Replacement Refs

[Pakuni]

And NFL referees are made up of the 1%ers that the unions and left-wingers so despise.  So what?

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.

[Benny B]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/25/replacement-referees-packers-seahawks/index.html

"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 his

hand in there is not enough for simultaneous possession.''

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?

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

It's politics. He's not "backing a union" as much as he's "backing what the people want to hear."

[Hards Alumni]

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?

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It's politics. He's not "backing a union" as much as he's "backing what the people want to hear."

Bingo.

Just like wearing a jersey, or waving a "terrible towel" etc.

[robmufan]

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."

[GGGG]

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?

Right...cause the NFL has no "vested interest."  Please.

[GGGG]

"The NFL officiating department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling."

Oh that is nice and so carefully crafted!!!!  Never says that it was the correct call.

[Benny B]

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.

Frankly, the call that I've not yet seen to be disputed by anyone -the missed PI on Tate - is what we should be railing on right now, but the disputed TD call makes for better controversy because that's what supposedly could/should have been overturned.  Even if Tate caught the ball cleanly - regardless of whether PI was called or not - there would be no national debate this morning.  That's why we're discussing the TD-INT call rather than the blatantly incorrect no-call that should have been made which would have rendered the catch & replay moot.

The Packers should have won the game.  Not even the Bears fans are disputing that.  But I think it's a major fail to be arguing the point that has the most dramatic value rather than the point that has the most merit.

[Pakuni]

It's politics. He's not "backing a union" as much as he's "backing what the people want to hear."

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.
This is like former lifelong Cubs fan Hillary Clinton tossing on a Yankees cap when she was running for the senate in New York and declaring herself a lifelong Yankees fan.

[Benny B]

Oh that is nice and so carefully crafted!!!!  Never says that it was the correct call.

Welcome to today's edition of "Shoot the Messenger."

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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 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.

[Benny B]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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 

[Hards Alumni]

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.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--seahawks-rb-marshawn-lynch-stunned-at-replay-of-controversial-final-play-monday-night.html

The call was stood by.  That has nothing to do with it being right or wrong.

I get it, you aren't a Packer fan.

I suppose that Rodney King didn't get beaten by those cops since the jury said so.

[Spotcheck Billy]

I had a more difficult time accepting the PI call on Shields when Rice first grabbed his shoulder with one hand and then let go and grabbed his facemask with his left hand, that was a truly WTF! moment IMO.

[MUfan12]

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.

Please fill me in on his record with private sector unions, like the referees.

[GGGG]

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."

[MerrittsMustache]

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."

There's a fine line between "innocent" and "not guilty."

[jesmu84]

Simultaneous catch in the end zone is reviewable.  Simultaneous catch between the goal lines is not.

Gerry Austin (former ref) said last night that simultaneous catch is not reviewable to determine if it was simultaneous vs. touchdown/interception. It is only reviewable to determine if it was a completion.

[Benny B]

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.

[LON]

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.

The conversion attempt was a horrible throw...but Rodgers also said they gave him a kicking ball.  I'm sure that didn't help things.

[QuetteHoops]

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.

Yeah...they should have won it with an interception with 3 minutes left that got overturned by a phantom roughing the passer call...they had them 1st and 25 and then a phantom PI call. I don't know how you can possibly say they didn't deserve to win the game. They were shutout at halftime and vastly outplayed the Seahawks in the second half.  The fact of the matter is the Packers were on the road in the loudest outdoor stadium in the league against a good team and they got screwed. The margin for error in the NFL is so small, the Packers made the plays they needed to win the game and the refs threw it away...

[mu03eng]

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.

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.