Refs

[ckhokie]

 

[Cincyfan78]

I suppose this will come down to the players refusing to play until the real refs are back.

They can't strike.


They were talking about that this morning on Mike&Mike. All the players can do is complain, and get fined.

Also, I would rep ckhokie, but...our reps are all gone? What is that about?

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Like i said, the ref union needs to ask the players union to be part of it, then when the players are striking, the refs are striking as well. If the refs are striking, the players are striking as well. Deals get worked out for both unions at the same time, then the NFL has zero upper hand because if you do not reward the refs, you get no refs or players, same with players...they cannot find replacement players without having to find replacement refs.

If the NFL had to find replacement players and refs, the game would go to complete shit, and the product would be badly tarnished. The NFL would have a hard time recovering, so both the players and refs would both be taken care of.

Everyone wins here accept the president of the ref's union who loses his freaking job unless they make a new position for him inside the players union.

 

[flamingrey]

It's the owners. Not Goodell. He's just the front guy. The owners are the ones who have locked out the refs.

I'm not sure that's the case. The owners have hired Goodell to push their agenda. There were reports last year with the negotiations with the players that the owners had given him autonomy to make what decision he felt was right. Goodell is just a bully. He tried to bully the players then, and he's trying to do it now with the refs. Goodell could end this tomorrow if he wanted to.

 

[Tubbs1518]

Well now it's undeniable. The refs have legitimately cost a team a game. And in the worst way possible as well. It's not a case like the Ravens/Pats game where they blew a bunch of calls on the final drive where you could respond with the fact that they blew calls the entire game. In this case, they blew the final call on the final PLAY even with the ability to review it. How does the league respond to this? Do they respond at all? How do you say, 'yeah, GB should have won and Seattle should have lost'?

You can't review who had possession at that point. They can only review whether Tate was out of bounds or if he dropped the ball. The TD can't be turned into an INT.

 

[flamingrey]

They can't strike.


They were talking about that this morning on Mike&Mike. All the players can do is complain, and get fined.

Also, I would rep ckhokie, but...our reps are all gone? What is that about?

That's my fault, I apologize. I had a slew of excellent posts the last couple of days. It must've broke trying to register all of my reps.

 

[flamingrey]

You can't review who had possession at that point. They can only review whether Tate was out of bounds or if he dropped the ball. The TD can't be turned into an INT.

That's right. So they just botched it from the beginning.

 

[DanBengalfan]

NFL supports decision to not overturn Seahawks' touchdown - NFL.com

 

[CrashDavisSports]

You can't review who had possession at that point. They can only review whether Tate was out of bounds or if he dropped the ball. The TD can't be turned into an INT.

I understand this, but it still makes no sense to me. They should be able to make any call, any penalty, whatever the situation may be, where there is a replay required around the ball.

Tate should have been called for pass interference in that play due to instant replay first, then they should allow the INT to be called because it was proven Tate never caught it.

On a scoring play around the ball, any call or penalty can be added if seen in the replay. Get it right 100%, don't just determine the right call after the fact it has been all f'd up from the beginning. This is the right call only after the wrong call had been made and has to be lived with.

Penalize Tate for pass interference and then reward the Packers the INT, which should have been the complete right call from the onset. That is what instant replay should be about, getting it a 100% right no matter what had been called or wasn't called on the field.

 

[flamingrey]

You can't review who had possession at that point. They can only review whether Tate was out of bounds or if he dropped the ball. The TD can't be turned into an INT.

Upon further review, this is actually incorrect.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

This is directly from the statement from the NFL.

NFL statement on MNF controversy - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

 

[flamingrey]

I understand this, but it still makes no sense to me. They should be able to make any call, any penalty, whatever the situation may be, where there is a replay required around the ball.

Tate should have been called for pass interference in that play due to instant replay first, then they should allow the INT to be called because it was proven Tate never caught it.

On a scoring play around the ball, any call or penalty can be added if seen in the replay. Get it right 100%, don't just determine the right call after the fact it has been all f'd up from the beginning. This is the right call only after the wrong call had been made and has to be lived with.

Penalize Tate for pass interference and then reward the Packers the INT, which should have been the complete right call from the onset. That is what instant replay should be about, getting it a 100% right no matter what had been called or wasn't called on the field.

That would go too far. Do you then review any holds by the offensive line? False starts? Were all the o-lineman lined up in exactly the correct position (they rarely are)?

You would also see all sorts of challenges especially at the end of games. Someone makes a clean catch anywhere on the field, but hey I'm going to challenge it anyways just so I can check for any holds, etc.

It wouldn't work.

 

[Tubbs1518]

Is it just me or does the NFL not seem to know the rules. They say it was a reviewable play but both Gerry Austin and Mike Pereira as well as Eric Mangini all said today that it was not a reviewable play and the refs couldn't overturn it if they had wanted to on the replay. I'm inclined to believe Austin and Pereira over the NFL.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

That would go too far. Do you then review any holds by the offensive line? False starts? Were all the o-lineman lined up in exactly the correct position (they rarely are)?

You would also see all sorts of challenges especially at the end of games. Someone makes a clean catch anywhere on the field, but hey I'm going to challenge it anyways just so I can check for any holds, etc.

It wouldn't work.

You misunderstand what I am saying.

You are not allowed to ask for a challenged based based off anything else BUT reviewablable reasons. However, if around the ball during the review the ref sees something else that happened that got overlooked (Facemask, PI, holding, etc) then the ref should be able to tack any of these addional charges on to the play.

They should not be allowed to challenge on a penalty or anything else not currently acceptable. I am just saying, once that play is under review, within the action of the ball, anything the ref sees going on that was not called or was unfairly called due to video evidence should be added or removed.

 

[DanBengalfan]

Tate takes his hand off the ball,and then grabs again finally it while its in the other guys hands.

that's what I don't understand.

 

[DanBengalfan]

also. how has college football survived while putting up with these morons?

 

[cincygrad]

also. how has college football survived while putting up with these morons?

These guys aren't the real college refs. The D1 guys are not allowed to be scab NFL refs.

 

[DanBengalfan]

oh well shit. the refs at my kids pee wee games could do a better job.

 

[flamingrey]

Is it just me or does the NFL not seem to know the rules. They say it was a reviewable play but both Gerry Austin and Mike Pereira as well as Eric Mangini all said today that it was not a reviewable play and the refs couldn't overturn it if they had wanted to on the replay. I'm inclined to believe Austin and Pereira over the NFL.

According to a retired ref of 26 years on Sportscenter, the rule changed 3-4 years ago to include simultaneous possession as reviewable in the endzone, so it is a relatively new rule.

 

[Tubbs1518]

Here is my thoughts on what happened after watching some more clips of it and seeing some still shots of it. Before I give my analysis though, I think it was an INT. To me it was a clear INT and how he missed the offensive PI I'll never know, but I'm going to tell you what I think the refs were thinking. Here we go:

Jennings jumps up in the air and gets possession of the ball first, no doubt about that. While his is still in the air, before his feet hit the ground, Tate gets his hands on the ball. As they fall Tate gets his left arm somewhat behind the ball. As they hit the ground now finally completing the catch for one of the 2 it jars Tates left arm behind the ball more while he has his right arm around Jennings shoulder and his right hand is probably on the ball. The refs come in, seeing what they believed that they both had the ball once Jennings 2 feet hit the ground completing the catch. Therefore they decided to call it a catch and a TD on simultaneous possession. Once it went to review I honestly think the refs was affected by the fans as much as anything. If that game was in GB I think they call that an INT.

 

[DanBengalfan]

yea, they wanted to get home alive.