|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
NFL: We're going to defend the replacement refs
Sep 25, 2012, 12:35 PM
|
|
by saying that they missed a call, so the end call was really right all along.
Well played Goodell.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
the call at the end of the game was correct
Sep 25, 2012, 12:42 PM
|
|
It was even reviewed and confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yes you keep saying this.
Sep 25, 2012, 12:51 PM
|
|
It's not going to keep me from finding humor in the fact that they make a defense by saying they missed a farking call.
As always you tend to miss the humor in things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
Just like Chris Clemons INT at BC was reviewed.
Sep 25, 2012, 12:54 PM
[ in reply to the call at the end of the game was correct ] |
|
He caught the pass, and fell to the ground, where the BC receiver grabbed it, too.
Voila, a catch by the BC player is ruled and confirmed by replay. Its a ####### miracle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
them's the rules... I believe that was Mike Hamlin, btw
Sep 25, 2012, 12:59 PM
|
|
I'm not a big fan of that simultaneous possession rule either, because it encourages refs to just call it a catch whenever the offensive player gets his hands on the ball at the same time as the defensive player, rather than trying to determine on the field who had possession first. On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to determine if the defender secured possession before the offensive player could touch the ball. That being said, they ought to do away with the simultaneous possession rule altogether so that the bias towards the offensive player would go away. If that rule hadn't been in place last night, they probably call it an int.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
It may have been Mike Hamlin. I remember thinking that
Sep 25, 2012, 1:11 PM
|
|
we were getting hosed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
seemed like it at the time
Sep 25, 2012, 1:13 PM
|
|
my mind immediately went back to that when the Packers/Seahawks play happened. Maybe there's a little schadenfreude involved in my thinking the call last night was correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
Schadenfreude woulda been that ref who made the call at BC
Sep 25, 2012, 1:21 PM
|
|
getting a case of #### herpes from Big Lance Johnson in a leather bar in the Tenderloin district.
Yeah, that'd soothe my tortured soul a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Re: Schadenfreude?
Sep 25, 2012, 4:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [801]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2230
Joined: 6/26/03
|
Wrong. The ruling on the field was not confirmed by replay.
Sep 25, 2012, 1:02 PM
[ in reply to the call at the end of the game was correct ] |
|
It was only determined that there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field - the play "stood".
Replay looks for indisputable evidence either way - to confirm or overrule. When they don't find either, they rule the play to stand as called.
The NFL front office themselves today acknowledge that offensive interference occurred on the play and should have been called, but it was missed. If it had been called, the game would have ended without the touchdown. They also reviewed the "catch" and agreed that the ruling issued by the replay officials was correct. There was no indisputable evidence to either confirm or overturn the ruling on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
so it wasn't really wrong...
Sep 25, 2012, 1:11 PM
|
|
the question was whether the ruling on the field was correct, and that was effectively confirmed by the replay because there wasn't indisuputable evidence of the call being wrong. My guess is it would've been 50/50 whether they would've overturned the call had they initially called it an interception, but we would've heard people screaming about how the Seahawks got jobbed in that scenario. So why are people acting like it was some kind of terrible call?
Probably because Jon Gruden couldn't shut his mouth about the officials all night, and because the announcers have made an inordinate amount of references to the officials so far this year. I found it hilarious when the other announcer pointed out to Gruden, who kept saying there should've been offensive PI on the play, that Gruden had always said the refs didn't usually call pass interference on hail marys. While I thought the number of penalties was a bit excessive last night, I've also seen the audit the WSJ did that showed the replacement officials performing about on par with the veterans. I also see no reason to expect that guys who have been ref'ing college games would suddenly forget the rules when they're ref'ing an NFL game. So I think it's announcers like Gruden who are messing up the game experience, not completely the refs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [801]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2230
Joined: 6/26/03
|
You said the call was "reviewed and confirmed".
Sep 25, 2012, 1:30 PM
|
|
That statement is wrong - paint it however you may.
A lack of indisputable evidence to overturn a ruling does not equate to confirming the ruling. As I said, replay is not only looking for evidence to overturn, but also evidence to confirm the ruling. When a ruling "stands", it means there's not indisputable evidence to support either confirming or overruling.
As for the PI call, I agree PI is usually not called in these situations. Usually, as long as the PI doesn't completely remove someone (offensive or defensive) from the play, they let it ride. However, that was one of the most blatant examples I've ever seen on a hail mary play. Tate clearly shoved Shields to the ground and out of the play. I do believe the experienced refs would have called that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
but since there is no separate "ruling confirmed" call...
Sep 25, 2012, 1:39 PM
|
|
not finding indisputable evidence to overturn a call is effectively a confirmation that the call on the field is correct (or, at the very least, that there was nothing wrong with making that call)*. As for the whole hail mary thing, it was clearly offensive PI, but I have never seen that called.
* This is incorrect. There is a separate "call confirmed," but this really doesn't change what I was saying. It isn't at all obvious that the call made was incorrect, and the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it means that calling it a catch was a correct call.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [801]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2230
Joined: 6/26/03
|
There is a "ruling confirmed" call.
Sep 25, 2012, 2:00 PM
|
|
A ruling on the field can be "confirmed", "overturned", or it can "stand".
Confirmed - indisputable evidence the ruling on the field was correct
Overturned - indisputable evidence the ruling on the field was incorrect
Stand - no indisputable evidence to support either confirming or overturning the call.
3 distinctly different possible outcomes for replay reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
where are you finding that?
Sep 25, 2012, 2:57 PM
|
|
not that it really matters. The fact that the ruling wasn't overturned means it wasn't necessarily a bad call.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
not sure about nfl but i have heard those descriptions
Sep 25, 2012, 3:01 PM
|
|
given for college
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [801]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2230
Joined: 6/26/03
|
Point. I didn't want to spend the time to look.***
Sep 25, 2012, 3:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29046]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36106
Joined: 8/28/00
|
The review had nothing to do with interception vs catch
Sep 25, 2012, 1:40 PM
[ in reply to the call at the end of the game was correct ] |
|
That is not reviewable per the NFL officiating expert on broadcast last night. The review was to determine if there was anything present to negate there being a catch (ie ball hitting the ground). Once the ref on the field (incorrectly IMO) ruled it a catch the. It could NEVER be an interception after review. The only way it could be overturned was if it was called incomplete (ball hitting the ground, player stepping OOB, etc)
And I keep hearing about simultaneous possession, but I don't think folks understand what that means. It means possession was gained simultaneously not tht eventually both players had possession at the same time. I'm not sure how anyone watching the play could think the receiver caught the ball first or at the same time as the defender, and the defender truly never seemed to lose possession, so the simultaneous possession rule shouldn't have been applied. And nevermind the single most obvious offensive PI that was missed on the play.
I can't see how anyone would argue the right call was made
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
don't they review all scores though?
Sep 25, 2012, 1:43 PM
|
|
Not sure if that means they can review simultaneous possession or not. Just looking at this video, it looks like to me that both of them had their hands on it at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7zp0WHgamA
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29046]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36106
Joined: 8/28/00
|
All scoring plays are reviewed, that is true
Sep 25, 2012, 1:56 PM
|
|
But if the guy last night was correct (and I believe he's the ex head of NFL officiating) then once the judgment on the field is that there is simultaneous possession (or mor accurately that the receiver caught the ball at all) that is no longer reviewable. You can review whether there is a reason to negate the catch (hot the ground, stepped OOB, etc) but you can't override the judgment call of simultaneous possession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29046]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36106
Joined: 8/28/00
|
BTW, I was wrong
Sep 25, 2012, 2:04 PM
|
|
It was reviewable since it was in the end zone (the exert last night was wrong) per the NFL statement.
I still don't see how a review would all or simultaneous possession however
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [801]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2230
Joined: 6/26/03
|
At one point, before falling to the ground,
Sep 25, 2012, 2:15 PM
|
|
Tate's right hand loses contact with the ball while Jennings maintains his position. Tate doesn't re-engage his right hand until they hit the ground. That, to me, should be why this clearly isn't simultaneous possession.
Per the Calvin Johnson rule, possession must be maintained through the entirety of a catch. I don't know how anyone can look at Tate and think he accomplished that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
that is really splitting hairs, don't you think?
Sep 25, 2012, 3:00 PM
|
|
You can watch the video all day long and never come to the incontrovertible conclusion that it wasn't simultaneous possession. And the simple fact that we have to parse things so finely should tell you that a lot of the controversy over the call is because of the increased scrutiny on the replacements, not on the quality of the call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [801]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2230
Joined: 6/26/03
|
I don't really think so, no.
Sep 25, 2012, 3:58 PM
|
|
We're not going to find common ground on the ruling itself so I'm not going to spend time on that.
As for the scrutiny on the replacement refs, I do agree that some of it is uncalled for. Some of it is warranted. Any call like the one last night is going to be heavily scrutinized regardless of who the refs are because the ruling will decide who wins and who loses.
Last night, there were two refs standing at the play as it happened. One signals a TD; the other signals an interception. At the time they signal, they're probably not more than 6 feet apart. After discussion, they rule a TD.
The ruling was controversial enough that the NFL reviewed replays again this morning. They site a lack of irrefutable evidence to overturn the play for a SECOND TIME.
The problem with their stance is that if they overturned the ruling at this point, they would also have to overturn who won and lost the game. How does that type of action fit with their negotiating leverage?
I'm not claiming any vast conspiracy. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I am an avid fan and watch football every chance I get. I've never seen a call that I thought was so obviously wrong as I saw last night. It's strictly my opinion and seems to be shared by many, many much more qualified people than myself.
One person who hasn't chimed in yet is Mike Pereria (possibly spelled wrong). He's the ex-head of NFL officials. Worked for years for the NFL and handled the training of the refs. Now he works for the media reviewing the performance of officials. According to a post on Twitter last night, he was not going to be able to watch the game so I don't think he's commented yet. If he says it's the right call, I'll believe him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60261]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42577
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Replacement refs: 100% on coin tosses
Sep 25, 2012, 1:01 PM
|
|
replacement NFL refs > regular NFL refs
if you has confuse, Google Jerome Bettis coin toss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [294]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 828
Joined: 2/27/08
|
Re: Replacement refs: 100% on coin tosses
Sep 25, 2012, 1:33 PM
|
|
You have to give it to those poor guys. They are under alot of pressure. But they do stink!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And only for $8 an hour! WHAT A COUNTRY!***
Sep 25, 2012, 1:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29046]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36106
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I don't blame them
Sep 25, 2012, 1:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: Replacement refs: 100% on coin tosses ] |
|
Football officiating is hard. And to be dropped into the highest level like this would cause issues in most professions.
It's not attacking them to argue they haven't done a great job. They were destined to fail at this level because it isn't something that can really ever be prepared for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [294]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 828
Joined: 2/27/08
|
Re: NFL: We're going to defend the replacement refs
Sep 25, 2012, 1:30 PM
|
|
Three Blind Mice! Three Blind Mice!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Here is the rule for simultaneous catches:
Sep 25, 2012, 3:41 PM
|
|
"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.
Anyone watching that play has to see that the Packer players has firm, two-handed control of the ball all the way to the ground. The WR, Tate, "may" have one hand on the ball in the beginning, but doesn't have two hands on the ball until both players are on the ground and rolling around. The play is over once they hit the ground, and it's clear the Packer players has control of the ball from air to the ground.
Bad call by the refs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
Re: Here is the rule for simultaneous catches:
Sep 25, 2012, 4:21 PM
|
|
Anyone watching that play has to see that the Packer players has firm, two-handed control of the ball all the way to the ground.
cept for the booth officials
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
The back judge seems to have noticed.
Sep 25, 2012, 4:27 PM
|
|
Nobody was paying attention to him, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
still haven't figure that one out
Sep 25, 2012, 4:31 PM
|
|
1 arm waving is touchback
2 is stop the clock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [135941]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 91735
Joined: 12/6/98
|
Re: NFL: We're going to defend the replacement refs
Sep 25, 2012, 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
