Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Football' started by cleansheetbsc, Sep 5, 2012.
this is just sad. whats the point in watching if the refs call what they want.
That's how I felt after SB XL.
Unbelieveable. The only good thing to come out of this is that the team that thinks for some reason that they were jobbed in the Super Bowl was awarded a win this time. Maybe this will finally get Seattle fans to quit waving their victim diapers around under everybody's nose and just play ball.
surprised these haven't made their way here yet...
we may have come up with a new word for the dictionary...
but Makayla isn't impressed...
It does feel better to be on the other side of a horrible call. Doesn't change the fact that the Steelers wear a ring that should be on a Seahawk so don't expect me to forget Superbowl XL.
Tell me this, if the reverse happened and the Steelers were jobbed out of a ring, would you forget? How about if it was in your only SB appearance?
Last night can be viewed the same way. People are saying they are upset because a bad call decided a game. Ask the Chargers how it feels to have a game taken away. The Seahawks were jobbed by the refs in a game that kept them out of the playoffs and cost Dennis Erickson his job when Vinny and the Jets got a phantom TD.
Bad refs have always been a part of sport. Although this seems on the surface to be particularly bad, the real refs weren't any good, either.
Now now you're letting your team allegiance get in the way. Seattle was robbed in the Super Bowl against the Steelers.
Sources, including ESPN, say a deal is close. Some have gone so far as to say they have a full deal "in principle" and could be back as soon as Week 4.
They have agreed with one of the sticking points: hiring extra crews. They have agreed to allowing three 7-man "taxi squads" which will train for future use, and be paid for directly by the NFL, not out of the referee compensation fund. They will also be non-union.
One thing I'm confused about is the ESPN announcer said right after the incident "this is not a reviewable play." Is that correct? IOW, are the refs even more incompetent because they reviewed a play they are not supposed to, or was the announcer the most clueless person in the building?
The play was going to be reviewed regardless. If it was an interception, it would've been reviewed, as all turnovers are subject to a review. If it was a touchdown, it would've been reviewed as all scoring plays are subject to review. The play had to be reviewed one way or the other.
There was also this 'touchdown', with real referees. Loss literally cost the Seahawks a spot in the playoffs and Dennis Erickson his job.
I was sitting about thirty rows up in that end zone. I thought he was short from my vantage, but as a Jet fan, glad the refs screwed the pooch on this call.
If he was talking about whether or not it was a simultaneous catch or not, then he got that wrong. It was verified simultaneous catch calls can be reviewed in the end zone. They can't in the field of play.
I guess my question was, is that particular play possible to over-turn? So I guess it is. So then what's the point of reviewing the play if there's 100% conclusive evidence that the official got it dead wrong and the call still stands?
He was carrying the ball in his helmet. therefore, TD!
Stanger, you didn't get "jobbed". You lost a call late in the second half on a third down play that likely would have seen Pittsburgh go for it on fourth down, and you lost the game by more than the points awarded for that play. I can't respond to most of your post because all your sentences begin with a false premise. I'll address what I can, tho.
Doesn't matter. I conduct myself as a grownup at pretty much all times, regardess of how my team is doing. When my team loses a playoff game to another team, I'm the first or second poster to come here and congratulate them. That's regardless of the sport. It's who I am. It's who you need to become.
I still don't see how it was a simultaneous catch, though. They can't review simultaneous catch because it has to go to someone. It wouldn't matter who caught the ball. Even if they said "Touchdown", it still has to be reviewed as a scoring play, and that's where they should have seen that the defender caught the ball. Also, if it was in the field of play, it would be reviewed only inside of 2 minutes of the half. Otherwise, it would have to be a challenge. A coach can challenge the call on the field of a reception.
Phantom holding on a play that put Seattle on the 1 with an opportunity to go up late. With Alexander in the backfield, Hutch and Jones on the left side, that was automatic that year.
Perhaps you forgot about this?
And that's exactly the root of the problem. It wasn't a simultaneous catch. The replacement refs called it one anyway.
IIRC, some pundit said the play was reviewed to make sure the ball was caught (didn't touch the ground), not who caught it, if that makes sense. Apparently, possession (who has the ball) can't be reviewed because it's "subjective". Something like that. That's the only sane logic on why they didn't overturn the call after review.
Tirico. All plays resulting in touchdowns are reviewable.
As any play in the last two minutes can be.
I have been watching the NFL for 50 years-- 2000 games or more. I have seen that exact situation (not always in the end zone) perhaps 25 or 30 times. This is the only time I have seen it called in favor of the Tate-surrogate.
And according to ESPN this morning, the replay official who didn't see enough to overturn? He's been famous twice before.
One of them is above. The other involved Jerome Bettis immediately before a game...
The lockout is over.
An agreement has been reached, and the refs will vote on Friday and Saturday in Dallas. In the meantime, the normal refs come back tonight.
Among the arrangements:
A pay increase averaging over 33% over the next 8 seasons, from $149,000 avg. to $205,000 avg.
A new retirement benefit package effective in 2017. Full details in the above link.
NFL option to hire a full-time officiating crew, and some training crews.
I don't understand why everyone is so excited over the refs coming back. They do a shitty job, too. It's just not as shitty as the replacement refs. People will be screaming about missed calls on Monday morning, just like they have for the last 75 years.
You're damn right they will! All the fans demanding the "real" refs come back are nothing but hypocrits.
And I'm amused by all the concern shown in the press to "fans" who gambled on the Browns-Ravens game and "lost" money. Just goes to show how the NFL's "popularity" isn't because of the sport but because of the gambling on it. Same goes for the "popularity" of minor league football and minor league basketball -- err, I mean college football and college basketball. You know, the sports that use indentured servants as the play pieces while the universities and athletic departments and coaching staffs make out like bandits.
that may be, but they can review the play for different things. determining possession isn't one of them.