NFL continuing to stand firm on key issues with officials

[ChrisPozz]

Despite debacle, NFL remains dug in | ProFootballTalk

 

[NinerSickness]

"Second, the pension issue continues to prevent an agreement. The league wants to change from a defined-benefit pension plan to a defined-contribution system."

Sound familiar Bemular?

By the way, I hadn't read a single article about the dispute between the ref's and the NFL before my other post; just posts here on the Hoop.

 

[Flyingiguana]

i'll manage the defined benefit plan and the league will walk away with millions is profit...

 

[zman1527]

But the NFL doesn’t want to make real concessions. The NFL never wants to make real concessions. That’s fine, but the NFL can’t then pretend that everything is fine.

As King writes, “Ihe NFL is willing to look at the dispute as something like a game of chess vs. a game of checkers. The league believes that the short-term pain of a football nation up in arms will be worth it two to four years down the road if they can improve the overall quality of officiating by adding what would be a taxi squad of three additional crews.”

Or the NFL can acquire that right by paying for it. Instead, the NFL is willing to alienate fans, anger players, and tarnish “the shield” in order to get its way, hoping that half of the locked-out officials plus one eventually will vote to take the deal.

The NFL is taking us all for granted. In the end, there’s a good chance the NFL is guessing right. But that doesn’t make it right.

Stupid, stupid billionaires.

 

[BrawlinHawkeye]

They make $9,000 a game. Quit bitching and get back to work. (If you can call it that). Seems like a great gig if you ask me.

 

[I_am_1z]

The ruling was correct. Even if Jennings possessed 80% of the ball and Tate 20%, it still happened simultaneously. Next time BAT THE BALL DOWN.

 

[Hangman]

If you didn't know. The amount each team would be on the hook for, for all the refs, is $100k. The total amount is $3.2million. Teams pay back up QBs who never see the field more than that.

If GB had a real owner instead of stock owners they would have made a big fuss about $100k costing them a win.

Owners are just being cheap asses.

 

[Hangman]

The ruling was correct. Even if Jennings possessed 80% of the ball and Tate 20%, it still happened simultaneously. Next time BAT THE BALL DOWN.

You are wrong.

 

[I_am_1z]

You are wrong.

It isn't about who looked like they possessed the ball in the air or when they first initially touched the ground; to make it a catch you have to maintain possession all the way through.

So the scrum on the ground fighting for possession was KEY. Jennings couldn't strip the ball away from Tate's possession and vice versa with Tate. Hence they both possessed the ball and tie goes to the receiver.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

They have an agreement in principle. YES!!!!!! THEY ARE COMING BACK!!!!!

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Locked-out NFL referees could return as early as this week -- sources - ESPN

 

[mem49er]

Locked-out NFL referees could return as early as this week -- sources - ESPN

Lols, someone weeks ago posted something to the effect of ...,"Wait 'till a darling like GB loses a game and they'll resolve shit within a week."

Was waiting to see it play out after Monday but knew that that poster was right.

 

[Bemular]

"Second, the pension issue continues to prevent an agreement. The league wants to change from a defined-benefit pension plan to a defined-contribution system."

Sound familiar Bemular?

By the way, I hadn't read a single article about the dispute between the ref's and the NFL before my other post; just posts here on the Hoop.

Did you honestly believe switching from DBP's to 401k's was some genius idea you came up with all by yourself? Or did you really not know this was a sticking point? Or are you just in the mood to pull your pants down in public? Seriously, Sick, WTF are you trying to highlight with this?

 

[MHSL82]

Lols, someone weeks ago posted something to the effect of ...,"Wait 'till a darling like GB loses a game and they'll resolve shit within a week."

Was waiting to see it play out after Monday but knew that that poster was right.

That's threeyellowbird's schtick. And oh by the way, he was definitely right. I was just worried that the day would never come where Green Bay would lose a game due to officiating.

 

[threelittleturds]

Lols, someone weeks ago posted something to the effect of ...,"Wait 'till a darling like GB loses a game and they'll resolve shit within a week."

Was waiting to see it play out after Monday but knew that that poster was right.

I dunno who said that... :bump2:

I kinda like the replacement refs. With the playing field leveled where every team gets shitty calls against them, the "classic" powerhouses of the recent years aren't doing very well without their usual preferential treatment by the regular refs.

Packers are 1-2
Steelers are 1-2
Patriots are 1-2
Saints are 0-3 (although this probably has more to do with their suspensions)

When these 4 are getting just as many crappy calls against them as they do for them, they seem a little weaker than normal.

 

[deep9er]

It isn't about who looked like they possessed the ball in the air or when they first initially touched the ground; to make it a catch you have to maintain possession all the way through.
So the scrum on the ground fighting for possession was KEY. Jennings couldn't strip the ball away from Tate's possession and vice versa with Tate. Hence they both possessed the ball and tie goes to the receiver.

yes, but IMO Jennings did obtain possession by catching it, getting both arms around it, and securing it to his chest. he maintained possession before and after hitting the ground. i did not see the ball get loose even after hitting the ground.

Tate had his hand on it (not arms), but he did not obtain possession until the scrum, ie after they hit the ground for about 2-3 seconds. the scrum BECAME 'key' because the refs hesitated, couldn't make the immediate call.

 

[MHSL82]

It isn't about who looked like they possessed the ball in the air or when they first initially touched the ground; to make it a catch you have to maintain possession all the way through.

So the scrum on the ground fighting for possession was KEY. Jennings couldn't strip the ball away from Tate's possession and vice versa with Tate. Hence they both possessed the ball and tie goes to the receiver.

yes, but IMO Jennings did obtain possession by catching it, getting both arms around it, and securing it to his chest. he maintained possession before and after hitting the ground. i did not see the ball get loose even after hitting the ground.

Tate had his hand on it (not arms), but he did not obtain possession until the scrum, ie after they hit the ground for about 2-3 seconds. the scrum BECAME 'key' because the refs hesitated, couldn't make the immediate call.

Talking about the scrum reminds me of the way it goes in fumbles, not catches. The scrum goes to who comes out with the ball. Talking about maintaining possession through the fall looks to be about the catch more than possession. Simultaneous possession is not equal to simultaneous catch, because if it were, both (imo) had two hands on it before either hit the ground (and Tate looked to touch the ground with two feet first - the hip was after the second foot?). Abaskins talked about possession being separate and prior to determining the catch.

A generous interpretation to Seattle would be:

1. Jennings had possession. (Two arms and chest first)
2. Tate had possession. (Two hands before Jennings hit the ground)
3. Tate completed the catch. (Two feet hit the ground)
4. Jennings completed the catch (Two feet or hip hit the ground)

Possession wasn't simultaneous. First to possess is the key, not first to complete the catch. If both possessed the ball at the same time, then tie to the offense. If one drops it upon contact with the ground and the other doesn't, the one who maintained wins. If the first to possess drops it before maintaining control through the fall, then the other gets it if they possess it before the first regains possession and maintains possession before through hitting the ground. That's my understanding.

Some may disagree with Tate getting both hands on the ball before Jennings hit the ground. Fine. Some may disagree with Tate getting both feet down before Jennings two feet or hips hit the ground. Fine. Neither of those matter. My thinking is neither of those two are relevant because the timing of the possession doesn't need the catch, so even if I am right and even if I am wrong, it was Jenning's ball, unless Jennings dropped it. (Bobbling would just change when possession occured). Some may think Tate letting go for a second matters as to the catch, it doesn't - it matters to possession. If he let go and then regained possession before either hit the ground, then it would be a catch, but possession would first go to Jennings and therefore not simultaneous possession.

 

[NinerSickness]

If you didn't know. The amount each team would be on the hook for, for all the refs, is $100k. The total amount is $3.2million. Teams pay back up QBs who never see the field more than that

That's because backup QBs are WORTH 3.2 million.

 

[NinerSickness]

Did you honestly believe switching from DBP's to 401k's was some genius idea you came up with all by yourself? Or did you really not know this was a sticking point? Or are you just in the mood to pull your pants down in public? Seriously, Sick, WTF are you trying to highlight with this?

I was just pointing out how this reinforces my point that the private sector is sending defined payment plans the way of the evening paper and the Dodo bird. And I didn't know this was a sticking point until I read this article.

And no, I haven't pulled my pants down in public so far today.

 

[MHSL82]

I was just pointing out how this reinforces my point that the private sector is sending defined payment plans the way of the evening paper and the Dodo bird. And I didn't know this was a sticking point until I read this article.

And no, I haven't pulled my pants down in public so far today.

... that you know of.