Replacement Refs

[jesmu84]

-Ruling Tate's catch a catch AND THEN reviewing and staying with that call.

you can't review to determine possession in that situation. you can only review to confirm a catch was made, not which player/team caught it.

[Spotcheck Billy]

I think he meant initially ruling it a catch right after one zebra signalled INT and the other TD, the white hat should have conferred with both before ruling it TD and possibly made the call as INT which I think could then have an official review to determine if it really was an INT or TD but the way it transpired ruled as a simultaneous catch it then was not possible to overturn

[Benny B]

That's convenient in a vacuum, that doesn't look at what happened in total.  Even being generous and saying the PI on Cancellor against Finley to keep the TD drive alive balances out with the Rice-Shields defensive interference traveshamockery, that leaves 4 opportunities that the Packers had to put the game away that were taken by the refs
-PI on Tate against Sheilds during the Hail Mary
-Ruling Tate's catch a catch AND THEN reviewing and staying with that call.
-Roughing the passer call that negated an interception on the Seahawks 22 yrd line.  Walden was already airborne against a QB on the run outside of the pocket when the ball was thrown.
-That absolute murderous no-call on #39 when he went helmet to helmet in the open field with no ball at play on Jennings.  At a minimum it should have been 15 yards for the Packers, and most likely #39 should have been ejected.

I'm sure I could come up with one or two more that weren't ticky tack.  Bad calls both ways for the most part, except the ones that clearly altered the outcome of the game.

You simply cannot launch yourself at the QB's legs... someone else covered this already.  Ticky tack?  Sure... but it was the correct call, especially considering that the Packers benefited from a similar call earlier in the half.  But use that play as an example... Walden didn't have to commit the penalty to force the interception.  Same pursuit coupled with a clean tackle/hit, it's Packers' ball, game over.  In other words, the replacement referee didn't take that turnover away, Walden did.

I'm not disputing that the officials "took away" the aforementioned PI opportunities or the no-call on Jennings, but the Packers had at least as many opportunities go unfulfilled by their own doing than they had taken away by the officials.

you can't review to determine possession in that situation. you can only review to confirm a catch was made, not which player/team caught it.

Not true.  You can review simultaneous catch in the end zone.  Gerry Austin was only half-correct.

[mu03eng]

you can't review to determine possession in that situation. you can only review to confirm a catch was made, not which player/team caught it.

False, read the NFL's statement.  Possession can be determined by replay when it is in the endzone.  Possession can not be determined between the goal lines in the field of play.

[mu03eng]

You simply cannot launch yourself at the QB's legs... someone else covered this already.  Ticky tack?  Sure... but it was the correct call, especially considering that the Packers benefited from a similar call earlier in the half.  But use that play as an example... Walden didn't have to commit the penalty to force the interception.  Same pursuit coupled with a clean tackle/hit, it's Packers' ball, game over.  In other words, the replacement referee didn't take that turnover away, Walden did.

I'm not disputing that the officials "took away" the aforementioned PI opportunities or the no-call on Jennings, but the Packers had at least as many opportunities go unfulfilled by their own doing than they had taken away by the officials.

Not true.  You can review simultaneous catch in the end zone.  Gerry Austin was only half-correct.

The Brady rule only covers quarterbacks in the pocket in which players launch themselves at the knee and below.  Wilson was A) outside the pocket B) scrambling and therefore considered a runner and not a passer by the Brady rule C) Walden tackled him around the waist/thigh area, so above the knee D) Wilson jumped up(thanks Sultan)

Bad call.

EDIT: Added more to make the call even worse

[mu03eng]

You simply cannot launch yourself at the QB's legs... someone else covered this already.  Ticky tack?  Sure... but it was the correct call, especially considering that the Packers benefited from a similar call earlier in the half.  But use that play as an example... Walden didn't have to commit the penalty to force the interception.  Same pursuit coupled with a clean tackle/hit, it's Packers' ball, game over.  In other words, the replacement referee didn't take that turnover away, Walden did.

I'm not disputing that the officials "took away" the aforementioned PI opportunities or the no-call on Jennings, but the Packers had at least as many opportunities go unfulfilled by their own doing than they had taken away by the officials.

Not true.  You can review simultaneous catch in the end zone.  Gerry Austin was only half-correct.

Could you also quantify for me how many opportunities bad officiating should be able to take away from a team during a game?  Just so the teams know that they have to beat the refs and the other team.

[GGGG]

The Brady rule only covers quarterbacks in the pocket in which players launch themselves at the knee and below.  Wilson was A) outside the pocket B) scrambling and therefore considered a runner and not a passer by the Brady rule C) Walden tackled him around the waist/thigh area, so above the knee.

Bad call.

Not to mention that Wilson jumped...

[Benny B]

Could you also quantify for me how many opportunities bad officiating should be able to take away from a team during a game?  Just so the teams know that they have to beat the refs and the other team.

If I knew the answer to that, I would also know exactly what plays the other team was going to run, what plays the Packers would run, what the final score of the game would be, and I sure as hell wouldn't have the time to tell you squat seeing as how I have bets to make in Vegas on next week's games.

Believe me, I get it, and I agree --- it's not fair.  But as long as we have human officials, there is going to be a human element to the game.  As an engineer, I'm sure you are well familiar with the separate concepts of error and chaos theory.  Many situations in life - and football - are simply out of our control.  So we take advantage of the opportunities we do control and hope for the best.  The Packers simply didn't take advantage of those situations and it led to the worst.

It sucks.  Packers should be 2-1.  Many of us will look back in disgust at this game if the Packers miss the playoffs by one game.  But if anything is going to be learned from the mistakes that were made, let's make sure we identify the correct mistakes; otherwise, history will repeat itself sooner than we hope.

[MerrittsMustache]

That's convenient in a vacuum, that doesn't look at what happened in total.  Even being generous and saying the PI on Cancellor against Finley to keep the TD drive alive balances out with the Rice-Shields defensive interference traveshamockery, that leaves 4 opportunities that the Packers had to put the game away that were taken by the refs
-PI on Tate against Sheilds during the Hail Mary
-Ruling Tate's catch a catch AND THEN reviewing and staying with that call.
-Roughing the passer call that negated an interception on the Seahawks 22 yrd line.  Walden was already airborne against a QB on the run outside of the pocket when the ball was thrown.
-That absolute murderous no-call on #39 when he went helmet to helmet in the open field with no ball at play on Jennings.  At a minimum it should have been 15 yards for the Packers, and most likely #39 should have been ejected.

I'm sure I could come up with one or two more that weren't ticky tack.  Bad calls both ways for the most part, except the ones that clearly altered the outcome of the game.

I'd be willing to bet that Seattle fans could also come up with 4 bad calls that went against their team and greatly altered the way things unfolded.

[mu03eng]

If I knew the answer to that, I would also know exactly what plays the other team was going to run, what plays the Packers would run, what the final score of the game would be, and I sure as hell wouldn't have the time to tell you squat seeing as how I have bets to make in Vegas on next week's games.

Believe me, I get it, and I agree --- it's not fair.  But as long as we have human officials, there is going to be a human element to the game.  As an engineer, I'm sure you are well familiar with the separate concepts of error and chaos theory.  Many situations in life - and football - are simply out of our control.  So we take advantage of the opportunities we do control and hope for the best.  The Packers simply didn't take advantage of those situations and it led to the worst.

It sucks.  Packers should be 2-1.  Many of us will look back in disgust at this game if the Packers miss the playoffs by one game.  But if anything is going to be learned from the mistakes that were made, let's make sure we identify the correct mistakes; otherwise, history will repeat itself sooner than we hope.

I am well aware of those theories, but the flaw in your premise is that the officials and their actions are somehow uncontrollable.  They are perfectly controllable, if they are properly trained and experienced.  The side judge who called the Sam Shields PI and the same that ruled it a touchdown had 4 years of Div III experience, which is 6 years less than the NFL required of the replacement officials!  So the NFL has the ability to control this, chose not to and the result is an illegitimate result

[mu03eng]

I'd be willing to bet that Seattle fans could also come up with 4 bad calls that went against their team and greatly altered the way things unfolded.

I'd love that challenge, set it up, I'm certain an impartial jury would agree with me.

[Benny B]

I am well aware of those theories, but the flaw in your premise is that the officials and their actions are somehow uncontrollable.  They are perfectly controllable, if they are properly trained and experienced.  The side judge who called the Sam Shields PI and the same that ruled it a touchdown had 4 years of Div III experience, which is 6 years less than the NFL required of the replacement officials!  So the NFL has the ability to control this, chose not to and the result is an illegitimate result

But the Packers have minimal control over the hiring or negotiating with officials.  At best, they control 1/30th of that situation.

You and I have even less control, but I plan to not watch any NFL games on TV this weekend in protest (I'll get my Packers fix listening to 620), so at least I'm doing something about it even though I know my effort will be for naught as the majority of fans have no desire to stand on principle.

You know who does have the most control?  The players.  There may be a "no-strike" clause in their current CBA, but nothing is keeping them as individuals from voluntarily sitting out the games - they're still going to have jobs, the NFL isn't going to cancel their contracts, but they have to be willing to forfeit a game's paycheck.   If that happened to the games at noon on Sunday, the NFL would have the real officials back on the field in time for the Sunday night game.   Of course, the players will refuse to forfeit a paycheck - even if it appeared they were ready to last year - so rest assured that the players won't stand on principle either.

The only party in the matter willing to stand on principal... the NFL.  It may be a crappy principle, but my money is on the replacement officials being on the field for at least the next week or two, despite last night's debacle.  Honestly, a week from now, the Packers/Seahawks game will be an afterthought to most.

[MerrittsMustache]

Anyone else notice the brutal unnecessary roughness call by the real refs at the end of the game last night? I was really hoping the Browns would tie it after that just to see how fans and the media reacted. Since they didn't tie it, the real refs are the toast of the town!

[real chili 83]

Lots of messed up calls.  GB vs A'ints.

Really?   Refs missed a ton of calls.

Are these guys worth it?

Discuss.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

No upgrade in quality despite all the hoopla
I'm not surprised because I didn't expect much better from striking refs when they came back. people forget they made just as many mistakes week after week last year.

[forgetful]

Lots of messed up calls.  GB vs A'ints.

Really?   Refs missed a ton of calls.

Are these guys worth it?

Discuss.

Lots of messed up calls and you really didn't hear a word of it from the media/announcers.  The story was how bad the replacement refs were, so they played it up, now that the real refs are back they get praised for good calls and they ignore the bad just like before.

[Hards Alumni]

Lots of messed up calls and you really didn't hear a word of it from the media/announcers.  The story was how bad the replacement refs were, so they played it up, now that the real refs are back they get praised for good calls and they ignore the bad just like before.

You're kidding, right?  Aikman and Buck were all over the terrible officiating during the Packers game.