NFL Week 3 LD - Featuring A Rematch Of Last Seasons AFC Championship Game

[Slyfox696]

Now it's the officials' fault that gamblers lost money.

This is just becoming ridiculous.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

That's just false. He may not have had the same level of possession but he still had possesion. If he didn't have ANY possession, then how did he keep his hand on the ball the entire time?

Finally, are you telling me that when you saw it live, you knew who caught the ball?

He had a hand on the ball if that. When someone catches the ball with one hand they still pull the ball to their body. Tate had no chance of doing that and yes I knew right away it was an interception. Tate had NO control therefore NO possession. It's kind of easy to keep a hand close to or touching the ball considering Jennings landed on top of him.

 

[Slyfox696]

I also think it's funny that the fact replacement officials are ONLY the fault of the league, and not the officials who are also not agreeing to a deal.

 

[Slyfox696]

He had a hand on the ball if that. When someone catches the ball with one hand they still pull the ball to their body. Tate had no chance of doing that

Because he was jumping backwards and falling while catching the ball with one hand, while Jennings is jumping up or even forward with two hands on the ball.

That's a silly comment.

and yes I knew right away it was an interception. Tate had NO control therefore NO possession.

I don't believe you for a second, unless you're a Packers fan. I watched that play happen live on my 61" TV, and I had no idea what happened even after watching it once on replay.

You might have THOUGHT it was an interception, but you cannot say you KNEW it was an interception. You're losing credibility with me when you say things like that.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Because he was jumping backwards and falling while catching the ball with one hand, while Jennings is jumping up or even forward with two hands on the ball.

That's a silly comment.




I don't believe you for a second, unless you're a Packers fan. I watched that play happen live on my 61" TV, and I had no idea what happened even after watching it once on replay.

You might have THOUGHT it was an interception, but you cannot say you KNEW it was an interception. You're losing credibility with me when you say things like that.

I'm actually a Ravens fan but that's beside the point. Jennings still had possession while Tate tried to get the ball from Jennings. You're right in I wasn't sure when I saw the play but after the review I was 99.99999999% sure it was an interception. But to have possession you have to have control and Tate did not have control.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Skip Bayless was a bit over the top, but he's completely right.

Listen to what you are saying.

 

[justinsayne]

I think the fact that the Packers D allowed Russel Wilson so much time to run around in the backfield before taking a shot is about as pathetic as the missed OPI call, & the TD/INT debacle. How the fuck do you allow a fucking rookie QB to run around for that long & not even touch him when the game is on the line?!

 

[Slyfox696]

You're right in I wasn't sure when I saw the play

And that's exactly the point. It was VERY difficult, if not impossible, to determine for sure who had possession live, and we both know simultaneous possession goes to the offense. The officials HAD to make a call (though, there should have been a conference first), and the official who was closest to the play and had the best view called touchdown. Once that call was made, you CANNOT, by NFL rules, review who had possession first.

All of this rage against the replacement officials is being blown way out of proportion, because it didn't matter who the officials were, this call is probably the call that would have been made. The only reason this call is being made to be SUCH a huge deal is because it's replacement officials.

Did Jennings have greater possession of the ball? Yes, but I'm still not convinced you can say Tate didn't maintain partial possession. But even if you wish to claim Tate didn't, you CANNOT claim Tate did not have a hand on the ball, because he clearly did. And at that point, it's a nearly instantaneous call for the officials to make, a call even you said you honestly could not tell from your living room, and to continue to be so incensed by this just seems silly to me.

That call in no way affected the reputation of the NFL, and for those saying it did, they are wrong. There are PLENTY of other calls the officials made which did affect the reputation, but this is simply not one of them, even if (after multiple replays) you think the call was wrong.

 

[shattered dreams]

It'll be interesting to see the NFL's statement on this situation.

I doubt they will say much about the parts that really matter. They may acknowledge the missed pass interference but I doubt they will say anything about the interception. What I would love to know is why we can't review who caught a ball but we can review if a ball was caught. Talk about something that doesn't make much sense.

But let's face it. All of the media who are talking about it this morning are blowing this call WAAAY out of proportion. Don't get me wrong, there are many things to criticize the officials about, but this really isn't one of them.

Not sure I agree here. Is it a tough call to make live, yes. Does that excuse missing it? Not really. If you make a mistake at work you get criticized for it even if it was in a tough situation. The refs get paid to be in these tough situations, I see no problem with holding them accountable for that. I also don't really understand the idea that we should dismiss the pass interference just because. If the ref saw it he should have thrown a late flag on it when he saw how much it effected the play. You try not to make those calls at the end of a game but when they are that obvious you have to. Fact is the refs blatantly missed one call and seemed to botch another one on the play that decided the game. I'd say the reaction is matching of such a thing happening. How much better they could have been expected to realistically do isn't the issue here.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

It's not a catch until you get two feet on the ground.

Having one arm around the ball and two feet on the ground is a catch.

At worst that is simultaneous possession.

They missed the PI but that's a Tate TD.

No, it isn't, him wrapping his arm around the ball after Jennings made contact with it first, despite the fact that they both maintained possession is not a simultaneous catch. If it had been simultaneous it would have been a touchdown, but Tate had to try and take it from Jennings. In real-time, I can see they they ruled it as such, but saying it is after reviewing is wrong. I can't see how they missed Tate's PI but I'll overlook it just like they did.

Not that it can be overturned anyway.

And just for the record, I think the normal officials would have made the same call. The exact same call.

 

[jmt225]

I also think it's funny that the fact replacement officials are ONLY the fault of the league, and not the officials who are also not agreeing to a deal.

The league's trying to cut the refs pension in half, so people understand why they're pissed and refuse to make a deal when the NFL is doing what so many companies seem to be doing, which is robbing their employees of retirement money that they were promised when they first started the job.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The league's trying to cut the refs pension in half, so people understand why they're pissed and refuse to make a deal when the NFL is doing what so many companies seem to be doing, which is robbing their employees of retirement money that they were promised when they first started the job.

Not true. The league offered that the current refs could keep their DB plan and only new refs would get the DC plan. The refs balked. Noble but stupid.

NFL refs do very well. They are welcome to go anywhere else and do part-time work and get paid six figures with benefits. This is refereeing, it may be awful now, but it has always been bad and the replacement refs will go from awful to bad probably by mid year.

 

[Slyfox696]

I doubt they will say much about the parts that really matter. They may acknowledge the missed pass interference but I doubt they will say anything about the interception. What I would love to know is why we can't review who caught a ball but we can review if a ball was caught. Talk about something that doesn't make much sense.

They basically said what we've been saying; once the call was made, the replay official cannot overturn it, but that the pass interference on Tate should have been called.

Not sure I agree here. Is it a tough call to make live, yes. Does that excuse missing it? Not really.

It does in the same way an umpire calls a ball a strike or a basketball official misses a handcheck. It may not have been right, but it's hardly something a reasonable person would take such great offense to, even if it was the game changer.

They are humans, and the guy in the best position made the call he thought was correct. Many people believe it was the wrong call, but the play happened in the course of a fraction of a second, and to be mad because in that fraction of a second he missed something seems silly to me.

If the ref saw it he should have thrown a late flag on it when he saw how much it effected the play.

He probably didn't notice it. He was most likely watching the ball, as officials of all sports tend to do, even if they are taught not to.

How much better they could have been expected to realistically do isn't the issue here.

Well it should be. Is winning really so important to lose sight of the fact this guy is a human being doing the very best job he can with very limited experience, making a call on a play that happened within a fraction of a second, making a call many people agree would have been made by any official, regular or replacement?

Like I said, there are plenty of things you can criticize, but I think the end of the game call is not one of them. Americans need to get over this obsession they have with winning at everything. Despite popular belief, sports is not about winning, nor should it be.

The league's trying to cut the refs pension in half, so people understand why they're pissed and refuse to make a deal when the NFL is doing what so many companies seem to be doing, which is robbing their employees of retirement money that they were promised when they first started the job.

And the NFL is also trying to get full-time refs, which the referee union is blocking. The NFL is trying to get accountability in officiating by having more officials prepared, which the union is blocking. The NFL is trying to make the officials better, which the union is blocking. And let's not even get into the $150,000 a year they make for their part-time job.

The problem exists on both sides.

Not true. The league offered that the current refs could keep their DB plan and only new refs would get the DC plan. The refs balked. Noble but stupid.

I thought that was what the union was offering, and the league balked???

NFL refs do very well. They are welcome to go anywhere else and do part-time work and get paid six figures with benefits. This is refereeing, it may be awful now, but it has always been bad and the replacement refs will go from awful to bad probably by mid year.

What I think is funny is how bad the regular officials were always considered. It's almost like people just want to bitch about the referees, no matter what.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I think the fact that the Packers D allowed Russel Wilson so much time to run around in the backfield before taking a shot is about as pathetic as the missed OPI call, & the TD/INT debacle. How the fuck do you allow a fucking rookie QB to run around for that long & not even touch him when the game is on the line?!

How does it happen?
1. Russel Wilson is a decent QB, who has a lot of mobility (mobility is the most important thing here, he was able to run around away from the D-Linemen)
2. The packers rushed 3, and the Seahawks had 6 blockers (5 linemen and a back). That means there was a double team for each rusher. The Hawks damn well better have blocked for at least 5 seconds.


The play itself is a very close play, and it's arguable that it could have gone either way. The problem with the replacements is that they didn't follow the protocol for coming up with a definitive ruling.

The referee is supposed to discuss the play with the 2 officials who made the call (replacement ref didn't do this), come up with and announce a clear ruling on the field prior to going to replay (they didn't do this either), then review the play and make a final ruling (this happened, but the other things needed to happen first).

Regular refs don't get every call perfect (they're human, all humans make mistakes, and there's only 7 refs to watch 22 players), but they always follow the proper protocol, and they are the best in the world at what they do.

 

[Stormtrooper]

What I think is funny is how bad the regular officials were always considered. It's almost like people just want to bitch about the referees, no matter what.

This is 100% fact. Everyone spends all season every year bitching about the referees sucking and wanting new refs. Well now that they have new refs they should realize that the NFL refs are the best in the world at what they do.

When this is over, and Ed Hochuli comes out on the field, he damn well better get a standing ovation, and the fans should shed a tear of joy every time he reads War And Peace... I mean announce a penalty.

 

[Megatron]

These refs just trolled the Packers. I tip my hat to them.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I thought that was what the union was offering, and the league balked???

I apologize, this is correct. I need to spend less time doing work at work and more time reading articles on trivial matters more carefully.

That being said, it doesn't make any sense for any company to give part-time highly compensated employees who stick around too long a defined benefit pension plan.

What I think is funny is how bad the regular officials were always considered. It's almost like people just want to bitch about the referees, no matter what.

Like I said somewhere else. Give these official a few more weeks and they will go from horrible to just as bad as the regular referees. Football officiating isn't exactly rocket science. It takes some time for a whole new crew to learn and get accustomed but they will get there.

 

[shattered dreams]

They are humans, and the guy in the best position made the call he thought was correct. Many people believe it was the wrong call, but the play happened in the course of a fraction of a second, and to be mad because in that fraction of a second he missed something seems silly to me.

He probably didn't notice it. He was most likely watching the ball, as officials of all sports tend to do, even if they are taught not to.

The official overlooked several things that he shouldn't have, was oblivious to the blatant PI and the crew didn't even discuss the conflicting calls. Chalking this up to no errors other than a split second judgment is inaccurate IMO. Even you seem to suspect he made procedural errors before that split second decision.

Well it should be. Is winning really so important to lose sight of the fact this guy is a human being doing the very best job he can with very limited experience, making a call on a play that happened within a fraction of a second, making a call many people agree would have been made by any official, regular or replacement?

Many people disagree that any official would have made the same call, count myself one of them. Isn't the question of how much experience the officials have the conversation topic you have been saying should be avoided? No one is going after this guy, they are going against the inexperienced officials. It does matter if officials get the calls right. If it doesn't matter when they miss calls then there is no point of having them in the first place. It is a tough job but they get compensated pretty well for it.

Like I said, there are plenty of things you can criticize, but I think the end of the game call is not one of them. Americans need to get over this obsession they have with winning at everything. Despite popular belief, sports is not about winning, nor should it be.

Sports in general, no, professional sports, yes. It is a business and at the end of the day winning makes money.

 

[Slyfox696]

The official overlooked several things that he shouldn't have, was oblivious to the blatant PI and the crew didn't even discuss the conflicting calls. Chalking this up to no errors other than a split second judgment is inaccurate IMO. Even you seem to suspect he made procedural errors before that split second decision.

I do agree with the missed PI and the fact there was no conference. But that's not what people are upset about.

Many people disagree that any official would have made the same call, count myself one of them. Isn't the question of how much experience the officials have the conversation topic you have been saying should be avoided? No one is going after this guy, they are going against the inexperienced officials. It does matter if officials get the calls right. If it doesn't matter when they miss calls then there is no point of having them in the first place. It is a tough job but they get compensated pretty well for it.

The point I was making there is that all of this outrage just seems silly to me. People cussing, throwing temper tantrums, acting like a bunch of babies...and for what? Because the referee made a call that you (figurative, not literal) would have made different? And that's justification for the way people are acting?

At the end of the day, if all of these people cannot handle sports any better than this, then I think we need to seriously re-evaluate ourselves as a society. It's great to get wrapped up in, it's fun to be involved and cheer your heart out. There's no problem with taunting or pouting after a game (within reason, of course)...but this? This is borderline ridiculous, all because of a call that can't even be definitively classified as wrong. Many/most people think it was wrong, but there are people who don't think it was. I heard John Clayton just a little while ago say that, while he thinks it is wrong, there's certainly an argument that can be made for the call being right.

All of these "adults" need to grow up and calm down a little. As I mentioned in the "Packers got screwed" thread in the Sports Stadium, it's not like the referees were to blame for the 8 first half sacks the Packers gave up, or the first down they couldn't get at the end of the game, etc.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Sports in general, no, professional sports, yes. It is a business and at the end of the day winning makes money.

And the only people affected, as far as the business end goes, are the 55 players and however many coaches that were on the Packer's official payroll last night. Everyone else needs to take a couple of deep breaths, and realize just how ridiculous they are being.

 

[shattered dreams]

Are you really just realizing that sports is out of control?

I do agree with the missed PI and the fact there was no conference. But that's not what people are upset about.

People seem pretty upset about the missed PI. Generally they are upset the Seahwaks won the game on a play they shouldn't have, doing these things correctly may have led to that not happening.

All of these "adults" need to grow up and calm down a little. As I mentioned in the "Packers got screwed" thread in the Sports Stadium, it's not like the referees were to blame for the 8 first half sacks the Packers gave up, or the first down they couldn't get at the end of the game, etc.

I have never been a fan of such thinking. Yes, a team could have preserved in spite of bad officiating but that doesn't take away their right to be mad about clearly blown calls. You try not to put yourself in that situation but that isn't an excuse. The fact is that in spite of the sacks and whatever else they would have won if the official got that play at the end correct. Changing the discussion to anything else is making excuses for the officials. I don't see why we would do that.

Generally speaking I don't see much of this overreaction you keep speaking of. Swearing is hardly something all that bad and I haven't heard about death threats or anything like that. Sports may not be that important in the scheme of things but many people have become emotionally invested in it and I don't think there is anything especially terrible about that.

And the only people affected, as far as the business end goes, are the 55 players and however many coaches that were on the Packer's official payroll last night. Everyone else needs to take a couple of deep breaths, and realize just how ridiculous they are being.

What are they doing that is so ridiculous? Not immediately letting someone off the hook for blowing a call? In many ways accountability is a fairly adult concept. Most of the overriding issues with the replacements is about much more than this one issue. This was just the most dramatic example of many before it. They clearly don't have some of the essential game management stuff down and that is leading to a lot of problems. I just don't see why we are saying you have to be apathetic to be adult.

 

[Slyfox696]

Are you really just realizing that sports is out of control?

No, I've known it for many years. As someone who has coached from the day he graduated high school (not to mention refereed while in high school), I know it all too well.

People seem pretty upset about the missed PI. Generally they are upset the Seahwaks won the game on a play they shouldn't have, doing these things correctly may have led to that not happening.

The pass interference seems more like an afterthought.

I have never been a fan of such thinking. Yes, a team could have preserved in spite of bad officiating but that doesn't take away their right to be mad about clearly blown calls. You try not to put yourself in that situation but that isn't an excuse. The fact is that in spite of the sacks and whatever else they would have won if the official got that play at the end correct. Changing the discussion to anything else is making excuses for the officials. I don't see why we would do that.

But then using that same logic, the Packers should never have been in the game, thanks to the phantom pass interference call they made on the Seahawks.

That's why as I get older, it gets harder for me to blame officials/referees for the result of a game. More often than not, these type of things balance out, especially over the course of a season. I still get upset sometimes, obviously, but it's rare for me to say the officials were the reason a team lost.

Generally speaking I don't see much of this overreaction you keep speaking of.

You must not have watched ESPN this morning. Or listened to it on the radio. Or read the ESPN.com article comments. Or the CNN comments. Heard Jon Gruden last night. Or listen to Cris Carter today.

Sports may not be that important in the scheme of things but many people have become emotionally invested in it and I don't think there is anything especially terrible about that.

It's not, as long as you understand it's just a game.

What are they doing that is so ridiculous?

Acting as if what happened last night was an affront to all mankind.

In many ways accountability is a fairly adult concept.

Accountability goes in more than one direction though.

I just don't see why we are saying you have to be apathetic to be adult.

I'm not advocating apathy, I'm advocating perspective.

 

[shattered dreams]

No, I've known it for many years. As someone who has coached from the day he graduated high school (not to mention refereed while in high school), I know it all too well.

It is sad what sports transforms into from your youth into adulthood.

The pass interference seems more like an afterthought.

I don't think so, it just isn't something there is much more to say about.

But then using that same logic, the Packers should never have been in the game, thanks to the phantom pass interference call they made on the Seahawks.

That's why as I get older, it gets harder for me to blame officials/referees for the result of a game. More often than not, these type of things balance out, especially over the course of a season. I still get upset sometimes, obviously, but it's rare for me to say the officials were the reason a team lost.

It is rare to lose only because of the refs, it is a lot less rare to have the game made harder to win by the refs. So I guess I agree with you to an extent but I think you are interpreting some peoples words too literally. I disagree with the balance statement in the course of a game. Sometimes, sure. I didn't watch this game so I don't know the specifics but generally speaking plenty of times there is only one really bad call that effects the outcome. I am not sure the NFL sample size is large enough to correct itself in a season. Do you really think, for example, GB is going to win a game on a similar play in the next 13 games?

You must not have watched ESPN this morning. Or listened to it on the radio. Or read the ESPN.com article comments. Or the CNN comments. Heard Jon Gruden last night. Or listen to Cris Carter today.

Yep. I am a little curious why you did if you are so sick of hearing about it. I get tuning in to certain things you might normally do but reading internet comments from multiple sources

Acting as if what happened last night was an affront to all mankind.

Why do you get to use hyperbole if they can't?

I'm not advocating apathy, I'm advocating perspective.

You are advocating perspective that leads to an apathetic approach to the situation. I find it hard to categorize it as perspective when you are really only interested in them taking a specific perspective that happens to match your own.

My advice, turn the TV off if you are tired of blowhards and don't read internet comments if you are tired of stupid people.

 

[Slyfox696]

It is sad what sports transforms into from your youth into adulthood.

If you're able to make it out of your youth these days, you're lucky.

It is rare to lose only because of the refs, it is a lot less rare to have the game made harder to win by the refs. So I guess I agree with you to an extent but I think you are interpreting some peoples words too literally. I disagree with the balance statement in the course of a game. Sometimes, sure. I didn't watch this game so I don't know the specifics but generally speaking plenty of times there is only one really bad call that effects the outcome. I am not sure the NFL sample size is large enough to correct itself in a season. Do you really think, for example, GB is going to win a game on a similar play in the next 13 games?

Seattle fans would argue the last play of the game WAS the balance, after the phantom pass interference that led to the GB touchdown.

I've been watching sports for a long time, as I'm sure you have. I think you're just as aware that these things even out, whether it's in game, or over the course of a season.

Yep. I am a little curious why you did if you are so sick of hearing about it. I get tuning in to certain things you might normally do but reading internet comments from multiple sources

I didn't really.

It's a long story, but I ended up with a TV in my classroom, so today is the first time I've listened to Mike and Mike in the morning since the summer (with the exception of my very short drive to work). And they were talking about it nonstop (even Snoop Dogg, their guest, was talking about it). And then the show with Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith came on, and I had to turn it off, because I was sick of listening to it. Then I read the NFL's official statement on the situation (because I WAS interested in that), and there were comments on that article, and I thought it was curious CNN.com was covering it, so I just glanced at the article, which led to the comments.

Every place I turned there was overreaction. People were saying the NFL has no credibility now, that this was the worst call ever, that the Packers were the rightful winners...Stephen A. Smith made it seem as if he was trying to fight back the anger which comes when you confront someone who killed a member of your family. It was ridiculous.

Why do you get to use hyperbole if they can't?

Because you asked for it?

You are advocating perspective that leads to an apathetic approach to the situation.

Not at all. I already said it's okay to be enthusiastic about sports. But what I'm also saying is that you have to keep that enthusiasm in perspective. So many people, whether it's media or "regular" people, seem to have lost that perspective, and appear as if they are personally offended by what happened.

I find it hard to categorize it as perspective when you are really only interested in them taking a specific perspective that happens to match your own.

I'm interested in them taking the perspective that sports are not a win at all costs endeavor. Sports are not live or die. Sports are fun, they are not the lifeline to human existence.

My advice, turn the TV off if you are tired of blowhards

I did.

and don't read internet comments if you are tired of stupid people.

I'm trying not to, but it seems as if I just can't avoid you.


Sorry, you lobbed that one right over the plate. Even last night's officials couldn't have missed that one. Hell, even Mike Trout could have hit that one out of the park.

 

[shattered dreams]

The end of that post is much more interesting and well put together than anything either of us have posted on this topic in a while.

 

[Big Sexy]

People need to stop acting like this is the worst call ever. The replacement officials are shit and we need the regular refs back but there have been plenty of more controversial calls on bigger stages. The Immaculate Reception, Music City Miracle, 1979 AFC Championship Game where there was a clear fumble that wasn't called, the 2002 playoff game between the 49ers and the Giants.