NFL Week 3

[bcl412]

Another thing that annoys me about the review is that the refs confirmed the play as being a touchdown as opposed to not seeing indisputable evidence to overturn the call. Semantics? yes. Meaningless? Probably, but it still annoys me.

 

No, they said "After review, the call on the field stands".

 

The NFL statement said that it stood as there was not enough evidence to overturn.

 

You're right, I listened to it again. I swore they said it was confirmed at the time.

[SABR Gamer]

It was pretty obviously an interception and not a touchdown. I think anyone who sees something other than that is just trying way too hard to see what they want to see.

 

This is coming from a Bears fan. Not complaining about the result, but it was still the wrong call.

[Banedon]

I think [thought] and I think that anyone that doesn't agree with me is just [bad thing].

[mhuber92211]

Okay i am tired of the Tate PI bluster. It is making him look like a cheap shot player and with many pundits it is making Tate be the bad guy. Clearly he pushed shields but what noone else is mentioning is the other 2 packers that are manhandling the other Seahawks reciever just as blantantly pass interference. And seriously, how can there not be pass interference on a hail mary with everyone doing what they can for the ball. If they blew the Tate offensive PI then they blew the packers PI on Martin.

 

If they had called both would offsetting penalities end the game or would there be a final play?

 

Man, you really do excuse everything Seahawks. I mean, I've spent the morning arguing this was at least an somewhat defensible call, but the Tate PI was blatant and obvious.

 

Please re-read what you have quoted. I am clearly stating Tate should have been called for PI. I am merely pointing out something that is overlooked in that argument about defensive PI that no one mentions. In no way am I excusing the Seahawks. I am just tired of both bad calls being lumped together like it made it double bad

[Banedon]

Okay i am tired of the Tate PI bluster. It is making him look like a cheap shot player and with many pundits it is making Tate be the bad guy. Clearly he pushed shields but what noone else is mentioning is the other 2 packers that are manhandling the other Seahawks reciever just as blantantly pass interference. And seriously, how can there not be pass interference on a hail mary with everyone doing what they can for the ball. If they blew the Tate offensive PI then they blew the packers PI on Martin.

 

If they had called both would offsetting penalities end the game or would there be a final play?

 

Man, you really do excuse everything Seahawks. I mean, I've spent the morning arguing this was at least an somewhat defensible call, but the Tate PI was blatant and obvious.

 

Please re-read what you have quoted. I am clearly stating Tate should have been called for PI. I am merely pointing out something that is overlooked in that argument about defensive PI that no one mentions. In no way am I excusing the Seahawks. I am just tired of both bad calls being lumped together like it made it double bad

 

Not one person is arguing that the officials made one bad call all night long and it was not whistling Tate. The officials made bad PI calls all night long.

 

Your "two wrongs make a right" argument is irrelevant.

[Soul]

Interesting that the NFL acknowledged the replacement refs made a mistake on PI that should have given the game to the Packers. So they still kind of threw the replacements into the meatgrinder, but it was easier to do it on the PI miss because that's always a judgement call that nobody would argue should/could be overturned. At least, that's how I'm reading it:

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/25/monday-night-football-ending-brings-more-heat-to-replacement-refs/

 

Also, LOL at Mark Cuban's tweet:

 

 

I would love to see what my reaction would be if a Mavs game ended like #MNF. #Expensive #NBAtime

[scarey]

So they still kind of threw the replacements into the meatgrinder, but it was easier to do it on the PI miss because that's always a judgement call that nobody would argue should/could be overturned. At least, that's how I'm reading it:

 

Or they felt the call was correctly made. ;)

[Guest]

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

Watch the from-mid-field perspective. Both players slap their hands on the ball at the same time. Both attempt to bring it into their bodies at the same time. Jennings basically lands on Tate and when he rolls over, you can make a case that Tate loses control of the ball. That's about it.

 

Also, please do not imply I have perception impairment or a mental illness.

 

No they don't. While they're still in the air, Tate has his right hand on Jennings's forearm while Jennings has two hands on the ball.

[UMFan83]

ESPN.com estimates that 67,000 fantasy users on their site started or started against GB D/ST and either won or lost their matchup on the final play. Thats crazy.

 

No word on the number of users that started or started against the Seahawks kicker and lost because of the extra point no one wanted to kick, but I know there's one on here.

 

Also, why do you not have to kick an extra point for a TD that ends OT but with :00 left in regulation you do? It's absolutely completely meaningless and should be optional if the team doesn't want to take it. I get that somewhere between in the tiebreakers that no one ever gets to there is point differential, but then why not require XPs on all TDs including OT?

[scarey]

I just saw an excellent camera shot of the point of the catch that shows Tate did not initially get two hands on the ball and actually barely got one on the ball. I've changed my mind based on that, it should have been an interception.

 

Still, I don't blame the refs for making that call in real time and they should be able to review it. With the look I got, it would have been an easy judgement call. If it's not an easy judgement call, you can let the play stand as called because there's not enough evidence to over rule the play.

[cubbyvirus00]

Anyone else see the amazing footage of the overweight jobless GB fans 'protesting' outside Lambeau? It looked like a bunch of extras from the 'Hills have Eyes' movie franchise.

[Soul]

I just saw an excellent camera shot of the point of the catch that shows Tate did not initially get two hands on the ball and actually barely got one on the ball. I've changed my mind based on that, it should have been an interception.

 

Still, I don't blame the refs for making that call in real time and they should be able to review it. With the look I got, it would have been an easy judgement call. If it's not an easy judgement call, you can let the play stand as called because there's not enough evidence to over rule the play.

 

Is it a linkable image/vid? I'd like to see it.

[scarey]

I just saw an excellent camera shot of the point of the catch that shows Tate did not initially get two hands on the ball and actually barely got one on the ball. I've changed my mind based on that, it should have been an interception.

 

Still, I don't blame the refs for making that call in real time and they should be able to review it. With the look I got, it would have been an easy judgement call. If it's not an easy judgement call, you can let the play stand as called because there's not enough evidence to over rule the play.

 

Is it a linkable image/vid? I'd like to see it.

 

It was posted in a different forum. It had an SB Nation logo on it. Was trying to find it, between doing actual real work, lol.

 

EDIT:

Found it.

 

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1210517/refss.gif

[Guest]

You could see that in the main replay from last night also.

[Soul]

Multi-task it, man. This is the EN-EF-EL we're talkin' about here. :)

[mul21]

ESPN.com estimates that 67,000 fantasy users on their site started or started against GB D/ST and either won or lost their matchup on the final play. Thats crazy.

 

No word on the number of users that started or started against the Seahawks kicker and lost because of the extra point no one wanted to kick, but I know there's one on here.

 

Also, why do you not have to kick an extra point for a TD that ends OT but with :00 left in regulation you do? It's absolutely completely meaningless and should be optional if the team doesn't want to take it. I get that somewhere between in the tiebreakers that no one ever gets to there is point differential, but then why not require XPs on all TDs including OT?

 

Because the overtime is "sudden death" and a touchdown ends overtime by rule. In the instance of last night's game, they could block the extra point, return it for 2 points and still win the game. They did change that rule in the NFL a couple years ago didn't they?

[Banedon]

I just saw an excellent camera shot of the point of the catch that shows Tate did not initially get two hands on the ball and actually barely got one on the ball. I've changed my mind based on that, it should have been an interception.

 

Still, I don't blame the refs for making that call in real time and they should be able to review it. With the look I got, it would have been an easy judgement call. If it's not an easy judgement call, you can let the play stand as called because there's not enough evidence to over rule the play.

 

Is it a linkable image/vid? I'd like to see it.

 

It was posted in a different forum. It had an SB Nation logo on it. Was trying to find it, between doing actual real work, lol.

 

EDIT:

Found it.

 

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1210517/refss.gif

 

Yeah, ok that's a lot clearer than the other replays that have been online. That's clearly a pick then.

[UMFan83]

ESPN.com estimates that 67,000 fantasy users on their site started or started against GB D/ST and either won or lost their matchup on the final play. Thats crazy.

 

No word on the number of users that started or started against the Seahawks kicker and lost because of the extra point no one wanted to kick, but I know there's one on here.

 

Also, why do you not have to kick an extra point for a TD that ends OT but with :00 left in regulation you do? It's absolutely completely meaningless and should be optional if the team doesn't want to take it. I get that somewhere between in the tiebreakers that no one ever gets to there is point differential, but then why not require XPs on all TDs including OT?

 

Because the overtime is "sudden death" and a touchdown ends overtime by rule. In the instance of last night's game, they could block the extra point, return it for 2 points and still win the game. They did change that rule in the NFL a couple years ago didn't they?

 

Yeah that's not a rule in the NFL anymore (if it ever was). If it was, the Packers would have at least put up a token effort to block the kick last night.

 

Charles Tillman did that on MNF back in 2006 (returned a blocked XP to the opposite end zone) and when he got there he just sorta dropped the ball and walked away realizing that there was no reason for him to run all the way down there.

[bcl412]

ESPN.com estimates that 67,000 fantasy users on their site started or started against GB D/ST and either won or lost their matchup on the final play. Thats crazy.

 

No word on the number of users that started or started against the Seahawks kicker and lost because of the extra point no one wanted to kick, but I know there's one on here.

 

Also, why do you not have to kick an extra point for a TD that ends OT but with :00 left in regulation you do? It's absolutely completely meaningless and should be optional if the team doesn't want to take it. I get that somewhere between in the tiebreakers that no one ever gets to there is point differential, but then why not require XPs on all TDs including OT?

 

Because the overtime is "sudden death" and a touchdown ends overtime by rule. In the instance of last night's game, they could block the extra point, return it for 2 points and still win the game. They did change that rule in the NFL a couple years ago didn't they?

 

Yeah that's not a rule in the NFL anymore (if it ever was). If it was, the Packers would have at least put up a token effort to block the kick last night.

 

Charles Tillman did that on MNF back in 2006 (returned a blocked XP to the opposite end zone) and when he got there he just sorta dropped the ball and walked away realizing that there was no reason for him to run all the way down there.

 

I don't think it ever was. The NFL hasn't had the 2-point conversion for that long so I assume they never implemented it for some reason.

[abuck1220]

i accept your apologies.

[Tracer Bullet]

ESPN.com estimates that 67,000 fantasy users on their site started or started against GB D/ST and either won or lost their matchup on the final play. Thats crazy.

 

No word on the number of users that started or started against the Seahawks kicker and lost because of the extra point no one wanted to kick, but I know there's one on here.

 

Also, why do you not have to kick an extra point for a TD that ends OT but with :00 left in regulation you do? It's absolutely completely meaningless and should be optional if the team doesn't want to take it. I get that somewhere between in the tiebreakers that no one ever gets to there is point differential, but then why not require XPs on all TDs including OT?

 

Because the overtime is "sudden death" and a touchdown ends overtime by rule. In the instance of last night's game, they could block the extra point, return it for 2 points and still win the game. They did change that rule in the NFL a couple years ago didn't they?

 

Yeah that's not a rule in the NFL anymore (if it ever was). If it was, the Packers would have at least put up a token effort to block the kick last night.

 

Charles Tillman did that on MNF back in 2006 (returned a blocked XP to the opposite end zone) and when he got there he just sorta dropped the ball and walked away realizing that there was no reason for him to run all the way down there.

 

If the blocked kick 2-point conversion was a risk, I assume the kicking team would go for 2 and just kneel on it.

[Banedon]

Why do the replacement refs hate the economy?

 

Ref's blown call could penalize state's retail, hospitality businesses

[Old Style]

So a buddy of mine works for a Bank here in America and says that the official who signaled a TD is a VP for his company. He may or may not have sent me all of his contact information. I'm thinking of sending him a nice basket of beer & porn as a thank you for screwing the Packers.

[minnesotacubsfan]

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

It really appeared that Jennings had it, regardless I'm very happy it was ruled the way it was for 2 reasons:

 

1: maybe we can get real refs soon

2: most importantly, [expletive] the Packers

[Banedon]

1: maybe we can get real refs soon

 

Don't hold your breath. The NFL is willing to stand pat. They feel that the short term pain is worth the long term gain.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/25/nfl-referee-negotiations/index.html?sct=nfl_t2_a3

 

One of the emerging and major reasons why a deal has been so elusive, according to the source, is that the NFL is insisting on getting some control of the officials back that it has ceded in past negotiations with the NFLRA. This includes the league's desire to have three seven-man officiating crews in reserve with the ability to replace -- either for a game or longer -- underperforming current officials.

 

Another source with knowledge of the locked-out officials' position said Tuesday that the NFL would not guarantee that they would work at least 15 games in a regular season. Currently, other than due to injury, an official that starts a season works the full season. The officials source said that this is the main crux of what the NFL is trying to do in these negotiations: wrest back control of the officials' performance week to week in an NFL season. I've been told that the NFL is insisting on being able to make in-season changes to crews based solely on performance of individual officials.