Thread: Replacement Ref Memes

a lot was made about Tate readjusting for the ball, BUT you are right. The DB only had one foot down when the WR had two down, too...

Originally Posted by JJ-30

The call is 100% right what was wrong was the missed PI call.

What people are forgetting is yes Jennings had his hands on the ball first but the Seahawks player got his hands on the ball before either of their feet touched the ground. To have control and make it an INT Jennings feet needed to touch the ground before the Seahawks play established control of the ball. Once both of them had any kind of control over the ball and neither one of the feet touched the ground, the only call that can be made is in favor of the receiver in this case a TD. As a matter of fact it looks like the Seahawks player feet touched the ground first after he had control on the ball. I am not sure it would have been call any different if the regular refs were on the field.

I never saw possession (ever) by the Sea Chickens player. He flopped one arm on the ball, but never had possession.

Look.....closer

I must really be a bears homer because I think the call was right, and as MP said. They lost because they got their asses beaten like a drum all night.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I disagree. You can argue about "simultaneous possession" vs "first possession" and what that status was when the two players first got 2 feet down, but I don't see how you can't say that both players shared possession in some way upon reaching the ground. I'm not saying the call wasn't controversial and home-team-generous. It was. They often are. I'm not saying that the replacements refs didn't make/blow several bad calls during the game as a whole (including a bunch in Green Bay's favor). But there still is no definitive way to know that the "catch" call would have been any different if the regular refs were there. The non-called PI on Tate was a legit foul and he got away with it. Just like Woodson does every damn game multiple times.

This whole thing has been really blown up like crazy for some obvious ulterior motives.

First of all, Green Bay players (Rodgers incl.) are whining like crazy understandably in frustration because the call "cost" them the win. Of course, what's conveniently not mentioned are the tacky calls that kept their TD drive alive, the fact that the Packers notoriously get more than their fair share of "breaks" from refs, and the fact that they GOT THEIR ASS BEAT LIKE A DRUM most of the game.

Secondly, we all know the screaming pundits and commentators have a pro-union/anti-ownership bias built in that sees the replacement refs as "scabs" and regular ones as victims. This controversy plays perfectly into their labor v management viewpoint. I doubt there's been much consideration given to the fact that the ref union might just be part of the problem here by rejecting expansion of crews, 401k plans, etc. Remember, its the OWNERS who own the league and pay the bills, like it or not.

We can agree to disagree on the call MP. No problem there. Regarding the ulterior motives, I don't think it's anything more than a lot of people (like me) being fed up with the replacement experiment failure.

It's not a union vs. management thing. I was a manager for many years working with unions, so I'm not pro anything here, other than pro "good football" which for me includes decent officiating.

Just because the regular refs are not perfect doesn't equate to the level of ineptitude we are seeing with the replacement refs. That's just my opinion. I'm not a part of any union conspiracy. Just a ticked off fan who squarely blames the NFL for this mess. I do agree with Ric's comments that the refs need to give here too. Both sides DO need to find a common ground by compromising. I really liked the idea mentioned (I think) by Ric that would have the existing ref's retirement plan grandfathered in, and new refs having a 401k. That seemed reasonable to me.

I just want to see good football again. Not this screwed up mess. I hate it.

Regarding "the catch" only:
The more I look at the replay, the more I see the call as justifiable. No doubt the DB "caught" the ball first high in the air. He had arm/hand possession first. But last I checked a reception requires two feet down plus the ball. By the time his second foot was down, it looks to me like Tate (who also had two feet down) had established mutual/disputed control. So, call me crazy, but that sounds like "simultaneous possession" to me. And that goes to the offensive team. The replay official couldn't find adequate grounds to reverse the TD. Tate definitely got away with a shove but he did a helluva job to establish some kind of mutual claim to the ball BEFORE the defender got 2 feet down. I don't know how you could call it a "completed interception" until the DB got two feet down. The only time he had sole, undisputed possession of the ball was when he was high off the ground. I want to look at it again on a bigger screen close up but the catch call doesn't seem that indefensible after all.

I'm not saying the replacement refs are adequate or competent or should say. They're nowhere near the level we are all used too. I agree and understand that. This controversy is going to add to the pressure on the "greedy owners" to give in to the union. There ought to be a compromise here as Ric suggested. But if I were management and some part-time employees demanded I pay them a fully guaranteed defined benefit pension (which puts me on the hook for decades), I'd tell them to go pound sand too.