Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 151

Thread: Ref'ing thread

  1. #101
    Gold Stagger Hoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Greenwood
    Posts
    4,520
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    The no call on the push doesn't bother me as bad as the called TD. I saw it on TV live and a zillion replays, it was not a simultaneous offense/defense catch IMO. I'll never change my opinion on that, no matter what the NFL says. It seems about 99.9% think it was a bad call too.
    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Hoop For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Member Wage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    405

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wage, you're not gonna find much support for that theory, we all have eyes and minds. Had the refs seen and made the correct call 1) for pass interference prior to the catch, and then 2) not hastily called it a touchdown 2 seconds later without consultuing one another (when both refs called opposite of each other), the play likely would have been a lot easier to review and correct. Two massive ref mistakes. And that is what everyone is in an uproar about. Whether or not Tate caught the ball with his pinky isn't the real issue. It was the two points I just listed. They missed pass interference, and they hastily called touchdown on the field without consultation.

    And Tate did not catch the ball --- his hand (looks like the back of it), came into contact with a ball that a defender actually caught. If the "letter of the law" constitutes that as a catch, then by damn, the law needs to be revisited. No one in their right mind, rules be damned, considered that a true catch by Tate. The spirit of the game was assaulted last night, and then the powers that be are trying to wave their Jedi hands and tell us "this is not an interception, it is a catch by Golden Tate, just take our word for it." Problem is.... we're not that stupid, Goodell.

    They claimed the play wasn't conclusive. ********. Watch it. Jennings catches the damn ball. They called it a touchdown on review because they didn't want to get lynched by the Seattle crowd, and you KNOW it would've gotten real ugly, because that entire stadium was whipped into a frenzy by that point. Green Bay had already left the field. The refs didn't even know what to do about the extra point. The entire fiasco was a cluster****, all caused by the ref's inability to do their jobs correctly and also their inability to control the situation.

    And on the topic of reviews, why are some plays not reviewable? That's the stupidest thing I've never understood. All plays should be reviewable. All of them.

    After listening to sports broadcast for the first half of the day, I didn't expect ANY support honestly

    Again, it seems to me this is tuck rule all over again. The catch was called correctly by the rules. There are no degrees of possession. There is no such thing as a "ball to chest" rule. Reciever has hands on the ball when a defender has the ball in his hands, it's a touchdown. Don't like the rule, change it. But not during a game. And I simply refuse to be offended by the no call on the offensive PI. With the normal refs, recievers push off on damn near half their receptions, and it's almost never called.

  4. #103
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,925

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    The refs had one chance on real time to see the play and make a call. The fact that one ref seemingly wanted to call touchdown while another wanted to call interception would IMHO tend to strengthen the case for simultaneous possession... at least as far as making the call in real time. Then once the call is made I'm still thinking the refs were pretty limited in what they could look for on replay on a scoring play.

    I agree with the idea that people have just been waiting for there to be a penalty that was so egregious it cost someone a game and this has blown up because it was close enough. But unless you can do more on replay of a scoring play than I think then these refs called this by the book. What happened in real time was too close and freaky to think the reg refs would've gotten the initial call right either...
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  5. #104
    I have a Member xBulletproof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,671

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    How can the play be over the second Tate has the ball in the air? He hasn't established himself in bounds and he loses control before that happens.

    Also, even when you're the only player with possession and even when you've proven you're in bounds you still are required to control the ball after those things are established to constitute a catch. Tate didn't even control it through landing in bounds.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to xBulletproof For This Useful Post:


  7. #105
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,206
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    I still maintain that before the play was called, Jennings steps out of bounds (with his hands on the ball) and should then be ineligible.
    If you get to thinkiní youíre a person of some influence, try orderiní somebody elseís dog around..

  8. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dal9 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^ I think I can help clear this up. Tate is actually the guy in the blue uniform.


    I am truly confused how anyone can say that is a simultaneous catch. Then again, I am confused how anyone can say the play "ends" when the GB player has full possesion and Tate has his arm on the GB players arm. I guess arm = ball now...............

  9. #107
    I have a Member xBulletproof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,671

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    . But unless you can do more on replay of a scoring play than I think then these refs called this by the book. What happened in real time was too close and freaky to think the reg refs would've gotten the initial call right either...
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...headline_stack

    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.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to xBulletproof For This Useful Post:


  11. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by xBulletproof View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How can the play be over the second Tate has the ball in the air? He hasn't established himself in bounds and he loses control before that happens.

    Also, even when you're the only player with possession and even when you've proven you're in bounds you still are required to control the ball after those things are established to constitute a catch. Tate didn't even control it through landing in bounds.

    Thank you.

    I hate the "posses" rule, but remember when Johnson in Detroit had the ball pop out when his butt hit the ground. It was called incomplete, and the call was correct.

  12. #109
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The refs had one chance on real time to see the play and make a call. The fact that one ref seemingly wanted to call touchdown while another wanted to call interception would IMHO tend to strengthen the case for simultaneous possession... at least as far as making the call in real time. Then once the call is made I'm still thinking the refs were pretty limited in what they could look for on replay on a scoring play.

    I agree with the idea that people have just been waiting for there to be a penalty that was so egregious it cost someone a game and this has blown up because it was close enough. But unless you can do more on replay of a scoring play than I think then these refs called this by the book. What happened in real time was too close and freaky to think the reg refs would've gotten the initial call right either...
    I disagree completely. I have seen the play 1000 times.

    Tate never had possesion of it. There was nothing simultaneous about it. For crying out loud, half of the Seahawks team in the locker room was shocked at the call.

    The refs missed the call, plain and simple.

    I am also really turned off by Tates arrogant attitude. I am a die hard N.D. fan (as if I need to say that) but his attitude and cockiness was a bit obnoxious.

    Oh well, nothing we can do to change it. Besides hope Goodells pulls his head out of his *** and gets the real refs back

  13. #110
    I have a Member xBulletproof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,671

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    So if the play is over the SECOND Tate puts his hands on the ball, then explain this ....


  14. #111
    THE WITCH IS DEAD!!! Coopdog23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Da Bank
    Posts
    2,889

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by travmil View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Story on ESPN now that Green Bay losing shifted $250 million at the sports books in Vegas. Hey NFL, your refs just cost the mob a quater million. That can only be good for them.

    [edit]Actually now that I think about it, the refs probably MADE Vegas a quarter million. Most of the people that lost were probably betting on Green Bay to cover.[/edit]


    Whoever picked Seattle won a lot.
    "We want Miami"

  15. #112

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Wage View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Reciever has hands on the ball when a defender has the ball in his hands, it's a touchdown.
    Simultaneous means at the same time. It's not that complicated.

    The defender had both hands on the ball before Tate has even one hand on the ball.

    Then the defender goes to the turf in bounds, with the ball not moving, and he still has both hands on the ball, while Tate has one hand only on the ball.

    Play over

    Then Tate gets his other hand on the ball. How is that simultaneous possession? On some occasions you can possess the ball with one hand- we have all seen Reggie Wayne, Randy Moss, others, make velcro-like one-handed catches. In those cases it is clear that with one hand they have full control of the ball. Tate did not.

    The NFL had many reasons to stand by the call:

    -they need to keep using these guys and don't want to undermine them any more, especially since they have asked everyone else to respect them
    -they are in negotiations with the real refs. Admitting just how bad it is undermines their negotiations
    -If a video replay was improperly conducted on the final play of a game, and then more video replay shows that replay decision to be wrong (as is the case here), and they admit to that, then logically they could be asked why they do not change the outcome of the game, since no game action occurred after the mistake. Changing the outcome of a game a day later is a precedent that they never ever want to set. People would be forever looking for the next instance when this could occur, and that is unthinkable.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  17. #113

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Coopdog23 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whoever picked Seattle won a lot.
    On balance there was apparently much more money on Green Bay, so bookies cleaned up. A few of them are offering people who bet some future credit on other bets, which is good business. They have to be worried about how willing people will be to bet on games that are not being decided by the play on the field.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  18. #114

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I still maintain that before the play was called, Jennings steps out of bounds (with his hands on the ball) and should then be ineligible.
    The play is over when a catch is completed, not when an official makes a call saying that a catch has been completed. Jennings caught the ball, fell to the turf with control of the ball (ending the play), then he rolled around trying to dislodge Tate's hand on the ball. During this rolling is where the his left foot poked out of bounds, but before then he has already completed the catch by NFL rules: Catch & then maintaining control as his butt hits the ground.

    For example, you often see a player catch a pass in the endzone, get both feet in bounds, show the ball to the official, and then step out of bounds before the ref throws up his hands. The timing of when the ref makes the call is not relevant to when the play is over according to the rules. The ref can take his own sweet time to get it clear in his mind what he just saw.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-26-2012 at 09:38 AM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  19. #115
    Pacer Pride, Colts Strong Kid Minneapolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,376

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Tate didn't have both hands on the ball until they were on the ground.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

  20. #116
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by vapacersfan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thank you.

    I hate the "posses" rule, but remember when Johnson in Detroit had the ball pop out when his butt hit the ground. It was called incomplete, and the call was consistenet with the way the rule had been modified, which produced the wrong result even though it was technically "correct.".
    Fixed.

    Some of the bigger problems or controversies over the past decade haven't been the officials themselves, but enforcing rules that have been tweaked to the point they make no sense or where the "right" call is a nonsensical result. Both Ward and Johnson (I guess we linked those in the other thread) had touchdowns taken away because of a technically-correct enforcement of a rule that contradicts other end-zone rules.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  21. #117
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Tate didn't have both hands on the ball until they were on the ground.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
    What difference does that make? There's no rule that possession requires two hands.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEA9qxSfcjk

    That link is a comical example to this point, as obviously Moss wasn't "in traffic", but this call was controversial enough under the right criteria, no need to make up an artificial criteria (ie, "two hands on the ball") to muddy it up further.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  22. #118
    THE WITCH IS DEAD!!! Coopdog23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Da Bank
    Posts
    2,889

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On balance there was apparently much more money on Green Bay, so bookies cleaned up. A few of them are offering people who bet some future credit on other bets, which is good business. They have to be worried about how willing people will be to bet on games that are not being decided by the play on the field.
    Still the people who picked Seattle won a ton
    "We want Miami"

  23. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/84...al-source-says

    Negotiators for the NFL and the NFL Referees Assocation met until 2 a.m. ET Wednesday in an attempt to iron out their differences in a months-long lockout but did not reach a deal, a source said.

    League owners are not willing to compromise further and differences remain on several issues, including pensions for the officials and the process by which the NFL evaluates referees, the source said.


    The officials work about 36 hours a week -- nearly full time -- and pension benefits have become an important issue to them. It would probably cost each team about $100,000 to settle the pension issue.

    The sides are expected to talk again Wednesday, though it's not clear if those will be face-to-face meetings or simply the passing of information between the sides.

    NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith reiterated in an interview Wednesday with "CBS This Morning" that the NFL's lockout of its officials presents a safety issue for the players.

    "When you take a group of officials who have a collective experience of 1,500 years off the field and you replace them with a group of replacements who don't have that experience, our players know that the workplace today is less safe than it was with the real officials," he said.

    However, Smith said the NFLPA isn't planning a boycott of games over the issue.

    "I'm not sure it's ever a good idea to punish our fans because we're mad at the owners," he said. "What we're going to do is to make sure that the NFL honors its obligation to keep the workplace safe. We'll take every legal action that we can and that we need."

    Tuesday's talks between the NFL and the NFLRA were scheduled before Monday night's game in Seattle between the Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers ended in a controversial call that gave Seattle a touchdown catch for receiver Golden Tate and 14-12 victory.

    The NFL on Tuesday reaffirmed the ruling as information came out that Lance Easley, the side judge at the heart of the controversial call, never had worked above the Division III college level before becoming a replacement official.

    The league provided information stating that Easley had four years of officiating experience, none above the Division III level. That revelation comes after the league said Seattle's last-second touchdown pass should not have been overturned but conceded that Seahawks receiver Golden Tate should have been called for offensive pass interference before the catch.

  24. #120

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's no rule that possession requires two hands.
    Possession requires control of the ball. You can achieve that with a one-handed catch, sure.

    Do you have control of the ball though when you have a hand on top of the ball while another person has both hands on it held to their body?

    No.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  26. #121
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Possession requires control of the ball. You can achieve that with a one-handed catch, sure.

    Do you have control of the ball though when you have a hand on top of the ball while another person has both hands on it held to their body?

    No.
    Agree, but that's the result of the wrestling for the ball.

    I think the issue is "simultaneous", not who possessed the ball more. Because if both players have a claim to possession, it isn't "who has it more?" - then rule is that tiebreaker awards the ball to the offense. That part of the rule isn't in debate.

    Who actually has possession in a fumble recovery? That's an all-out scrum in the pile and players continue to fight for the ball after the whistle blows and sometimes the official gives the ball to the player that had possession when the whistle blows and some times they award the ball to the player that comes out of the pile with the ball. Some times that's the same player, some times its not. Possession of a fumble is only reviewable if its a clear single player that recovers the ball.

    Possession is a judgement call, so the simultaneous catch eliminates that judgment. Best I can tell, this was an interception first which eliminates the notion of simultaneous catch which eliminates the notion of possession. Yes, they blew it badly, but not for the reasons being stated.

    The problem with using this particular play as the poster-child of poor quality officiating is that there are parts that are judgmental calls and parts that are poor application of the rule book and procedures. While we have similar problems with all refs (regular NFL refs, NBA, NCAA, DIII, the YMCA), I think it would serve the fan base better to complain about the obvious no-calls and mistakes whereas this one is quite grey. Let's look at the Raiders hitting Ben below the knee without a flag. Let's look at the Steeler-Raiders collision in the end zone without a flag - while I think a case could be made that all of the players were going at the ball, and that a sophisticated ref might have consciously chosen not to throw a flag, I don't think that's the reason the replacement refs missed throwing a flag on an helmet-to-helmet play. For the 12 minutes the Raiders receiver was laying there, I kept wondering if the replacement officials were still going to throw a flag and mark off fifteen yards after the injury timeout. Or even the bizarre play in the Ravens-Eagles game where Vick's foward pass was ruled a fumble on the field before common sense returned via the replay booth.

    These refs are terrible, but the SEA-GB play is probably not the piece of evidence to focus on.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  27. The Following User Says Thank You to ChicagoJ For This Useful Post:


  28. #122
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Or the fact they do not know the rules (2 extra challenges)

    Or the fact that on numerous occasions they have marked off incorrect yardage.

    Monday night was another bad call, and I think for fans it is just further towards the straw that broke the camels back

  29. #123
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    NBC just said the NFL league office has received over 70,000 voice mails since Monday night

  30. #124
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by vapacersfan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Or the fact they do not know the rules (2 extra challenges)

    Or the fact that on numerous occasions they have marked off incorrect yardage.

    Monday night was another bad call, and I think for fans it is just further towards the straw that broke the camels back

    Oh there's a lot of stuff. In the fury over the MNF call, though, let's move away from a judgment call no matter how bad and focus on the textbook mistakes. There are plenty.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  31. The Following User Says Thank You to ChicagoJ For This Useful Post:


  32. #125
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,918

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Ref'ing thread

    Serious quuestion:

    After watching the ump in baseball blow the perfect game, and after Monday night, I have twice seen a league refuse to overturn a bad call due to wanting to "keep the integrity" (or not wanting to admit they were wrong)

    Will we ever see a league step in after the fact and overturn a outcome to the point where the game is not decided on the field (as someone else put it in this thread)

    I am not sure I will ever see that happen in my lifetime, but IMO ever there was a right time Monday night was it.

Similar Threads

  1. The "Thread / Post of the Year 2009" Thread
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 03:56 PM
  2. The Official PD Thread draft thread
    By travmil in forum Yahoo! Fantasy League
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 05:45 PM
  3. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-15-2006, 02:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •