GB @ Seattle....

[Nigel Tufnel]

Wow. I haven't really bought into all the replacement referee hype. Yeah, they've been bad...but whatever. Tonight....ouch. I can't even believe what I just saw....

[xsteve1]

Wow. I haven't really bought into all the replacement referee hype. Yeah, they've been bad...but whatever. Tonight....ouch. I can't even believe what I just saw....

I almost feel sorry for the replacements. They were thrown into a no win situation. The regular refs have been scrutinized for years. I mean holding can be called on every play. The game is too fast and too violent to control.

[Kahns Krazy]

That play will come up at the end of the year. It will affect someone's playoff picture.

I was waiting for the situation when the refs would blow a call that would change a game. I didn't think it would be so obvious, and I wasn't thinking it would be on Monday Night.

As ESPN said, Seattle won, and the NFL lost.

[XU 87]

It was a terrible call. But as long as I've been watching football, the refs screw up and get criticized on a regular basis. But now when they screw up, it's because they're replacements and the entire integrity of the league is in jeopardy.

After watching for years how the regular refs screw up calls on a regular basis, and watching the criticism that went with the bad calls, it's interesting to see how "great" and irreplaceable people think they are now.

[xubrew]

I'm not an NFL fan. If I were I'd probably be pissed. But since I'm not, I don't think I've ever enjoyed the NFL as much as I have these first few weeks. The replacement refs are about as reliable as WWF wrestling referees. It's very entertaining if you don't have a dog in the fight.

All kidding aside, I believe the full time refs have made their point. I'm not sure what they want. Maybe they still don't deserve what they're asking for. Clearly, though, they are a bigger asset to the game than what many (including myself) probably gave them credit for.

[kyxu]

It was a terrible call. But as long as I've been watching football, the refs screw up and get criticized on a regular basis. But now when they screw up, it's because they're replacements and the entire integrity of the league is in jeopardy.

After watching for years how the regular refs screw up calls on a regular basis, and watching the criticsm that went with the bad calls, it's interesting to see how "great" and irreplaceable people think they are now.

Agreed.

Now when fans want to bitch about the officials, they have a crutch.

[outsideobserver11]

It's all making sense...the refs thought they were working a BW3's commercial

[LadyMuskie]

It was a terrible call. But as long as I've been watching football, the refs screw up and get criticized on a regular basis. But now when they screw up, it's because they're replacements and the entire integrity of the league is in jeopardy.

After watching for years how the regular refs screw up calls on a regular basis, and watching the criticsm that went with the bad calls, it's interesting to see how "great" and irreplaceable people think they are now.

I agree. Complaining about the refs has always been a part of the game and there have been plenty of bad calls or missed calls under the regular guys. I do think, however, that some calls or no-calls now are a tad more egregious than they tend to be under the regular crews. Or, maybe it's that the backup crews are being scrutinized more than the regular crews are and that's why it's more noticeable. Either way, I wonder if when this season goes into the record books, if there will be an asterisk accompanying it.

[Muskie]

Supposedly the league and refs are 70 mil or so apart. Including a pension.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

[blueblob06]

That entire last drive was a disaster for the refs, not just the final play. Think about this, Seattle had 0 first downs and almost no yards for the entire 2nd half before they marched all the way down the field for the win. Three things had to happen that were huge - Late hit on GB (which wasn't a late hit) and erased a Packers INT, pass interference called on GB (which was offensive PI on Seattle), and then a TD catch by Seattle (which was a GB INT and Seattle also had a blatant offensive PI). All 3 scenarios were clearly called the wrong way and within a few minutes of each other. If even 1 of those were called correctly, the opposite team would've won. Goodell is probably getting a lot of mail out of Wisconsin this week.

[xubrew]

I know the replacement refs aren't NFL refs, but I would think that they would be referees of some sort or another. Yunno, I would think that they'd actually refereed football at some level and in some capacity. These guys don't look like they've even done JV highschool games.

Having said that, I give you the greatest moment in NFL officiating history. I was at Xavier when this happened, and this game happened to be on. Again, if I were a fan I would have been pissed, but since I wasn't I was laughing so hard I couldn't breathe. I wish I could find a better video of it. Perhaps the best part isn't on the video. It's when the referee stood up and emphatically signalled for an incomplete pass....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQ1Vc7H9DM

[XU 87]

Or, maybe it's that the backup crews are being scrutinized more than the regular crews are and that's why it's more noticeable.

That's what I think is happening.

[Kahns Krazy]

It was a terrible call. But as long as I've been watching football, the refs screw up and get criticized on a regular basis. But now when they screw up, it's because they're replacements and the entire integrity of the league is in jeopardy.

After watching for years how the regular refs screw up calls on a regular basis, and watching the criticsm that went with the bad calls, it's interesting to see how "great" and irreplaceable people think they are now.

The replacement refs are making fundamental errors that the regular refs never made. I don't recall a team getting 4 time outs in a half ever, much less it being a weekly occurence. Penalties are being enforced incorrectly, refs are out of position so they are missing calls - real basics that pro refs get right all of the time.

Keep in mind that the replacement refs are not the guys who would have been NFL refs next. Those guys all have great jobs reffing the college game at high levels. The replacements are refs that weren't good enough to worry about their reffing careers when they bacame scabs.

[xubrew]

The replacement refs are making fundamental errors that the regular refs never made. I don't recall a team getting 4 time outs in a half ever, much less it being a weekly occurence. Penalties are being enforced incorrectly, refs are out of position so they are missing calls - real basics that pro refs get right all of the time.

Keep in mind that the replacement refs are not the guys who would have been NFL refs next. Those guys all have great jobs reffing the college game at high levels. The replacements are refs that weren't good enough to worry about their reffing careers when they bacame scabs.

Where did they find these refs??

I mean, NCAA div3 refs and JUCO refs do a better job than these guys. Not even JV high school refs make the kinds of mistakes that you just described. I find it hard to believe that this was the best they could do. Who are these guys?? Have they ever refereed football at any level before??

[LadyMuskie]

The NCAA refs aren't going to ref because they might eventually want to ref in the NFL and don't want the label of scab to stick with them. I think these refs are guys (and at least one woman) who ref at the high school and lower levels, or are people who just signed up and warm bodies were needed, so . . .

[blueblob06]

Where did they find these refs??

I mean, NCAA div3 refs and JUCO refs do a better job than these guys. Not even JV high school refs make the kinds of mistakes that you just described. I find it hard to believe that this was the best they could do. Who are these guys?? Have they ever refereed football at any level before??
Who knows. When one ref was signaling touchback and the other was signaling touchdown and they saw each other signaling the opposite, you would've thought they'd have been thinking, "Shit, we better talk it over together". Nope.

[drudy23]

Sounds like they got most of the them from D-III and NAIA schools....where the game is MUCH, MUCH different.

These guys are in over their heads....hell, they even know it. But at the same time, they know they're aren't going to be asked to come back regardless of how well they do. So, basically, they don't know what they're doing, and it doesn't matter if they get better. They really don't HAVE to do a good job.

[BBC 08]

Some of these refs were fired from the LFL for incompetence: http://deadspin.com/5946112/the-lingerie-football-league-announces-that-it-fired-a-couple-crews-which-apparently-are-now-officiating-in-the-nfl-because-of-incompetence

[xubrew]

Some of these refs were fired from the LFL for incompetence: http://deadspin.com/5946112/the-lingerie-football-league-announces-that-it-fired-a-couple-crews-which-apparently-are-now-officiating-in-the-nfl-because-of-incompetence

Oh My God!!!!!

It just keeps getting better!!!!

[XU 87]

The replacement refs are making fundamental errors that the regular refs never made. I don't recall a team getting 4 time outs in a half ever, much less it being a weekly occurence. Penalties are being enforced incorrectly, refs are out of position so they are missing calls - real basics that pro refs get right all of the time.

Keep in mind that the replacement refs are not the guys who would have been NFL refs next. Those guys all have great jobs reffing the college game at high levels. The replacements are refs that weren't good enough to worry about their reffing careers when they bacame scabs.

I would imagine that the replacement refs will make more mistakes than NFL refs, particularly on rules interpretations. But the NFL refs made a bunch of mistakes in the past, and they'll make a bunch of mistakes when they get back. People seem to be forgetting this past history.

[Emp]

One issue the refs' association is stuck on is being compelled to be full time, and forgo additional income. I don't see the point of that, and why the league would be insisting on it.

I watched the game and the commentary by the NFL approved game announcers, then the ESPN Sports Center. They were totally unloading on the replacements......I believe Gruden used the term "jobbed." Holy shit, if your own announcers are pointing to the cost of locking out the regulars, it may be time to cut losses and get a deal done.

[Snipe]

It was a terrible call. But as long as I've been watching football, the refs screw up and get criticized on a regular basis. But now when they screw up, it's because they're replacements and the entire integrity of the league is in jeopardy.

After watching for years how the regular refs screw up calls on a regular basis, and watching the criticsm that went with the bad calls, it's interesting to see how "great" and irreplaceable people think they are now.


Agreed.

Now when fans want to bitch about the officials, they have a crutch.


I agree. Complaining about the refs has always been a part of the game and there have been plenty of bad calls or missed calls under the regular guys. I do think, however, that some calls or no-calls now are a tad more egregious than they tend to be under the regular crews. Or, maybe it's that the backup crews are being scrutinized more than the regular crews are and that's why it's more noticeable. Either way, I wonder if when this season goes into the record books, if there will be an asterisk accompanying it.


That's what I think is happening.


Who knows. When one ref was signaling touchback and the other was signaling touchdown and they saw each other signaling the opposite, you would've thought they'd have been thinking, "Shit, we better talk it over together". Nope.


I would imagine that the replacement refs will make more mistakes than NFL refs, particularly on rules interpretations. But the NFL refs made a bunch of mistakes in the past, and they'll make a bunch of mistakes when they get back. People seem to be forgetting this past history.

I am in the camp that these refs aren't so bad. I see bad calls in every NFL game with the real refs, and as they say "you could call holding (or another penalty) on every play"

I am not sure that was a bad call either. It was reviewed. Simultaneous possession goes to the offense. I have seen it before. The defender got two hands on it, but the offensive player got one hand on it. It was clear to me that his arm was between the ball and the defensive players chest, and when they both came down he drew that arm in to try to cradle the ball. If that is not simultaneous possession I would like to know what is. Before the defenders feet hit the ground both guys were grasping the ball. Is that enough for simultaneous possession? What is the rule? Does two hands trump one hand? If not, why is that a bad call? Could somebody post the rule?

I thought it was an interception originally. Watching the replay I had my doubts, because it was clear that the receiver had his hand and arm up in there. My son thought it was simultaneous possession from watching it. I think a call like this is a bang-bang play and can go either way, and I am not sure they made the wrong call.

Now, plenty of other things did happen, like the eventual receiver pushing a defensive back to the ground to get position, but that isn't what we are talking about. Many calls go unnoticed, and everyone and their mother was in the end-zone. It is tough for a guy to watch everyone all at once, hell it is impossible to do.

You can call that a touchdown in my book. Had they called it an interception I bet we still we have people bashing the refs. It isn't as cut and dry as you would like. And the play was reviewed and upheld.

Take it like a man. This is football.

[DC Muskie]

I just wanted to point out that instant replay was supposed to "get the call right."

Well, all instant replay has done is make officiating much, much worse. Then when you add in guys who the Lingerie Football League canned, this is what you get.

Seriously I could rail on instant replay for hours. What a joke. Don't blame the refs, blame the people who thought instant replay would prevent shit like this from happening.

[blueblob06]

I am in the camp that these refs aren't so bad. I see bad calls in every NFL game with the real refs, and as they say "you could call holding (or another penalty) on every play"

I am not sure that was a bad call either. It was reviewed. Simultaneous possession goes to the offense. I have seen it before. The defender got two hands on it, but the offensive player got one hand on it. It was clear to me that his arm was between the ball and the defensive players chest, and when they both came down he drew that arm in to try to cradle the ball. If that is not simultaneous possession I would like to know what is. Before the defenders feet hit the ground both guys were grasping the ball. Is that enough for simultaneous possession? What is the rule? Does two hands trump one hand? If not, why is that a bad call? Could somebody post the rule?

I thought it was an interception originally. Watching the replay I had my doubts, because it was clear that the receiver had his hand and arm up in there. My son thought it was simultaneous possession from watching it. I think a call like this is a bang-bang play and can go either way, and I am not sure they made the wrong call.

Now, plenty of other things did happen, like the eventual receiver pushing a defensive back to the ground to get position, but that isn't what we are talking about. Many calls go unnoticed, and everyone and their mother was in the end-zone. It is tough for a guy to watch everyone all at once, hell it is impossible to do.

You can call that a touchdown in my book. Had they called it an interception I bet we still we have people bashing the refs. It isn't as cut and dry as you would like. And the play was reviewed and upheld.

Take it like a man. This is football.
First off, I'm not a Packers fan and didn't care who won. I'm not sure what the official rule is. Some analysts on the sports networks last night said (more or less) "yes simultaneous possession goes to the offense but in this case it is not simultaneous possesion as the defender caught it, had it against his chest with both hands and came down to the ground while the receiver only got 1 hand in during that." Who knows if that's part of the rule or not and if the refs knew the exact details of the rule. Also, by rule, a possession can not be determined by a booth review so "reviewing it" was not the right thing to do and the refs were probably told that when they went to review so they had to live with the wrong call they made on the field (since the guy who called it a TD and the guy who called it an INT didn't converse after the play).

And I agree that the regular refs made a lot of mistakes over the years but this year is very different. I'm thinking that at least once in every game I've watched this year, there has been at least 1 late hit and/or leading with helmet foul called that wasn't one and at least one pass interference that wasn't one or should've been against the offense. Yes, there's more scrutiny because these are replacement refs but there are way more calls negatively effecting games this year.

I gotta give McCarthy credit for sending 11 guys out for that joke extra point. I feel like most people would've say "F this" and left the stadium immediately.

[drudy23]

It wasn't simultaneous possession. Period.

[LadyMuskie]

Take it like a man. This is football.

This should become the NFL's new slogan!

[Snipe]

First off, I'm not a Packers fan and didn't care who won. I'm not sure what the official rule is. Some analysts on the sports networks last night said (more or less) "yes simultaneous possession goes to the offense but in this case it is not simultaneous possesion as the defender caught it, had it against his chest with both hands and came down to the ground while the receiver only got 1 hand in during that." Who knows if that's part of the rule or not and if the refs knew the exact details of the rule. Also, by rule, a possession can not be determined by a booth review so "reviewing it" was not the right thing to do and the refs were probably told that when they went to review so they had to live with the wrong call they made on the field (since the guy who called it a TD and the guy who called it an INT didn't converse after the play).

And I agree that the regular refs made a lot of mistakes over the years but this year is very different. I'm thinking that at least once in every game I've watched this year, there has been at least 1 late hit and/or leading with helmet foul called that wasn't one and at least one pass interference that wasn't one or should've been against the offense. Yes, there's more scrutiny because these are replacement refs but there are way more calls negatively effecting games this year.

I gotta give McCarthy credit for sending 11 guys out for that joke extra point. I feel like most people would've say "F this" and left the stadium immediately.


How the defender catch it? His feet hadn't even touched the ground. That isn't possession in the NFL, just getting your hands on it. And what about holding the ball to his chest? I dispute that. I think the receiver had an arm between the ball and the chest, and I think the replay backs that up. Watch the replay.



It wasn't simultaneous possession. Period.

Well that settles everything. Period.

An offensive player would have to come down with the ball, not just catch it in the air.

Do we know the rule? The defender touched it first and had both hands on it. The receiver had a hand on it too, and his arm was between the defenders hands and his chest as far as I can tell.

And if they can't review that, why have the review? I tend to concur with DC Muskie. Maybe the review is at fault here, but even given the review, I am not sure that they reverse that call. They didn't last night, but some say they couldn't. Even if they could, I am not sure they reverse that play.

Again, I would like to read the rule. I bet that won't solve anything either.



Is one hand better than two? I doubt it, but I don't know the rule. I know you can catch a touchdown with one hand.

[Snipe]

I need to add one point.

I know one guy who definitely blew it, and that was the Green Bay defender.

If you spike that ball down or out of bounds with one hand instead of trying to increase your interception stats by catching it with two, the game is over. Catching that ball would have helped in his contract negotiations, but it didn't help the Packers win. If he clubs that ball down or out of bounds that game is over and the Packers win. It was an idiot move by that guy, and he deserves more blame than any other person.

[GoMuskies]

This all a ploy by the Obama administration to make people from Wisconsin (who just voted not to recall Scott Walker) more sympathetic to unions.

[gladdenguy]

I loved the tweet from Fake ESPN.

Russell Wilson.....the first player to throw a game winning interception in NFL history

[XULucho27]

How the defender catch it? His feet hadn't even touched the ground. That isn't possession in the NFL, just getting your hands on it. And what about holding the ball to his chest? I dispute that. I think the receiver had an arm between the ball and the chest, and I think the replay backs that up. Watch the replay.

But possession and control are not the same thing. Possession is defined as:

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

For a simultaneous catch to be ruled both players must have control of the ball at the same time, not possession. If one player establishes control then a player subsequently establishing control is not simultaneous, it goes to the first player.


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. (emphasis mine)

I think it's clear that Jennings catches the ball, controls it by bringing it in toward his chest and then, as you rightly pointed out, Tate puts his hand between Jennings' chest and the ball. I think Jennings had control of the ball by the time that Tate got a hand on it.

The bigger issue is that the Ref did not consult with the two umpires before allowing them to signal. Clearly they had differing opinions, it's his job to hash out what they both claim to have seen and then make what he believes is the appropriate call. Furthermore, the two umps should have consulted with each other before making the call.

[bjf123]

I would imagine that the replacement refs will make more mistakes than NFL refs, particularly on rules interpretations. But the NFL refs made a bunch of mistakes in the past, and they'll make a bunch of mistakes when they get back. People seem to be forgetting this past history.
I don't think anyone is saying the "real" NFL refs don't make mistakes. However, I think everyone would agree that they don't make this many blatantly bad calls in a single game.

[xubrew]

Real NFL refs probably know how many timeouts teams get for each half. They also know how to enforce penalties.

The refs are making tons of mistakes. But, on top of that, there are basic rules that they do not seem to know. Picking up the wrong set of keys is a mistake. Not even knowing that keys are required to drive your car is above and beyond a simple mistake. The replacement refs are doing both the former and the latter.

[Snipe]

But possession and control are not the same thing. Possession is defined as:


For a simultaneous catch to be ruled both players must have control of the ball at the same time, not possession. If one player establishes control then a player subsequently establishing control is not simultaneous, it goes to the first player.



I think it's clear that Jennings catches the ball, controls it by bringing it in toward his chest and then, as you rightly pointed out, Tate puts his hand between Jennings' chest and the ball. I think Jennings had control of the ball by the time that Tate got a hand on it.

The bigger issue is that the Ref did not consult with the two umpires before allowing them to signal. Clearly they had differing opinions, it's his job to hash out what they both claim to have seen and then make what he believes is the appropriate call. Furthermore, the two umps should have consulted with each other before making the call.

I appreciate your explanation and I tend to agree with it. I don't think it is beyond the pale to think that in the jumbled mess of real time football that it isn't exactly clear to the refs what happened. It does appear that the defender had control first, if for just a fraction of a second while he is still in the air.

Is that enough? And if that is enough, why can't replay determine it? I echo again DC Muskies point. Why have replay if they can't look at this clip and decide what happened?

And again with my earlier point, this doesn't happen if the Green Bay player bats that ball straight down to the ground. Making it a jump ball just cost the Pack the game. I thought everyone knew that you aren't going for the interception in that situation, that you just wanted to bat the ball down emphatically. It appears that he missed the memo. If their is one take away from this, it shouldn't be the refs, it should be that defenders should go by the book and end the game when they get the opportunity and not leave anything to chance.

I like your take on it though, and thank you for giving us the rules. I would side with your take on the events.

[bigdiggins]

The possession (simultaneous/Tate having it) was reviewable because it was in the end zone. Had it been in the regular field of play it would not have been. Per the NFL's press release just after 12:00. Also, per their release Tate was guilty of Offensive Pass Interference. However, much like no-one ever wants to call a shooting foul on a last second shot, refs never want to call something in a hail mary scrum either. I don't think the regular refs would have called the push-off as obvious as it was.

[chico]

$250 million dollars was bet on that game in Vegas. 70% was on the Packers. I really don't believe anything nefarious was going on, I just find it amusing.

[DC Muskie]

I like how instant replay only works in certain situations. You have to have a timeout. Or under two minutes, someone else has to decide that something needs to be reviewed, unless of course someone scores, then they NEED to review it.

They keep slapping all of these provisions and restrictions on when, how and what you can use instant replay. And still the game gets faster and refs still suck. They can instantly replay how sucky they were.

[Kahns Krazy]

I am in the camp that these refs aren't so bad. I see bad calls in every NFL game with the real refs, and as they say "you could call holding (or another penalty) on every play"

I am not sure that was a bad call either. It was reviewed. Simultaneous possession goes to the offense. I have seen it before. The defender got two hands on it, but the offensive player got one hand on it. It was clear to me that his arm was between the ball and the defensive players chest, and when they both came down he drew that arm in to try to cradle the ball. If that is not simultaneous possession I would like to know what is. Before the defenders feet hit the ground both guys were grasping the ball. Is that enough for simultaneous possession? What is the rule? Does two hands trump one hand? If not, why is that a bad call? Could somebody post the rule?

I thought it was an interception originally. .....

I think that alone makes in not simultaneous.

[Kahns Krazy]

The possession (simultaneous/Tate having it) was reviewable because it was in the end zone. Had it been in the regular field of play it would not have been. Per the NFL's press release just after 12:00. Also, per their release Tate was guilty of Offensive Pass Interference. However, much like no-one ever wants to call a shooting foul on a last second shot, refs never want to call something in a hail mary scrum either. I don't think the regular refs would have called the push-off as obvious as it was.

I agree. I do think it's possible that a regular ref would have been in a position to witness the entire play, see what happened and throw that flag because of how that play turned out. 99% of the time, that flag doesn't come out, but if a ref sees an advantage being gained, they'll throw it if they saw it. That was blatant.

[chico]

I like how instant replay only works in certain situations. You have to have a timeout. Or under two minutes, someone else has to decide that something needs to be reviewed, unless of course someone scores, then they NEED to review it.

They keep slapping all of these provisions and restrictions on when, how and what you can use instant replay. And still the game gets faster and refs still suck. They can instantly replay how sucky they were.

It's a bad system. Just use what the college does where every play can be reviewed by the replay ref but coaches still get the chance to throw the red flag.

[coasterville95]

In fact if 70% of the cash was on the Packers (I didn't see the spread), did the Packers cover? If not, thats 70% of the handle the Vegas sports books don't have to pay on. Since they say they try to keep both sides even and make money by way of the vig, does this mean they made the Vig plus 40% of the handle? If so, the books had a good day.

But I can just as easily see the point, if incompetnet officiating causes the books to have to pay on an inordinate number of tickets.

Won't some of these replacement refs have to go back to their day jobs as A10 refs in a month or so?

[waggy]

Did anyone else see the video on Monday Night Countdown prior to C'mon Man, where two refs simultaneously signaled "firstdown" in opposite directions? OMG was that hilarious. I've looked and can't find anything on the net.

Then there was the "attention whore ref" that jumped into a pile and signaled firstdown about 7 times in quick succession.

[blueblob06]

In fact if 70% of the cash was on the Packers (I didn't see the spread), did the Packers cover? If not, thats 70% of the handle the Vegas sports books don't have to pay on. Since they say they try to keep both sides even and make money by way of the vig, does this mean they made the Vig plus 40% of the handle? If so, the books had a good day.

But I can just as easily see the point, if incompetnet officiating causes the books to have to pay on an inordinate number of tickets.

Won't some of these replacement refs have to go back to their day jobs as A10 refs in a month or so?
Spread was GB by 3 I believe. So everyone who bet GB straight up and to beat the spread would've won (as GB was up 5) but lost. Of course all those who bet SEA straight up or with the spread would've lost and ended up winning their bets.

Crazy stuff. Imagine the mix of chaos, anger, and joy in the sportsbooks in Vegas as that happened last night.

[blueblob06]

Not sure if this is accurrate but one article said $150 million worth of payouts were swayed by that last play.

[xsteve1]

Some of these refs were fired from the LFL for incompetence: http://deadspin.com/5946112/the-lingerie-football-league-announces-that-it-fired-a-couple-crews-which-apparently-are-now-officiating-in-the-nfl-because-of-incompetence

I think any red blooded american male would have a tough time concentrating when officiating a lingerie game.

[XU 87]

Upon further reivew, I think this was a good call. Possession in the NFL is defined as catching the ball AND getting both feet on the ground. Jennings caught the ball but didn't yet have his feet on the ground. On his way down, Tate reached in and grabbed the ball. By the time both of Jennings' feet were on the ground, Tate was locked into the ball with both hands. They were both holding the ball (simultaneous possession) when both of their feet were on the ground.

[XULucho27]

Upon further reivew, I think this was a good call. Possession in the NFL is defined as catching the ball AND getting both feet on the ground. Jennings caught the ball but didn't yet have his feet on the ground. On his way down, Tate reached in and grabbed the ball. By the time both of Jennings' feet were on the ground, Tate was locked into the ball with both hands. They were both holding the ball (simultaneous possession) when both of their feet were on the ground.

Again, I think the rule is being misinterpreted. Possession is not the governing issue but rather control. If both players each put hands on the ball at the exact same time and both have control over the football then it is simultaneous and the catch goes to the passing team. If, however, one player gains control and another player subsequently gains control, before the catch is completed, it is not considered simultaneous. I think it's pretty clear that Jennings catches the ball, controls it by pulling it toward his body AND THEN Golden Tate puts a hand on it to establish his control. By rule, that should be an interception.

I still think the bigger issue is the head referee failing to meet with the linesman and the back judge to determine what they each saw. They should have also consulted with each other before signaling either touchdown or interception. It basically came down to who made the call first: In this case the official signaling touchdown did so first hence his call is the one that stands.

[Nigel Tufnel]

In fact if 70% of the cash was on the Packers (I didn't see the spread), did the Packers cover? If not, thats 70% of the handle the Vegas sports books don't have to pay on. Since they say they try to keep both sides even and make money by way of the vig, does this mean they made the Vig plus 40% of the handle? If so, the books had a good day.

But I can just as easily see the point, if incompetnet officiating causes the books to have to pay on an inordinate number of tickets.

Won't some of these replacement refs have to go back to their day jobs as A10 refs in a month or so?

The line opened at GB -3.5. 70-75% of the money came in on GB. The line dropped to -3 at game time but it was juiced pretty heavily. -120 to -130 in some places. The books thought Seattle would cover. They made a killing last night. I read that Danny Sheridan believed that worldwide (Vegas, other countries and internet) close to 1 billion dollars changed hands on that last play. Not only because 70+% lost, but because they lost that additional juice. I was among the squares that lost $60 on a $50 bet. I feel that I was on the right side last night....but that's gambling. The fact that I would put money on a game reffed by replacement officials with reverse line movement....well, I blame myself. Do I feel I got hosed? Of course....just add that to the long line of crappy beats I've endured in my gambling career.

Coaster, Vegas isn't trying to get 50/50. They are playing the game too....and they play it better than the bettors. That's why they have all those nice buildings in Vegas. They got lucky last night. Here is an article that I've posted maybe 5 times on this forum....its straight from the horses mouth on the 50/50 myth.

DIRECT FROM NEVADA

With Linesmaker Nick Bogdanovich

THE MYTH OF "SPLITTING THE ACTION"

You've probably heard for years, even decades, that the goal of the oddsmaker is to "split the action" on each game.
That means he wants half the money on one side of the betting line, and half on the other side. Since losing bets are charged a 10 percent "vigorish," sportsbooks are guaranteed a profit whenever the money breaks out evenly. The losers pay the winners, and the sportsbooks put 10% in their pockets thank you very much.
It doesn't actually work out that way.
Sure, there are some games where the money comes in close to 50/50. Often you'll see the public (referred to as "squares" in Nevada) betting on one side, while professional wagerers (called "sharps") are on the other. What's more common these days is for the sportsbooks to take a position on a game while giving bettors "the worst of it."
What do I mean by that?
If oddsmakers are confident the public is going to be betting one side very strongly, which is fairly common when you're talking about big name college football teams or the most hyped pro squads, they'll inflate the line a couple of points in that direction. The public isn't betting the "true" line that reflects the actual difference between the teams on the field. They're paying a tax of a couple of points because their betting is so predictable. As a result, squares who still make that bet are laying 11/10 AND a bad number. It's tough enough to beat the 11/10 over time. Doing that against bad numbers will make money for the sportsbooks even if the money doesn't split out evenly.
In some sports though, it's mostly sharp action that's hitting the board. Oddsmakers will try to do the same thing here by studying sharp betting patterns. If they notice that the sharps are hitting an off-the-radar team in college basketball, or maybe Unders with certain NBA teams, they'll adjust that line a couple of points as well. Now the sharps have to decide whether or not they want to lay 11/10 at a line not particularly to their liking. If they do, the sportsbooks figure they're okay because they've charged the tax and have the 11/10 working for them.
Let me give you an example that will help you see how powerful this is. I've heard often through the years about "offers" that certain illegal bookies around the country will make to their square clientele. They're so confident the squares will lose with a lot of action, they tell the mark that he can move the line one point in his favor in every game...but he has to bet EVERY game. Now, this ONLY works against real squares! Most guys can win with that kind of edge. Sharps would make a killing. Squares find a way to lose no matter what the proposition is.
Now, imagine a book told you that HE would get to move each game a point in whatever direction HE wanted, you still had to lay 11/10, and you had to play every game on the board. That would be horrible for a player. You'd never take that offer in a million years. Imagine it was two points instead of one. Nobody in their right mind would take that offer.
Well, that's what's going on here to a degree. Sportsbooks realize how the public bets, they're charging them 11/10 on each play, and they're making them lay 1-3 points the worst of it depending on the game. I'm not saying the public plays the board. But, oddsmakers know which games the public will be focused on. That universe is tilted very strongly against the squares. The "squares' board" is a stacked deck.
Oddsmakers haven't quite yet realized how to beat the sharps. But, they have slowed down the sharps with this type of approach. That 11/10 vig AND "penalty" points create quite a hurdle for players to clear even if you're talking about an obscure college basketball game or an NBA total.
In baseball, the same thing happens on the moneyline. You saw high prices on the Cubs in their first round National League playoff series against the Dodgers because the public loves betting the Cubs. Squares had to pay a surcharge for the right to bet on Chicago. This past season, when the sharps pounded a young up-and-coming pitcher in his first couple of starts, the line dropped immensely the next time he took the mound. There were several young arms this past summer who were priced like veterans by their third appearance.
As you can see, there's no need for an oddsmaker to sweat how the action breaks down in each game as long as he's put the house in a good position. He knows that things will work out for the sportsbook over a large sampling of games.
"Splitting the action" is a myth. That's not the way it happens in the real world.
If you want to win when betting college and pro football, you have to be aware of this phenomenon and put it to your advantage. Go against the public teams so you can put the free points in your favor. Don't bet any side or total where you believe the line has been shaded against you. Make your own calculated assessment of what the "true" line should be. Then try to find edges you can exploit. You'll still be dealing with the 11/10. But, you'll have a fighting chance to be on the right side more often than not.
Then the squares will be paying YOU instead of the house!

[Cheesehead]

Upon further reivew, I think this was a good call. Possession in the NFL is defined as catching the ball AND getting both feet on the ground. Jennings caught the ball but didn't yet have his feet on the ground. On his way down, Tate reached in and grabbed the ball. By the time both of Jennings' feet were on the ground, Tate was locked into the ball with both hands. They were both holding the ball (simultaneous possession) when both of their feet were on the ground.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4672826941988&set=a.2091748496640.127266.1333088555&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf


if that's simultaneous possession than I don't understand the definition. No way Tate had both arms on that. Pack got screwed.

[XU 87]

Again, I think the rule is being misinterpreted. Possession is not the governing issue but rather control. If both players each put hands on the ball at the exact same time and both have control over the football then it is simultaneous and the catch goes to the passing team. If, however, one player gains control and another player subsequently gains control, before the catch is completed, it is not considered simultaneous. I think it's pretty clear that Jennings catches the ball, controls it by pulling it toward his body AND THEN Golden Tate puts a hand on it to establish his control. By rule, that should be an interception.


After further review of the NFL rules, you are correct- the issue is control, not possession. Cheesehead, your team got screwed.

[STL_XUfan]

I am pretty sure we are getting close to seeing this Wire scene play out on an NFL field.


1030


"The Wire: Game Day (#1.9)" (2002)
Avon Barksdale: Yo ref, yo ref, yo ref... what the f***? The boy was fouled, clear straight up... how you not going to call that?
Referee: Look If you want I can put time back on the clock and replay it...
Avon Barksdale: Are you talking about a do over baby? Are you talkin about a f***** do over? That's not how the game is played, you can't do that... f***, can you believe this shit? this n**** talkin about doin it again!
Referee: Look I don't want any trouble, ok...
Proposition Joe Stewart: Ain't going to be no trouble over no ball...
Avon Barksdale: Man, you supposed to be the ref right? why don't you stand up for yourself... you pussy! you can't let any ol lil motha**** get in your face... understand? Now walk away, walk away... turn around and walk the f**** away... ignorant mutha*******
Proposition Joe Stewart: We cool?
Avon Barksdale: Yea we cool baby, you tell your people to come up here to the park Saturday at noon but of course if you come on the west side again without a ball I'm a light your ass up.