with it but he had it on the ball. Both of his hands were on the ball the entire time they were on the ground


I believe you meant to say "once they were on the ground."

which is why they ruled simultaneous possession in the first place. Also, since you CAN have possession with one hand, we can also say that two hands doesn't equal "more possession" than one.

Again, see above.

Again, if Jennings had so much more control over the ball, why didn't he walk away with it?

Because it was a simultaneous possession. You should read your own post.

There are people here who claim that Tate didn't even have a hand on the ball at all when they were on the ground. Why wouldn't Jennings have clearly emerged with the ball at that point? Tate ended up with the ball!

I don't know, you should ask them. I was responding to someone who was claiming that Tate had both hands on the ball from the initial catch and never moved them. That's not true. He lost his grip with his right hand and fought to get it back.
 
2012-09-26 12:38:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Here's Reggie Wayne's catch... Notice that he gets full possession by bringing it to his chest?


No, he gets full possession by holding onto the ball and it never leaving his grip.

You can palm a pass and it counts as a catch, even if you never pull it into your body. It doesn't happen often (more often in college football, where guys actually occasionally get wide-open enough and have QBs inaccurate enough to not hit the wide-open guy with a perfect pass), but it does happen.
 
2012-09-26 12:39:45 PM  

IAmRight: JohnBigBootay:***snip***


I get not reviewing penalties, but I do not understand why certain parts of certain plays are ineligible for review under certain conditions.
 
2012-09-26 12:40:25 PM  

IAmRight: You can palm a pass and it counts as a catch, even if you never pull it into your body. It doesn't happen often (more often in college football, where guys actually occasionally get wide-open enough and have QBs inaccurate enough to not hit the wide-open guy with a perfect pass), but it does happen.


Got a video?
 
2012-09-26 12:41:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Because it was a simultaneous possession. You should read your own post.


Oh good, so we can agree it was simultaneous possession, and therefore it was Tate's ball. Cool.

Theaetetus: He lost his grip with his right hand and fought to get it back.


I'd say there's a significant difference between losing his grip and re-gripping for better leverage (which would be my opinion on what he did, knowing that Jennings would be able to pull the ball away from one arm by pulling the ball up).
 
2012-09-26 12:48:42 PM  

Theaetetus: IAmRight: You can palm a pass and it counts as a catch, even if you never pull it into your body. It doesn't happen often (more often in college football, where guys actually occasionally get wide-open enough and have QBs inaccurate enough to not hit the wide-open guy with a perfect pass), but it does happen.

Got a video?


Sure. It's the first one that comes up with "one-handed TD"

Bonus, it's the NFL.
 
2012-09-26 12:50:48 PM  
The NFL needs good referees. And clear cut rules that make sense for officiating so referees "can" be good rather than controversial. It doesnt just need the old herp and derp potatoes back to replace this set. The problem with clear cut rules is that they almost always favor the defense and the people who whine about shiat for fun moan like unpaid whores that they are bored if they "have" to watch a defensive 6-10 game and they cry like gutshot panthers if their favorite quarterback gets a broken rib. A tied game now has rules enough about who can score what when to confuse civil lawyers before it can end just to satisfy the new breed of crybag fans convoluted sense of fair play. Same deal with instant replay. Its a device used because rules became too vague and complex (in order to help offenses be more exciting to short attention spans) that a ton of judgement calls were needed and hairs were split too fine for men to be expected to call correctly every time. So instead of fixing the rules we gotinstant replay as a pacifier for crybags and their right to see fairness. Meanwhile we also got a tuck rule an in the grasp and control rule a sliding quarterback rule a no tackling if a receiver seems to be helpless rule a no fair steping on anybody to block kicks rule 13 different shades of pass interference, no fair touching receivers after they run 5 yards rules and 7 different ways a players momentum can save him and two ways fumbles cannot rules. You know for higher scores so the whiners would shut up drink beer and enjoy the game played fair but exciting.

The only sensible rules change the NFL has done in a long time to make the game more precisely and accurately refereed on the field is to make the receiver land both feet in bounds to be a catch no matter if hes being pushed out or not. Way easier for refs to see if two feet land in bounds than it is for them to do calculus in their heads to determine where momentum woulda taken somebody.

But that rule hurts offense so it too shall pass and another rule needing judgement will be installed. To satisfy the same lunks who love to biatch about football rather than enjoy it.
 
2012-09-26 12:52:15 PM  

JohnBigBootay: mikaloyd: He makes that call in the final 2 minutes whether they call it a touchdown an interception or incomplete pass or a home run on the field. Because its the final two minutes and all plays are in the review booths hands. Final two minutes the game is in the review booth officials hands. I think you know that.

What he can't do - and I think you know this, is say, 'the ruling on the field was TD. I'm going to exceed my mandate and say not only was it not a touchdown, it was actually an interception.' He can't do that and... you know he can't do that.


Sure he can. And should have.
 
2012-09-26 12:54:10 PM  
Looks like we'll be able to go back to arguing about calls made by the regular refs soon.

Link
 
2012-09-26 12:56:15 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Because it was a simultaneous possession. You should read your own post.

Oh good, so we can agree it was simultaneous possession, and therefore it was Tate's ball. Cool.


/self-facepalm
Somehow I've flipped Tate and Jennings in my mind. Yes, the Green Bay guy had possession and it was his ball. We're in agreement.
 
2012-09-26 01:00:40 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus:
Again, if Jennings had so much more control over the ball, why didn't he walk away with it? There are people here who claim that Tate didn't even have a hand on the ball at all when they were on the ground. Why wouldn't Jennings have clearly emerged with the ball at that point? Tate ended up with the ball!


Dude, everything else aside, you know damn well that has nothing to do with it. Walking away from the pile with the ball doesn't mean anything. Not on a fumble, not on a reception.
 
2012-09-26 01:00:52 PM  

Theaetetus: IAmRight: You can palm a pass and it counts as a catch, even if you never pull it into your body. It doesn't happen often (more often in college football, where guys actually occasionally get wide-open enough and have QBs inaccurate enough to not hit the wide-open guy with a perfect pass), but it does happen.

Got a video?


I'm not looking to hard, but this is pretty damn close. One hand on ball, one foot down.

He switches hands but he's already out of bounds at that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89wGMqET3AM
 
2012-09-26 01:05:06 PM  

Harv72b: Looks like we'll be able to go back to arguing about calls made by the regular refs soon.

Link


This just goes along with what my Seahawks fan friends said: Got a win AND resolved the replacement ref issue. You're welcome, NFL.

/League officials: "WHAT THE F*CK? THE SEAHAWKS WERE ALLOWED TO WIN A GAME UNDER QUESTIONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST A NATIONALLY POPULAR TEAM? THIS WILL NOT STAND!"
 
2012-09-26 01:07:25 PM  
http://www.businessinsider.com/could-seahawks-packers-call-been-review ed-2012-9

at least a couple former refs say you can't overturn that play on review but peter king says you can.
 
2012-09-26 01:11:09 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Dude, everything else aside, you know damn well that has nothing to do with it. Walking away from the pile with the ball doesn't mean anything. Not on a fumble, not on a reception.


No, but it does refute the claim that Jennings incontrovertibly had possession the whole time. Again, it's WAY less of a stretch to say there was simultaneous possession than it is to claim Tate's hands ever both left the ball. And some people are trying to say that. If both Tate's hands ever left the ball, Jennings has rolled away with the ball and there's no call claiming that Seattle has simultaneous possession.

Rather than a 50/50 call I'll call this one a 60/40 call that should've gone the Packers' way, but it's in no way an obvious call, given what has to be defined within the play. What was a 100/0 call (well, no-call) was the OPI. BE MAD ABOUT THE ACTUAL AWFUL CALLS instead of the one that relies on interpretations of actions and frame-by-frame analysis which STILL basically leads to the conclusion of "if we assume that you can't have possession with one hand, and we assume that the ball was pulled into his face by Jennings, rather than just the natural movement of impact of the ball coming toward his face, and we consider that action to confirm control of the ball, THEN we can say that he had possession for 1/10 of a second before Tate did."
 
2012-09-26 01:11:33 PM  

IAmRight: This just goes along with what my Seahawks fan friends said: Got a win AND resolved the replacement ref issue. You're welcome, NFL.


This would be a double-win. Netflix finally added season 9 of Family Guy, too.

/It's just a shame they'll have to put all these replacements down.
 
2012-09-26 01:35:05 PM  

JohnBigBootay: http://www.businessinsider.com/could-seahawks-packers-call-been-revie w ed-2012-9

at least a couple former refs say you can't overturn that play on review but peter king says you can.


The NFL statement to which this thread is attached says that the possession portion of the play could be reviewed. Per the simultaneous possession rule, since Jennings had control first and maintained control while completing the catch, he is the only one who can possess it. It was missed on the field, in the replay, then denied by the NFL.

//No way would they have overturned the call/game result, but I would not have wanted them to. Just admit it was an error in judgement and move on. By denying that the call was wrong, the NFL is implying they don't care about the product on the field, and I believe them.
 
2012-09-26 02:08:57 PM  

IAmRight: but it's in no way an obvious call,


Agreed.
 
2012-09-26 04:19:14 PM  
When I saw it live, I thought the old white ref glanced at the black ref and saw his arms start moving up. he assumed he was signaling touchdown and followed suit. The black ref was lifting his arm to signal change of possession. Once the TD signal was made, the Packers were screwed, unless the ball hit the ground.
 
2012-09-26 04:34:34 PM  
i1222.photobucket.com

SEACHICKENS WIN!
DO NOT QUESTION THE GREAT AND POWERFUL GOODELL!
IGNORE THOSE OWNERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

 
2012-09-26 05:29:18 PM  
The funny thing is that it was a catch
 
2012-09-26 05:31:35 PM  
Seriously, the Seahawks fans here are the biggest bunch of whiny little biatches I've ever seen.

You won on a bad call. Period.

Instead of saying, "yep, it was bad, but we'll take it", you have to argue your asses off, dissect it like it's the Zapruder film, and then throw in SUPERBOWLWHARRRRRGGGGBL! Holy shiat, YOU FARKING WON!!!!!

It's like you're trying to convince yourselves at this point. Shut up and take the win.
 
2012-09-26 08:15:21 PM  

ArtosRC: [i.imgur.com image 850x634]

I would not want to be a N'awlins defender.


We have defenders?
 
2012-09-26 08:21:14 PM  

oh_please: Seriously, the Seahawks fans here are the biggest bunch of whiny little biatches I've ever seen.

You won on a bad call. Period.

Instead of saying, "yep, it was bad, but we'll take it", you have to argue your asses off, dissect it like it's the Zapruder film, and then throw in SUPERBOWLWHARRRRRGGGGBL! Holy shiat, YOU FARKING WON!!!!!

It's like you're trying to convince yourselves at this point. Shut up and take the win.


Tell the truth. You wrote that before even reading the thread. That's what you had in your mind and nothing that was actually said was going to change it, because reading would require effort. Because if you had actually bothered to read this or any other of the threads on it, you'll find that there is exactly one Seahawks fan arguing that it was a good call, and the rest of us haven't said anything remotely like that.
 
2012-09-26 08:26:40 PM  

dickfreckle: ArtosRC: [i.imgur.com image 850x634]

I would not want to be a N'awlins defender.

We have defenders?


I think he's refering to robsul, that's the only way it makes sense.
 
2012-09-26 08:41:03 PM  
images.t-nation.com
 
2012-09-26 08:42:33 PM  

Super Chronic: Tell the truth. You wrote that before even reading the thread. That's what you had in your mind and nothing that was actually said was going to change it, because reading would require effort. Because if you had actually bothered to read this or any other of the threads on it, you'll find that there is exactly one Seahawks fan arguing that it was a good call, and the rest of us haven't said anything remotely like that.


Yeah, it does seem like there are more Bears fans white-knighting the scabs than Seahawks fans.
 
2012-09-26 08:53:40 PM  

WhyteRaven74: wotthefark: Watch the whole game.

Actually during the second half the teams were pretty even. And given Seattle could only muster 7 points in the first half...


Which was seven points more than the Ass Packers managed, so STFU.
 
2012-09-26 08:58:06 PM  

oh_please: Seriously, the Seahawks fans here are the biggest bunch of whiny little biatches I've ever seen.

You won on a bad call. Period.

Instead of saying, "yep, it was bad