Fan in Chicago Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) I don't recall this level of outrage in the playoffs last season... http://content.usato.../1#.UGGv5K5cYik The best part about the replacement refs is that it doesn't seem like the "golden" teams are getting every single call anymore. There are bad calls being made, sure - but that's ALWAYS been a part of the game. This time though, every team is getting some calls going their way, and not just the Packers, Patriots, etc. Seems more fair to me. I have heard this argument several times now that 'even the regular refs get some calls wrong'. But, close the commentators out for a minute and think if you have seen so many questionable calls in the three weeks we have witnessed ? To me, several games I have watched gave me the 'why and what are they flagging' moments. Last night, on the last drive itself there was an earlier phantom holding call that negated a GB INT. These are game deciding calls unlike the ones in the Pack-Giants game last year. DOes not make the officiating in that game correct but justice could be seen as being served as the Giants won. Last night there were several questionable calls, the refs appeared unsure of themselves many time (calling illegal block on #25 of the kicking team and then saying #25 of the receiving team when in fact there was no #25 on the receiving team). I realize you think it was a correct call, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I have written why in another thread but this was not simultaneous possession. Looks like even players are twitting their disagreement over the call: Edited September 25, 2012 by Fan in Chicago
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 The only thing simultaneous was that both refs signaled contradictory signals at the same time while looking at the ground and without communicating. If there was ever a moment that screamed, we are not pros at this job...
Fezmid Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 (calling illegal block on #25 of the kicking team and then saying #25 of the receiving team when in fact there was no #25 on the receiving team). The "real" refs have been doing that since the beginning of time. I'm honestly not seeing many more "strange" calls than with the "real" refs, although the announcers like to make it sound like every call is wrong and that this never happened before. But I know I've seen refs signal the wrong team has had penalties, have called "offsides" on the offense (no such thing), and we all know they've made mistakes on possession, fumbles, penalties, etc, etc, etc. It's just magnified here because everyone's yelling about everything (including how a late hit isn't really a penalty unless there was intent to injure. ) The only thing simultaneous was that both refs signaled contradictory signals at the same time while looking at the ground and without communicating. If there was ever a moment that screamed, we are not pros at this job... Seriously, you've never seen that happen with the so-called "pros???"
NoSaint Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Wow, that makes a HUGE difference. Peter King is an idiot, whose hyperbole is only designed to stir up more 'controversy'. Naturally, you dive right in head first to swallow it whole. every professional that i have seen weigh in on this, has disagreed with you. i mention one of their tweets that pops up, in the moment that we are discussing this, and thats what i get? The "real" refs have been doing that since the beginning of time. I'm honestly not seeing many more "strange" calls than with the "real" refs, although the announcers like to make it sound like every call is wrong and that this never happened before. But I know I've seen refs signal the wrong team has had penalties, have called "offsides" on the offense (no such thing), and we all know they've made mistakes on possession, fumbles, penalties, etc, etc, etc. It's just magnified here because everyone's yelling about everything (including how a late hit isn't really a penalty unless there was intent to injure. ) Seriously, you've never seen that happen with the so-called "pros???" mistakes do happen with regulars - mistakes are happening a lot more often right now. the roughing call was wrong (but the announcers justify it made up for the wrong call the drive before), the PI was wrong, the call on this was wrong - and more importantly, as it was a tough bang bang play, and they may not have had good angles - the process to make the call was wrong. I have heard this argument several times now that 'even the regular refs get some calls wrong'. But, close the commentators out for a minute and think if you have seen so many questionable calls in the three weeks we have witnessed ? To me, several games I have watched gave me the 'why and what are they flagging' moments. Last night, on the last drive itself there was an earlier phantom holding call that negated a GB INT. These are game deciding calls unlike the ones in the Pack-Giants game last year. DOes not make the officiating in that game correct but justice could be seen as being served as the Giants won. Last night there were several questionable calls, the refs appeared unsure of themselves many time (calling illegal block on #25 of the kicking team and then saying #25 of the receiving team when in fact there was no #25 on the receiving team). I realize you think it was a correct call, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I have written why in another thread but this was not simultaneous possession. Looks like even players are twitting their disagreement over the call: with the 25 incident - i wont argue that as shameful - he misheard the call from the official that told him. he was just repeating what he thought he was told. the problem is this weekend alone we had this meltdown at the end of the game (entire last 5 minutes), 49ers getting extra challenges, the refs giving 12 yards on the overtime drive in the detroit game (marking the ball at the wrong 44 yard line).... and thats just late potentially game changing plays this week. thats not counting all the just generally poorly run games. right now an average game from these crews is looking like a noteworthy bad game from the regulars. Edited September 25, 2012 by NoSaint
zow2 Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Terrible call. The rule states that it is not simultanous possession when one player catches the ball and it is wrestled away on the ground. Tate had one arm on the ball, the Packers guy had both arms around it and completed the catch,,,then had it wrestled. Ball goes to GB...not to mention it was pass interference on Tate before that, and they got a gift roughing the passer call on Wilson earlier that would've ended the game on an INT. But anyone who says it's a conspiracy is full of BS. If there were, it would have been in favor of Green Bay. They are Americas team. No one cares about Seattle.
Max997 Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Jennings made a mistake though catching it in the first place. Should have batted it down. I think that's what they're coached to do in that situation to avoid something like this Good point
BuffOrange Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I don't recall this level of outrage in the playoffs last season... http://content.usato.../1#.UGGv5K5cYik The best part about the replacement refs is that it doesn't seem like the "golden" teams are getting every single call anymore. There are bad calls being made, sure - but that's ALWAYS been a part of the game. This time though, every team is getting some calls going their way, and not just the Packers, Patriots, etc. Seems more fair to me. Maybe that's a coincidence but I'd by lying if I didn't admit that crossed my mind too. GB is maybe the only 'golden' team I sort of like but they have gotten a lot of calls in recent years. Seeing NE get hosed was great. These are game deciding calls unlike the ones in the Pack-Giants game last year. DOes not make the officiating in that game correct but justice could be seen as being served as the Giants won. This is a very arbitrary distinction. Bill Leavy (who btw did impact the outcome of that Pittsburgh-Seattle SB) gets a pass because the Packers weren't able to make a game of it in the 4th qtr? Obviously that explains the lack of outrage, but the fact that call didn't decide a game between two fairly even teams is 100% luck and has nothing to do with the refs not being replacements. Obviously a clear int though. Impossible to believe anyone thinks otherwise.
zow2 Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Jennings made a mistake though catching it in the first place. Should have batted it down. I think that's what they're coached to do in that situation to avoid something like this Too many examples in pro and college over the past few years of the batted down ball landing in the arms of your opponent and scoring. Players are getting into position for the batted ball. It may have been a good play here but i can see why a defender may not automatically try to bat it down. It just happened this weekend in the Detroit /Tenn game. Det caught the batted down ball for a hail mary TD.
NoSaint Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Too many examples in pro and college over the past few years of the batted down ball landing in the arms of your opponent and scoring. Players are getting into position for the batted ball. It may have been a good play here but i can see why a defender may not automatically try to bat it down. It just happened this weekend in the Detroit /Tenn game. Det caught the batted down ball for a hail mary TD. and with jennings going over the back of tate, if he sends the ball down, it very well may be down into tates falling body. its not an exact science but the biggest thing for a cb is to control where the ball goes and in this case he controlled it very effectively still. i cant kill him for making a play here.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Seriously, you've never seen that happen with the so-called "pros???" I have. But then, I've seen them try to get it straightened out with the ref taking charge of the situation.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 PFT had an interesting little blurb I just read, which states the call could have been reversed according to the official NFL rules despite the possession rule. It will be interesting to see what the NFL says about it later today, although I fully expect them to avoid any kind of definitive answer. Make no mistake about it. This one could have been overturned. Rule 15, Section 9 makes the question of whether a pass was “ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted” subject to replay review, with no exception for questions of simultaneous possession. Yeah, we know the ESPN call says simultaneous possession can’t be reviewed by replay. We disagree. If it wasn’t reviewable by replay, it wouldn’t have been reviewed by replay. It was, so it is. (The only aspect that isn’t reviewable is the question of whether Seahawks receiver Golden Tate pushed off before jumping, because pass interference is a judgment call.) I don't know enough about the first part of the explanation, but it seems very reasonable that this rule supercedes the "possession" rule that cannot be reviewed. I don't agree with PFT's second point however about the fact that since it was reviewed it can be reversed. They would have to review it to see if the players were in bounds.
erynthered Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 NFL supports decision on TD. http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/n-f-l-supports-decision-not-to-overturn-winning-touchdown/
Matt in KC Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 NFL supports decision on TD. http://fifthdown.blo...ning-touchdown/ Actually, it does NOT say they support the decision to give them a TD, just that they support the decision to not overturn the call on review.
GG Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 PFT had an interesting little blurb I just read, which states the call could have been reversed according to the official NFL rules despite the possession rule. It will be interesting to see what the NFL says about it later today, although I fully expect them to avoid any kind of definitive answer. I don't know enough about the first part of the explanation, but it seems very reasonable that this rule supercedes the "possession" rule that cannot be reviewed. I don't agree with PFT's second point however about the fact that since it was reviewed it can be reversed. They would have to review it to see if the players were in bounds. And as per NFL, possession is reviewable for endzone plays, but not on the field plays.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 And as per NFL, possession is reviewable for endzone plays, but not on the field plays. I just read the NFL statement. It was very cleverly worded. I think they know the call was wrong, they are just defending the official who made the wrong call. And I agree, reluctantly, that there was not sufficient evidence under the strict rules of Replay to overturn it. Surely under the spirit of the rules you could have overturned it. I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever it was an INT. But on all the replays, there was not one single look where you can clearly see the ball and who had it. Deductive reasoning, from the several angles, could make you know with 100% certainty that Jennings had the ball. But there was not a shot that actually showed it with that 100% certainty. So by the letter of the rule, they could not overturn it. I think that rule needs to be tweaked a little to cover plays like this where the official could know something was absolutely true without actually seeing it.
GG Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I just read the NFL statement. It was very cleverly worded. I think they know the call was wrong, they are just defending the official who made the wrong call. And I agree, reluctantly, that there was not sufficient evidence under the strict rules of Replay to overturn it. Surely under the spirit of the rules you could have overturned it. I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever it was an INT. But on all the replays, there was not one single look where you can clearly see the ball and who had it. Deductive reasoning, from the several angles, could make you know with 100% certainty that Jennings had the ball. But there was not a shot that actually showed it with that 100% certainty. So by the letter of the rule, they could not overturn it. I think that rule needs to be tweaked a little to cover plays like this where the official could know something was absolutely true without actually seeing it. Reminds me of a Sabres replay a few years back. You never saw the puck cross the goal lines, but it was physically impossible for it not to have been a goal from where it was in the goalie's glove. Right call was made at that time, even though there was no direct visual evidence.
blzrul Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I distinctly recall the Bills losing a game to New England on a phantom "interference" call on a hail Mary...gave the Pats the ball on the 1 with another play. At the time the discussion entailed "well unless they mug each other, on a Hail Mary they don't call interference". Tate was wholesale mugging Jenkins, and Jenkins STILL came down with the INT and was down when Tate wrestled it away while the refs no doubt were wondering what to do. Initially I thought that the replacements were doing ok, they were letting the guys play, but it seems like someone got to them about it and they've swung to the other extreme, going flag-crazy. Last night was pretty much IT though - the replacements' authority, whatever they had, is now completely undermined and every call suspect from now on.
bladiebla Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Tate was wholesale mugging Jenkins, and Jenkins STILL came down with the INT and was down when Tate wrestled it away while the refs no doubt were wondering what to do. Actually, you are wrong, Tate had both hands on the ball together with Jennings before they went down see screenshots I posted in this thread:http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/150483-stop-complaining-about-the-replacement-refs/page__st__220?do=findComment&comment=2576374 There is a solid argument to be made about the moment of gaining control though, I think there is something to say for Jennings having control (not possesion mind you) first which then changes the rules which need to be applied which would come to an outcome of it being an interception I believe.
Fezmid Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 There is a solid argument to be made about the moment of gaining control though, I think there is something to say for Jennings having control (not possesion mind you) first which then changes the rules which need to be applied which would come to an outcome of it being an interception I believe. The "problem" is that the term "control" is not really defined anywhere - it's ambiguous. At least the player touched it, unlike Testaverde who scored a phantom touchdown because his helmet crossed the goalline... Oh yeah, Seattle lost that game.
Recommended Posts