| RotoGuru Football Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Replacement Refs Posted by: weykool - [8657121] Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:21 Im a little surprised that this topic has not been discussed here with the media coverage it is getting. Personally I think most of the coverage has been way over the top and lacks perspective. I dont believe anyone thought the replacements would be as good as the regular refs. However, overall I think they have done an adequate job considering that they have received 10 times the scrutiny that would otherwise be given to the regulars. Week 1: the mantra was they are not calling enough penalties and the players are taking advantage of the no calls. Week 2: the replacements started calling more penalties and the mantra changed to they are making too many incorrect calls. Week 3: the replacements tried to confer more often to get the calls correct and the mantra was the games are taking too long. Seem like they were in a no win situation no matter how good or bad a job they did. Now for the "big call" in question: #1. The refs did not have the same view of the play that the TV audience had. #2. Tate had at least one hand on the ball and two hands once the ref examined the pile. #3. Are we so certain the regular refs would have made a different call? I think its 50/50 at best. #4. Why is Jennings getting a free pass here for padding his stats with an interception? If he knocks the ball down like a regular player should there is no controversy. #5. Why is Gruden, Trico, and the ref expert not getting lambasted in the press for giving the audience wrong information? According to the NFL the refs ARE allowed to determine possession using the replay rules, which was the opposite information given by the announcers. #6. The NFL would only say there was pass interference on Tate. Did they offer an example where PI was called on the last play of the game, hail marry pass? To my knowledge it has never been called. I do believe the regular refs would have conferred together before putting their hands in the air.... Its a TouchInterDownCeption Were the replacements perfect? NO. Are they as bad as the media is making them out to be? NO Should the regular refs be better? I would hope so. | |||||||
| 1 | Perm Dude ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:45 |
One good thing that will come out of this, I think, is that sports leagues will start taking more seriously the work stoppages of their referees. Regarding the MNF game, they obviously blew the call. Once the defender was on the ground in control of the ball the play was over, even if Tate worked to make it seem like he had some control after-the-fact. Not the worst call ever, but a blown call at a critical point in the game. | ||||||
| 2 | Razor ID: 177192916 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:52 | I'd say it was the worst call I've ever seen. I've never seen a totally blown call single-handedly decide a game. | ||||||
| 3 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 16:05 | I like what Mike and Mike called it. They ranked nr1 on their list of Top 10 Bad calls. They labeled it "The Inaccurate reception" | ||||||
| 4 | Perm Dude ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 16:23 | On second thought, you're right. I've always ranked Vinny Testaverde's "helmet" score as #1, but they didn't have the benefit of instant replay then, while they certainly did on Monday night. | ||||||
| 5 | TB ID: 45735270 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 18:23 |
The Tuck Rule is the worst call ever. For that Seattle touchdown, I was watching the game and immediately thought it was a TD. After the first replay, I could see that Tate's left arm was under the ball and his right arm was over the ball, but damn it could have been called either way. Rewatching the replay so many times, I wouldn't have been upset had it been ruled an interception. I do think it is rediculous that people want to say Green Bay had a win taken away from them when that wasn't the only controversial call in the game. I honestly don't think they deserved the previous TD. A "bad" call helped both teams score a TD. Wiggs, great opening post and I think you'd be surprised how many people agree with you if you aren't tracking comments at PFT. Obviously Packer and Patriot fans won't agree. I am pretty sad that the regular refs are back and fully expect to see the Raiders get called for a dozen penalties this week with at least 3 of them extending a Peyton Manning drive on a third down. I hope the scrutiny of poor officiating continues. | ||||||
| 6 | Tree ID: 348182717 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 18:23 |
The refs did not have the same view of the play that the TV audience had. i believe you're wrong here. i think now the rule states that they have the same views the TV audience does. Tate had at least one hand on the ball and two hands once the ref examined the pile. right. by the time they were in the pile, the play was over. Are we so certain the regular refs would have made a different call? I think its 50/50 at best. no way at all to know, but i believe the odds are much higher they would have gotten it right. Why is Jennings getting a free pass here for padding his stats with an interception? If he knocks the ball down like a regular player should there is no controversy. this isn't relevant at all. Why is Gruden, Trico, and the ref expert not getting lambasted in the press for giving the audience wrong information? According to the NFL the refs ARE allowed to determine possession using the replay rules, which was the opposite information given by the announcers. again, not relevant. The NFL would only say there was pass interference on Tate. Did they offer an example where PI was called on the last play of the game, hail marry pass? To my knowledge it has never been called. not really relevant either. Are they as bad as the media is making them out to be? NO they were pretty terrible. most had never done any college, none had ever done major college, and at a couple were even fired by the Lingerie Football League for being bad refs (i am not making that up). there was also a heavy slant toward calls going to the home team, indicative of the refs trying to appease the home crowd. | ||||||
| 7 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 18:50 |
I actually think the call itself is quite defensible, if not clearly right. You don't have to have two hands on the ball to make a catch, and you don't have possession per the rules until you come down with one knee/two feet with the catch -- so Jennings hadn't established possession until he landed (which was quite a while after he got his hands on the ball). I think Tate had at least one hand/arm on the ball at that same time (replays at that point get muddled) -- obviously it's either around the ball (in which case it's a TD imo) or around Jennings' arm (in which case it's an INT). The rest of it -- the horrible indecisiveness, the head referee not huddling everyone up, the "do we have to kick the PAT" fiasco, the missing the shove-in-the-back PI call (even though point taken that they rarely call PI in these situations, it's also really rare that it's THAT obvious) are all terrible though. Let's put it this way: part of being a good official is being able to sell the call even when you're not sure about it, and that's where the replacement refs epically failed. If this happens with real refs, what happens there is the two that are there get together, probably one signals TD, the head ref comes down and talks to everyone and makes an official call (which IMO could go either way), they review it, call stands because video evidence sucks, they immediately kick the PAT instead of fishing people out of the locker room because they'd never have gone to the locker room in the first place, and everyone is convinced that even if it wasn't the call they would have made that it's somehow the right call. As far as the NFL's concerned, that it has the appearance of being the right call is at least as important, probably more important, in the grand scheme of things than it actually BEING the right call. | ||||||
| 8 | wolfer ID: 28142719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:14 |
I am going to throw something out here. The call in question was NOT the worst call of the night. The roughing the passer call on Eric Walden was worse. Isn't the quarternack fair game once he leaves the pocket, unless he resets? It did not look like he was set. The reason why it was worse was that Wilson threw a pick on that play. Green Bay would of gotten the ball at roughly the Seattle 40. The way Green Bay was moving the ball at the time, the best case scenario for Seattle would of been that they would of gotten the ball back deep in their end with less time on the clock. | ||||||
| 9 | Judy ID: 54203110 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:21 |
Ok, speaking as a high school and college field hockey and lacross ref for over 30 years. The mantra we operate under is: "I may be wrong, but I am never in doubt.". You need to sell every call, be in position to sell that call, and to hopefully have made the correct call. As far as the decision I think it was a tie when they fell to the ground. It does not say how hard you have to be holding the ball and if you look carefully at the gloves, Tate has both hands on the ball. Here's a thought though. I doubt the ref had time to think of this but here is a possible train of thought. If I call a TD, it will be reviewed by the video replay guys. If I am right --> hooray, phew. If I am wrong -->. Hooray, phew. Either way, buy calling a TD, I will be affirmed or overruled. Either way I am off the hook. If I call an interception, no review, game over. No way I want that. Well just remembered they review all turnovers... Hmmm. With regard to the conference. I do not think you can have a conference if there is no call first. The guy had to make a call and THEN, you have your conference. I doubt the regular refs would have done much better. (I am serious.) Refs are not perfect. (ever looked at a video replay of NBA fouls -- jokes). The ref subs were put in an untenable position. They did the best they could. The players and coaches, as they are wont to do even at my games -- try to influence the refs all the time. That can take years of experience to know how to deal with coaches. It is a matter of trust and confidence. And also they are on national TV with tons of replay angles! Pressure! Another thing to consider, if the sub refs did not ref the games, there would NOT HAVE BEEN ANY GAMES. Give them some credit for trying and in essence saving the season. As a DIII ref, would I have accepted the assignment? Probably not and I do wonder how many of the sub refs now regret their decision to accept the position. Regardless, people need lay off the criticisms and let these guys go peacefully back to their jobs and daily lives and be left alone. Also the regular refs must know that they will be incredibly scrutinized for every call they make. And they are not perfect either -- need I say more that the Hochili or the Brady tuck rules. Interesting that the NFL changed/clarified the rules for the next season. Also note how many fumbles, etc go unblown until the play is over so that they can go to replay and get it right? Why do you think there are replays of all turnovers? Ok, game about to begin -- stepping off the soap box... | ||||||
| 10 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:31 |
The call at games end, absolutely blew chunks. WHEN the players went to the ground, it can not be argued that Tate had possession of the ball. At that moment Jennings tail hits the ground, he is down by contact. At that point, Tate has 1 hand on the ball, Jennings has the ball to his chest and his back on Tates chest. HORRID call. | ||||||
| 11 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 01:36 | You can catch a ball with one hand. People do it all the time. There's no requirement that you have two hands on the ball. | ||||||
| 12 | Perm Dude ID: 56832185 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 01:56 | The defender had possession and the receiver did not. The ref might have missed it live, but in the replay it was pretty clear. | ||||||
| 13 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 23:29 |
There is DW, a requirement that you complete the catch to the ground The rcvr, did no such thing here. The defender, had the ball to his chest, two hands. The rcvr, had one hand on the ball. Interception...clear as day. | ||||||
| 14 | Slizz ID: 396121611 Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 06:16 | We're still complaining over this? | ||||||
| 15 | weykool ID: 8657121 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 00:14 |
i believe you're wrong here. i think now the rule states that they have the same views the TV audience does. I am 100% certain I am right here. I was referring to the refs that made the call. Unless you can show they were watching the telecast at the same time they made the call then you would be incorrect. The refs making the call is very important. Whatever is called on the field cannot be overturned without clear and convincing evidence. Funny thing happened in the Browns/Ravens last play. The defender knocked the ball to the ground. And guess what?, the refs were not given the possibility to make an incorrect call. The packers would have won the game if if Jennings had done the same. Seems Extremely relevant to me. The refs came very close to making the worst call of the year when they gave the Browns a do-over on a cheap personal foul call. Imagine if they would have completed that pass and went on to win the game. As for who had the ball...Jennings did not have the ball to his chest because Tate's hand was inbetween the ball and his chest. As DW points out it is possible to "posses" the ball with one hand. The rulebook only addresses simultaneous possession and to my knowledge says nothing about who "possessed it better". If someone can show where the theory of "possessed it better" is in the rule book then please share. | ||||||
| 16 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 00:27 | I think the term "control" would apply and Tate had ZERO control. | ||||||
| 17 | TB ID: 451028614 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 01:44 |
Sarge, I don't know how you can say that. I think they both had their hands on the ball and had control. That's what the refs on the field saw and that's what the reply officials saw. weykool, I was thinking the exact same thing at the end of the Ravens game. I bet Jennings thinks about it many times every day, "If I only tried to knock it down and not pad my stats..." | ||||||
| 18 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 07:40 |
Batting it away does not always work. | ||||||
| 19 | TB ID: 451028614 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 12:43 | I remember that play. That was a pretty terrible knock down. | ||||||
| 20 | youngroman ID: 56523304 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 15:30 |
I don't know if the replacement refs are really better. they just screwed up a 2nd decision for the Jets which resulted in the 2nd turnover that should not have been ruled: - 1st pass of Tebow as a Jet was fumbled by the receiver although it was never a completed catch. SF recovers the ball. - Holmes injures himself and intentionally fumbles the ball forward which by rule should end the play. SF recovers and scores a TD. that won't be national news today because the Jets would have lost anyway, it was not on MNF and the decision was made by the "real" refs. | ||||||
| 21 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 17:23 | re 17...Its really easy how I can say that. Jennings had 2 hands on the ball, and had control. He turned his back to Tate. Tate had a reach around, with one hand from Jennings right side and 1 from his left side. Tate caught Jennings, not the ball. | ||||||
| 22 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 19:17 |
one of a multitude of youtube replays @23 sec, Jennings has 2 hands on the ball..Tate has none. @24 secs, Tates R hand is on Jennings R forearm. Jennings, has 2 hands on the ball. @25 secs, Tate lets go of Jennings R forearm with his R hand. Cant really see Tates L hand, but to try and claim he has possession of the ball is a stretch at best. @26 secs, Jennings has the ball pulled in to himself, Tate is "reaching in" but you cant see the ball as Jennings body is between the camera and the ball. @27 secs, Jennings is "down by contact", having maintained control of the ball throughout the process of making a catch. That ladies and gentlemen, is an interception. | ||||||
| 23 | youngroman ID: 56523304 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 19:29 |
and the 2nd blown call against the Packers: - 1st one was a not called pass interference by Colston just before his TD. the interference was similar to the one that was not called on the final play of MNF. - 2nd one happened a few minutes ago when Sproles clearly fumbles and the refs say it was down by contact. even the replacement refs would have seen that the ball was out long before Sproles hit the ground. | ||||||
| 24 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 19:44 | Fortunately, GB overcame it this week. NO 0-4...who'd have thunk? | ||||||
| 25 | TB ID: 451028614 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 01:18 |
Are you a Packer fan now, Sarge? Regardless, you are again wrong. This isn't the politics forum and you can't just keep repeating yourself or repeating what the media told you and expect to convince people that your opinion is the correct opinion. I watched the game live and saw every replay and think it was a good call. I am not a fan of either team. And FYI, at 24 seconds of that video you linked Jennings feet were still in the air. Keeping it real, Tate had both feet on the ground and possession of the ball before Jennings touched the ground. It was in the end zone, ladies and gentlemen, touchdown. | ||||||
| 26 | TB ID: 451028614 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 02:02 |
Here is a nice picture for you as well. Not quite arms around the back and somebody has their feet down...
| ||||||
| 27 | WiddleAvi ID: 367391416 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 14:35 |
A video angle that I had not seen before does make it look a lot closer than I ever thought link | ||||||
| 28 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 14:57 | That angle Widdle, does make it a tougher call, but I still hold that Tate didnt have control of the ball, Jennings did. | ||||||
| 29 | WiddleAvi ID: 367391416 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:14 |
Here is the video I linked to: | ||||||
| 30 | Frick ID: 2193319 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:15 |
The video that WiddleAvi posted is why I think the call shouldn't have been overturned. There is no video that ESPN showed that met the NFL's requirement to overturn a call. The judges are there and have different and often better angles then the cameras. I think ESPN made such a big deal on this call for two reasons. One, Green Bay has a large national following, unlike most teams. Two, the game appeared on ESPN. ESPN has gone from a news reporting organization to self promotion organization. | ||||||
| 31 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:28 |
 Uploaded with ImageShack.us from my link above...Tate's right hand is not on the ball, left hand is reaching in, Jennings has 2 hands on the ball, and has control. Intercepted. | ||||||
| 32 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:32 | I think the biggest reason they made such a big deal out of it, and that so many fans are making it to be an obvious miscall when it wasn't, was that the process of making the call was obviously so awful and incorrect and the refs were obviously incompetent in other areas surrounding the play (no OPI, the PAT fiasco, the obvious conflict between the two refs) that it's easy to make the assumption that a garbage process automatically yielded a garbage result -- when it's very possible that it was either a true 50/50 call in the first place or that they actually got it right by sheer dumb luck. | ||||||
| 33 | weykool ID: 8657121 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:39 |
You cant say it is an interception when Jennings doesnt even have his feet on the ground. The rules state the receiver/defender must maintain control of the ball even after going to the ground. (Im sure you are aware of the Calvin Johnson no TD call)? Sarge, you keep referring to control.....can you post the rule from the NFL rulebook as to what is and isnt control? or are we just to assume your definition is what we all should abide by? | ||||||
| 34 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:53 |
WK, with Jennings having the ball there, and Tate not having it, you can not call it simultaneous catch. That would go to the rcvr, but it isnt a simultaneous catch, when only 1 of the two people involved, has the ball. If its not simultaneous, and it obviously isnt, then it is an interception. The regular ref called it on Monday night. I think I'll go with his interpretation of the rule book, vs yours. | ||||||
| 35 | Kyle Sustainer ID: 052753312 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:55 |
RE 33: I was about to say, he has one foot on the ground (apparently? You can't see his foot, for all we know he could be still be in the air with both feet at that point) by the time he has both feet on the ground he could have 50/50 possession with Tate. The PI missed call and the horrible handling of the PAT just show how incompetent they are and how this play could receive a lot of scrutiny. We shouldn't be arguing about the catch vs non-catch because it was all a moot point after Tate should have been flagged for PI. | ||||||
| 36 | Bonka Sustainer ID: 019742310 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:59 | There is no possession until you have 2 feet, or an equivalent, on the ground. Think Tate had 2 hands on it by the time Jennings had 2 feet on the ground. | ||||||
| 37 | weykool ID: 8657121 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:09 |
This isn't the politics forum and you can't just keep repeating yourself or repeating what the media told you and expect to convince people that your opinion is the correct opinion. Do you understand the rule that you have to maintain control through the entire process of making the catch?? If the ball had come loose and hit the ground when Jennings came down would you still be arguing it was an interception? Or would you say it was incomplete? The Ref on Monday night never addressed what is and isnt control. So I will ask you again, can you offer us anything that backs up your opinion? The NFL wrote the rulebook and have already stated the officials made the right call. I will take their opinion over yours any day until you prove them wrong. | ||||||
| 38 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:14 |
The NFL did NOT say the refs made the right call. they played politic, and stood behind the call. As for your "what of" question, irrelevant because Jennings DID maintain possession through to the ground. When only 1 person has possession, it is not simultaneous. *By definition, simultaneous requires that both have possession. Clearly, Tate does not.) Once you rule out simultaneous, there re only 2 options left...incomplete or intercepted. | ||||||
| 39 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 18:30 |
"Clearly" Um, no, not clearly. That's the whole point. Clearly to you maybe. The rule is that if one person has like 80% possession or 90% possession of the ball, and the other person has 10% or 20% possession of the ball, but that other person has what would be considered possession (and one arm cradled around the ball lying flat on your back in the end zone DOES qualify as possession, regardless of what you may think), it's simultaneous possession and a TD. But saying "Clearly Tate doesn't have possession of the ball" in the face of a giant picture showing Tate's arm around the ball and his feet on the ground (when Jennings' feet aren't even on the ground yet) is a pretty impressive amount of hubris. | ||||||
| 40 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 19:17 |
Rule 8 - Section 3 - Article 1 - Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball. ONLY Jennings had the ball at 24-25 seconds into that video above. Thus if only ONE player has it, it can not be simultaneous. | ||||||
| 41 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 19:24 |
link However, officials are not allowed to reverse possession of the ball via replay; \... Hence, the NF standing behind the call and the review. The call was bad, but the rules as written do not allow for the reversal, once that particular bad call was made. | ||||||
| 42 | Bonka Sustainer ID: 019742310 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 19:56 | Explain how Jennings has possession at 24-25 seconds in that video when his feet aren't down. | ||||||
| 43 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:18 |
"ONLY Jennings had the ball at 24-25 seconds into that video above" By the NFL rule book, you don't have possession of a thrown ball until you have two feet on the ground (and, in the end zone, "make a football move" -- see the Calvin Johnson call). So what happens at 24-25 seconds is much less relevant than that giant picture with Golden Tate's feet on the ground with his left arm wrapped around the ball and Tim Jennings' feet waaaay up in the air. | ||||||
| 44 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:23 |
At the 24-25 second mark, who has 2 hands on the ball, the ball cradled to their body and has executed a catch? Jennings. Tates hands come onto the ball AFTER Jennings has caught it. This, it is not simultaneous...simple truth. Like it, dont like it, I dont care. the call was made, it was not reversible by replay, and a bad call stood. next question. | ||||||
| 45 | Bonka Sustainer ID: 019742310 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:31 | Actually, nobody, because his feet weren't on the ground at that point. | ||||||
| 46 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:35 |
Exactly. Nobody's disputing that Jennings got his hand on the ball first (though I think it's fair to say it was by the splittest of seconds, and if that's what we're using to call it the Worst Call Ever, then LOL you anyway), we're disputing that that constitutes possession and control as defined by the NFL. Keeping in mind that you can catch a ball, roll over, spike it one the ground, have it come out of your hand while you're trying to carry it after spiking it, and have THAT not called a catch, forgive us if we're unimpressed by "I have my hands on the ball somewhere in the air, even though my feet haven't landed" as a valid catch. | ||||||
| 47 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:39 |
It is a catch, it just is not a completion. A simultaneous catch is just that, catch...doesnt say completion. Jennings had the ball 1st, had 2 hands on it throughout, and maintained such through the completion of the play. Tates hands were on, off, on and off the ball. Not a catch. Look, it was a bad call...face it, accept it. It was a BAD call. | ||||||
| 48 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 21:29 |
The kindest of many articles on the play On NFL Network after the game, host Andrew Siciliano interviewed former San Francisco 49ers head coach Steve Mariucci. “If it’s called a touchdown on the field, which there it is, you have to have enough video to overturn it. Do you think there was enough video to overturn it?” Sicilano asked. “Yes, I do,” Mariucci replied. You can see why he would say that. Slow-motion video replay clearly showed that the official ruling of “simultaneous possession” was made in error. Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate’s right hand was still moving through the air after Green Bay defender M.D. Jennings had placed two hands on the ball and was pulling it to his chest. But that doesn’t matter. Once the call was made, it wasn’t subject to replay review, as longtime NFL official Gerry Austin explained to ESPN. Nor could a booth review have nullified the touchdown on the grounds of offensive pass interference, which was also obvious on replay. “All replay can determine is if the score is correct,” said Austin. “They’re both in the end zone, both with the ball, the ball never touches the ground. They cannot, in replay, determine who has possession of the ball.” (Correction: Actually, Austin was wrong. As ESPN blogger Kevin Seifert pointed out to me, the NFL clarified in a statement today that simultaneous possession is reviewable, but only in the end zone. In other words, this is an area where the rules are so baroque, even a retired referee who worked multiple Super Bowls can’t keep them straight. | ||||||
| 49 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 21:29 |
No. Well, to be more accurate, maybe, but not definitely, and CERTAINLY not as definitively in real time than it might appear after seventeen slow-motion replays dissected more than the Zapruder film (as long as you ignore some of he angles). | ||||||
| 50 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 21:42 | Not disputing that in real time, it was a tough call. I do agree, that the official who signaled TD, had no business signalling anything. He couldnt see the play unfold. Once he made that signal though, the derailment was underway. | ||||||
| 51 | Frick ID: 2193319 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:09 |
I think you are completely wrong on the official not making the call. The play unfolded towards him, the back judge only saw the players backs until they were on the ground. The official had a better view then back judge. The back judge had a worse angle. Plus the official who made the call was less then 10 yards away. The back official was further away as you don't see him enter the picture until he comes running in. Reportedly the replay official in the booth was Phil Lucket. You might remember him from a certain Lions/Steelers Thanksgiving day game where he got the coin flip wrong. That was way worse then this call. | ||||||
| 52 | Frick ID: 2193319 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:09 |
I think you are completely wrong on the official not making the call. The play unfolded towards him, the back judge only saw the players backs until they were on the ground. The official had a better view then back judge. The back judge had a worse angle. Plus the official who made the call was less then 10 yards away. The back official was further away as you don't see him enter the picture until he comes running in. Reportedly the replay official in the booth was Phil Lucket. You might remember him from a certain Lions/Steelers Thanksgiving day game where he got the coin flip wrong. That was way worse then this call. | ||||||
| 53 | Ref ID: 34731299 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 11:50 |
Sarge has it right. Even if you say there is joint possession, it doesn't matter. It is who caught it first. If it is simultaneous than the passers team gets the ball. It is not a completed pass until the catcher comes down with two feet or an equivalent in bounds. Which team caught the ball is not reviewable. Replay can only determine if the ball hit the ground or the catcher came down in bounds legally and in the end zone. You can make a case for joint possession, but you can't make a case for simultaneous possession. If the white hat had just gotten them together first and then determined what they had, they may have gotten the play right as the back judge clearly had an INT. The real problem is that the NFL doesn't have a minor league system and don't have absolute control of their officials like the other major leagues in the USA. The officials played hard ball because they know this. The NFL owners have exacted their power ever since they named Roger the commish. The MLB and NBA has such a strong minor league program that when replacements are deployed, there is little to be concerned with. There have been mass firings/replacements in both of those leagues and both leagues have become better. Weird because that experience and leadership is huge. In 2009, the NBA replacement officials were so strong, that the NBA officials finally had to agree to what the NBA wanted or they would have missed the entire season. When that 2 year deal expired before last ssn, the officials quickly agreed to yet another contract on the NBA's terms. The NBA, MLB and NHL uses those minor league officials during the season. Those officials are also the crew chiefs in the minor leagues which brings some experience and knowledge to others. Then when there is a lockout, those guys have a lot of knowledge on the policies and procedures of what the players and coaches understand. On top of that, the off-season training is really good as well as constant in-season training via observers and film-study. Those three pro leagues put a lot of money not only into their officiating programs, but their minor leagues. The NFL has no minor league. They use the colleges as their minor league and pocket all that cash. With no minor league they have to use college officials to take the spots of NFL guys but those are usually the top officials in college football and they can't quit their gigs to be replacements. It's a no-win situation for everyone. As an official, if you tell the league "no" they will move on and get someone else. You will never get another change to work for them and if you are in the minor league system, you will be terminated. What it boils down to is that most people could care less how good officials are. They want to save money and get guys they like. They figure they can take anyone and teach them to be good. The problem is when you take entire crews like that at the same time, you can't hide them. No one can pick up the slack for those individuals. But there are also some great officials out there in all leagues. As you've witnessed, officials really help the entertainment value of the games they work. It is unbelievable how often they are right. They can have a perfect game going and then they blow an obvious call which is near impossible to judge in real time and suddenly they all suck. How often to we have to slow things down frame by frame to see if they got it right? We have to understand that the game is played and officiated by humans and there never will be a perfect game by either of them. | ||||||
| 54 | Ref ID: 34731299 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 12:05 |
52: Frick, how far away from a play an official is --really is just perception. It all boils down to angles and not being in a "stack" or "straight line" with guys in front of you to be able to see the play. The back judge had a great look at the play and saw who caught the ball first. You could be 40 yards down the field and have a better look at a play at times. I hear all the time in basketball that the outside official made the call and the guy right next to the play didn't. You know how hard it is to see traveling from the lead on a baseline play when it is that close to you? Do you know how many guys run in front of you all the time in basketball? It is all about angles and open looks at plays in all sports and for the most part the officials are so incredibly good at their craft. You'd be amazed how much work and film study goes into it--not to mention incredible diet and workout regimens for some of those sports. | ||||||
| 55 | wolfer ID: 15939221 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 22:39 |
I have to bring this up since no one has yet. Guess who was the league supervisor up in the booth? | ||||||
| 56 | DWetzel ID: 25740420 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 22:41 | *nudge* read post 51. And for variety, 52. :) | ||||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: Replacement Refs | ||||||||