They aren't very good. In one game they are calling everything...in the next they are completely swallowing their whistles. However, they are passable enough for the NFL to put the screws to the refs union. The real refs are never going to make up what they are going to lose here.
The regular refs are the same way. The calls themselves are fine not perfect but neither were the regular refs, it is the game mangement that sucks. Too long to spot the ball, too long on replays, too long deciding on the calls. It breaks the flow of the game. As they get more experience, they will get better and better. Everybody is replaceable, the MLB umps found that out the hard way a couple of decades ago or so.
They aren't very good. In one game they are calling everything...in the next they are completely swallowing their whistles. However, they are passable enough for the NFL to put the screws to the refs union. The real refs are never going to make up what they are going to lose here.
And as Steve Young pointed out today, it isn't going to matter cause we will all continue to watch.
The presentation of the game is terrible, they confuse college rules with NFL, don't always give player numbers on penalties, their spots are generally off. Not that regular refs are perfect, but there is a consistency of presentation there, and it's clearly lacking.
Yes they are not as good as the regular refs. But when regular refs makes these mistakes, and they do, the announcers do not jump all over them like they do the regular refs.
The unsportsmanlike conduct on Harbaugh was a joke.
I know that Harbaugh played it off like he was trying to call time out after they threw the flag, but that is BS. If you read his lips he was saying something to the effect of, "I need you to come here, I need to talk to you." Then he said it again and kept chirping, and then when they threw the flag his tune changed to "I was trying to call time out."
The official was obviously looking at him, he could have signaled for time from the beginning.
Frankly, after watching yesterday, if anyone continues to think that the only difference is that the regular refs just don't get the same level of scrutiny as the replacements, then they obviously don't really know football all that well.
Last night's game was a debacle. Throwing flags on defensive holding and illegal contact on one play where little exists...then keeping it in the pocket when they are draped all over the receiver. No consistency in the calling. The unsportsmanlike conduct on Harbaugh was a joke.
I don't know what games you were watching, but I watched about one quarter of the Bears game, two quarters of the Broncos/Texans, and two quarters of the Pats/Ravens. I didn't see a single call by an official that dictated the outcome of any of those games.
If you don't like the replacement officials, the solution is quite simple -- stop watching football. Otherwise, quit complaining, because the NFL doesn't care what you think as long as you continue to watch the games.
They are bad. The NFL needs to just pay their refs. They make billions of dollars, and won't pay their refs.
There is egg all over Roger Goodell's face.
You mention the Pats / Ravens game. Did you notice that DBs were bumping and grabbing pretty much all game...except when they apparently weren't when they decided to throw a flag. I'm sorry but if you can't see that this is a problem, you clearly don't know enough about football.
So you're going to blame the replacement officials for the actions of DBs who are bumping and grabbing way more than they should be (and way more than they did last year)?
Since you're clearly my superior in football knowledge, please explain to me why it is that you can't watch 5 minutes of this weekends' NFL highlights without seeing 10 instances of players and coaches screaming in officials' faces. Detroit runs what turned out to be their last play of OT, and as soon as Hill is swarmed by the Titan defense - before the whistle, mind you - Ryan Broyles (DET# 84) starts pointing at the 6 yard line and screaming at the official for a first down, despite the fact that he was about two yards off of where the ball actually was. As soon as that FG is kicked in Baltimore, Vince Wilfork (NE# 75) - who was standing on the 10 yard line when the ball went over the goal post - yanks off his helmet, runs 15 yards to get into the officials face, and starts jumping up and down screaming, not to mention that less than 15 seconds later,Wilfork's babysitterBelichek - who was even further away and at a worse angle than Wilfork - is yelling & grabbing said official. But it's the DBs bumping and grabbing that's the problem?
I may not know enough about football, but you're just being ignorant if you think the replacement officials are 100% to blame for your woes as a fan.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. The replacement referees are very bad....and yes, the players and coaches have occasionally been over-the-top in their reactions to them.
The replacement officials are going to make mistakes, granted. But to come to the conclusion that they're getting worse by the week ignores a complementary, but significant, issue --- the players aren't getting better either. At the risk of going Yogi, when the players are more consistent in their play, the officials will be more consistent. To place 100% of the blame on the officials is way off base when you consider that the players are being more aggressive, making more contact, and generally committing more "penalty-worthy" action by the week (see yesterday's "de-lobing" of Matt Schaub)... the players - especially the defenses - are like 4 year olds who are testing their boundaries. As I said earlier, there's no respect for these officials by the players, coaches or media, and that being the case, the players are going to continually and increasingly see what they can get away with.
Wow...just wow
The roughing the quarterback was bad. The PI was bad. The TD call in the end zone was flat out wrong...and CLEARLY cost GB the game.
What if they had called the obvious PI on Woodson a couple plays earlier? That would have changed that entire drive.
Regardless, what a heart-breaking way for the Packers to lose. On behalf of all the sympathetic Bears, Vikings and Lions fans out there, please allow me to say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Saw it differantly in So Cal. you have to come down in posession. Ball was contested while they were landing. 50/50 goes to Offense. Hard to rule otherwise.
As ESPN's guy says, that is not how the rule reads. The defensive guy had the ball to his chest and the offensive guy wrapped his hands around it afterwards. That is an interception.
Gotta look at the play closer. Good call! (although the missed off PI was crap.)
Jennings with 2 hands on the ball and the ball on his chest...while tate has one hand barely on it is simultaneous possession? Don't think so man...In fact anyone arguing is obviously just trolling..
chili, I think this crew has done a damn good job thus far. Making Gruden look whiny.
Packer fans are such whiners. It was a good call (except the missed PAT).
The only reason you're not 0-3 is Cutler had a bad game.
The reason you're 1-2 is you're not a good team. I hate to break it to you but your defense is an embarrassment.
8-8 and no playoffs this year.
Signed ... A Bears fan
So I'm just going to assume the real officials have a deal done by 7am tomorrow, right?
On the bright side, for the second straight week, people will ignore the fact that the Packers' offense has looked terrible so far this season.
I haven't seen a call that bad since the Braun suspension got overturned.
Yeah, let's look at a still frame when the play is dead. That'll show the whole story.
Pack made nice adjustments in 2nd half but when your quarterback gets sacked 8 time in a half its hard to expect to win a game
Jennings with 2 hands on the ball and the ball on his chest...while tate has one hand barely on it is simultaneous possession? Don't think so man...In fact anyone arguing is obviously just trolling..
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=264620373641307&set=a.102300189873327.3257.100002800393994&type=1 (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=264620373641307&set=a.102300189873327.3257.100002800393994&type=1)
Hello, irony.
Packers debacle has Wisconsin governor supporting referees’ union
Labor unions view Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as Public Enemy No. 1 after he championed legislation stripping unions of the ability to collectively bargain, then survived a union-backed recall attempt. But after the Packers’ loss on Monday Night Football, Walker has finally found a union he supports: The NFL Referees Association.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/25/packers-debacle-has-wisconsin-governor-supporting-referees-union/
The game-ending TD could have gone either way on the field. In real time and even in replay, it appears to be a simultaneous catch; however, when you look at that still frame, it appears to be an INT.
But there are three problems with the still frame:
1) What appears to be Jennings with "possession" in the shot only lasts for a 1/10th of a second,
2) You don't see Tate's second arm which is also in contact with the ball at that point,
3) That still frame was taken 4 seconds after the players hit the ground and while they were wrestling around.
The simultaneous catch rule has no provision for who has more possession of the football. Steve Mariucci said Jennings had "90% of the football." It doesn't matter if Jennings had 99% of the football -- if two players have control, then it is a simultaneous catch.
Jennings appeared to catch the ball with two hands, but replays also show that Tate had one hand firmly on the ball the entire time. There is no rule that says you have to catch a ball with two hands. There's no rule that says you have to catch the ball using only your hands. As long as you're in bounds and the ball doesn't touch the ground, you can use any part of your or a defender's body to aid in securing the ball. In this case, Jennings and Tate were both securing the ball against Jennings' body. But again... it doesn't matter who had more of the ball or who had more hands on the ball... both Tate and Jennings made contact with the ball at the same time and both maintained control going to the ground. Simultaneous catch.
This...once again...shows that you lack an understanding of the rules. Jennings clearly had possession with two hand and pinned against his chest. Tate didn't have control if he had one hand on it, when the other had two hands first, and Tate only got his second hand on it by reaching around Jennings.
Considering that pretty much everyone but the dumbass game officials sees it this way should tell you that you are flat...out...wrong. Again.
The game-ending TD could have gone either way on the field. In real time and even in replay, it appears to be a simultaneous catch; however, when you look at that still frame, it appears to be an INT.
But there are three problems with the still frame:
1) What appears to be Jennings with "possession" in the shot only lasts for a 1/10th of a second,
2) You don't see Tate's second arm which is also in contact with the ball at that point,
3) That still frame was taken 4 seconds after the players hit the ground and while they were wrestling around.
The simultaneous catch rule has no provision for who has more possession of the football. Steve Mariucci said Jennings had "90% of the football." It doesn't matter if Jennings had 99% of the football -- if two players have control, then it is a simultaneous catch.
Jennings appeared to catch the ball with two hands, but replays also show that Tate had one hand firmly on the ball the entire time. There is no rule that says you have to catch a ball with two hands. There's no rule that says you have to catch the ball using only your hands. As long as you're in bounds and the ball doesn't touch the ground, you can use any part of your or a defender's body to aid in securing the ball. In this case, Jennings and Tate were both securing the ball against Jennings' body. But again... it doesn't matter who had more of the ball or who had more hands on the ball... both Tate and Jennings made contact with the ball at the same time and both maintained control going to the ground. Simultaneous catch.
The game officials are the only people whose opinions matter. TOUCHDOWN!
The game officials are the only people whose opinions matter. TOUCHDOWN!
This...once again...shows that you lack an understanding of the rules. Jennings clearly had possession with two hand and pinned against his chest. Tate didn't have control if he had one hand on it, when the other had two hands first, and Tate only got his second hand on it by reaching around Jennings.
Considering that pretty much everyone but the dumbass game officials sees it this way should tell you that you are flat...out...wrong. Again.
And again, you are just being flat... out... ignorant.
Please, by all means go to: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf and tell me where it says anything about "possession" in Article 3 Item 5.
You're making a poor assumption by saying a player cannot be "in control" of the football with one hand based upon another player being "in control" using two hands. Take off the blinders, and go back and watch the replays on NFL.com... every angle shows that the ball made contact with Tate's and Jennings' hands at the same time. A catch must be maintained going to the ground, and by the time both players hit the ground, both players are clearly in control of the ball.
Yes, Jennings had more of the ball than Tate had, but that doesn't matter. Both had control of the football. Simultaneous catch.
Hello, irony.
Packers debacle has Wisconsin governor supporting referees’ union
And NFL referees are made up of the 1%ers that the unions and left-wingers so despise. So what?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/25/replacement-referees-packers-seahawks/index.htmlAgain with the possession thing ::)
"As former NFL official and officiating supervisor Jim Daopoulos, now an NBC consultant, said this morning..."But look at the play...Simultaneous possession is two men catching the ball at the same time. Tate sticking hishand in there is not enough for simultaneous possession.''
NFL referees are 1%ers?
Assuming you don't mean they belong to the Hell's Angels and Outlaws, that's not close accurate. Last year's average salary = $149k. Good for part-time work, but not going to put anyone in the 1 percent.
Anyhow, it's ironic, you see, because a guy who's made minimizing, if not eliminating, unions a central tenet of his political agenda is now backing a union.
Again with the possession thing ::)
Great... you found a former official - who, mind you, has a vested interest in seeing the replacement refs embarrassed - who says it's an INT. I can find former player/official/coach quotes that say it appeared both players had control. How about we wait for the NFL's statement of explanation later today?
It's politics. He's not "backing a union" as much as he's "backing what the people want to hear."
Again with the possession thing ::)
Great... you found a former official - who, mind you, has a vested interest in seeing the replacement refs embarrassed - who says it's an INT. I can find former player/official/coach quotes that say it appeared both players had control. How about we wait for the NFL's statement of explanation later today?
Again with the possession thing ::)
Great... you found a former official - who, mind you, has a vested interest in seeing the replacement refs embarrassed - who says it's an INT. I can find former player/official/coach quotes that say it appeared both players had control. How about we wait for the NFL's statement of explanation later today?
"The NFL officiating department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling."
Benny, you're just wrong. You're reading the rule in a way that best backs your argument, but is wrong.
There wouldn't be this much outrage if you were right. If you were right the only people who would care would be the WI media and the GB fans.
It was a terrible incorrect call.
It's politics. He's not "backing a union" as much as he's "backing what the people want to hear."
Oh that is nice and so carefully crafted!!!! Never says that it was the correct call.
Signed a troll.
That call was clearly wrong and if you don't agree I think the NFL should hire you too. You'd fit right in.
It is one thing to revel in the schadenfreude, but to really think that was the right call on the field takes a level of ignorance I didn't expect to find in any legitimate sports discussion. Obvious troll is obvious.
The play was not reviewable because simultaneous possession is considered a judgment call and when it is slowed down to frame-by-frame and viewed from difference angles, it becomes obvious that an incorrect call was made. However, if you watch the play in real time (with an unbiased eye), it's easy to see why an official could view Jennings and Tate having possession of the football simultaneously, especially when you consider that the official himself was running and did not have the same angle(s) as the TV camera(s). The play happened very quickly and Tate briefly ended up on top of Jennings with both holding the football. That's what the official was basing his call on. If anything, the "outrage" should be over the fact that a play that could have been easily corrected was considered to be non-reviewable.
Simultaneous catch in the end zone is reviewable. Simultaneous catch between the goal lines is not.
The NFL issued a statement supporting the call.
So, the call was right, Packers lost because they are no good, not because of a bad call.
Deal with it.
Well, obviously.
It's funny because by playing to the masses in this instance, he's contradicting his own record when it comes to unions.
The NFL issued a statement supporting the call.
So, the call was right, Packers lost because they are no good, not because of a bad call.
Deal with it.
No they never said the call was right. They said they supported the decision not to overturn it by replay.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/63942/thoughts-interpretations-on-nfl-statement
"The statement does not say whether the NFL Officiating Department thought what happened actually qualified as a simultaneous catch. That is a critical detail. I followed up with a league spokesman, who said the NFL "could not determine whether it was correct."
Simultaneous catch in the end zone is reviewable. Simultaneous catch between the goal lines is not.
Sure enough, you're right. Gruden and Tirico said it was non-reviewable on the broadcast.
Oddly, the Titans went with the "knock it down" philosophy and got burned by it. The Packers went with the "intercept it" philosophy and got burned by it. Clearly the answer is to get your team ahead by 9+ points in the final seconds :)
Exactly. For anyone who is lamenting that the NFL or replacement officials "screwed the Packers out of a win," I submit defense Exhibit A: Failed 2-pt conversion.
The Packers should have won the game. To the extent that the Packers had other opportunities earlier in the game - heck, even less than five minutes earlier - to turn the final Seahawks drive into garbage time, the Packers did not deserve to win the game.
Exactly. For anyone who is lamenting that the NFL or replacement officials "screwed the Packers out of a win," I submit defense Exhibit A: Failed 2-pt conversion.
The Packers should have won the game. To the extent that the Packers had other opportunities earlier in the game - heck, even less than five minutes earlier - to turn the final Seahawks drive into garbage time, the Packers did not deserve to win the game.
Exactly. For anyone who is lamenting that the NFL or replacement officials "screwed the Packers out of a win," I submit defense Exhibit A: Failed 2-pt conversion.
The Packers should have won the game. To the extent that the Packers had other opportunities earlier in the game - heck, even less than five minutes earlier - to turn the final Seahawks drive into garbage time, the Packers did not deserve to win the game.
-Ruling Tate's catch a catch AND THEN reviewing and staying with that call.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Bad call.
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.
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.
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'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 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
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.