Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?

Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 26, 2012 11:50AM
In calling this play a 'CATCH', Goodell goes from being just a bad-manager with a union-busting-mentality to a pants-on-fire-breathing LIAR!

(Sorta like a kid with chocolate on his face who continues to tell mommy they didn't have their hands in the cookie-jar that morning)

Packer fans may not know every clause in the NFL rule-book - but as footbal fans, we sure as heck know what constitutes a CATCH. And 1-hand touching the ball does not qualify here.

Speaking of the rule-book Mr. Goodell: what ever happened to the 'Receiver-must-maintain-full-control-of the-ball-while-going-to-the-ground-on-all-TD's' rule? Remember that one?

PS: Looks like even OBAMA agrees with Packer Fans on this one. Maybe the POTUS could order the Department-of-Labor to investigate Goodell & Co to see if they're really bargaining-in-good-faith with the union on this contract? If not, a $10M-a-day fine on the NFL ought to speed things up - you think?
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 26, 2012 01:14PM
Wow, I agree with ShortPack! smiling smiley
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 26, 2012 03:15PM
one of the best lines over the last few days was Larry McC on 620 this AM. to paraphrase... RG and the NFL are standing on their balcony on Park Ave pissing on all the rest of us.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 12:13AM
I don't think that the league thinks Packers fans are idiot, or any other fans for that matter. The NFL did what it needed to do in that statement, not in appeasing its fans, but in protecting its position with respect to the regular refs and the replacement refs. All along, the NFL has said that the game would not suffer as a result of the replacement refs. It suggested that the integrity of the game would not be lost. Obviously this would not be true, but it was a necessary argument to make in order to maintain some level of bargaining power against the normal referees. This is what the statement is meant to achieve.

Note that the statement never calls the play a catch. I don't believe that the league actually believes that it was a catch. They are defending the replacement referees. Let's look at what was said (emphasis mine):

Quote

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

This does not say that the ball was either a touchdown or an interception. It says that the officials on the field determined it was a simultaneous catch and that by this ruling, the offense gets the ball. The play therefore results in a touchdown. Nothing in this statement is incorrect, though it does leave out the fact of the apparent disagreement between the officials and lack of discussion regarding the call. In my opinion, this was the essential portion of referee duty neglected in this case.

Let's continue:

Quote

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Again, nothing blatantly wrong here. As KarlZimm pointed out in another thread, according to the rules it may also be reviewable in other scenarios besides the end zone, but that's not really relevant here anyway.

Quote

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

This could be argued by some, as there are many that feel the replays show indisputable video evidence that Jennings had the ball. However, that has never been in dispute. By definition of simultaneous catch, of course Jennings had the ball. I don't feel that there's absolutely indisputable evidence to suggest that Tate did not also possess the ball while establishing control. I think it's quite likely that Jennings had control of the ball and that's how it should have been ruled, but the review is not about determining what is likely. What matters is how the play was called originally and any evidence to overturn it must show with absolute certainty that this is the case. In my opinion, there was not. In the league's opinion, there was not.

Nowhere in the statement does the league say there was a catch. It was a carefully worded statement designed to protect their leverage with the NFLRA in a near lose-lose situation for them. I think they even tried to concede something in saying that the pass interference should have been called. Sure, obvious, but it was an admission that a mistake was made that would have rendered the above discussion irrelevant. Had the pass interference been called, the touchdown/interception ruling means absolutely nothing.

But what happens if the NFL admits that the call was wrong? The NFLRA has much greater bargaining power. The owners still don't want to budge. Fans get more restless than they already are. Maybe discussion of a class action lawsuit occurs (I have no idea if they would have a case or not, but common sense tells me they would). They'd be admitting to offering an inferior product. By admitting such an egregious mistake, they have to open the possibility of actually reversing the result of the game. And that's something they should not do. It sets a dangerous precedent.

No, the NFL doesn't think we're stupid. It knows full well that we know the rules. It knows full well that a bad mistake was made. It was one of its worst nightmares. They said what they said because they had no other choice.

And hey, the result is that we get the regular refs back. Too late? Yes. But better now than ever. Could this have lasting ramifications? Most certainly. It sucks. It's a crappy situation. It could affect playoff appearances or seeding, resulting in millions of dollars lost for Green Bay, or another city. That absolutely sucks.

The problem though is not in the NFL's statement. It's in the situations leading up to the statement. The whole lockout. The pressure by the refs to not allow more qualified replacements. That is where the anger and sadness should be directed. Not at Seattle. Not at this statement. Not even at the replacement refs. It's the owners, the league, and even the regular refs that are to blame because they've turned an excellent football game (and it was a very good game!) into a circus, and as such it will be remembered for a very long time.



Ray Tetzloff
The Packer Wire Administrator/Webmaster

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2012 12:14AM by rtetzloff.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 01:59AM
Good post but the league's statement is dishonest because they won't admit it should have been overturned on replay. The part of the statement that says "when the players hit the ground in the end zone . . ." intentionally ignores the rule by highlighting something that is irrelevant. It is not about when the guys hit the ground but about who had possession first.

Both the NFL's rulebook and casebook confirm it was a bad call and if the replay refs understood that they should have reversed.

[profootballtalk.nbcsports.com]
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 08:11AM
Quote
Chraya
Good post but the league's statement is dishonest because they won't admit it should have been overturned on replay. The part of the statement that says "when the players hit the ground in the end zone . . ." intentionally ignores the rule by highlighting something that is irrelevant. It is not about when the guys hit the ground but about who had possession first.

Both the NFL's rulebook and casebook confirm it was a bad call and if the replay refs understood that they should have reversed.

[profootballtalk.nbcsports.com]

the replay official does not decide the ruling on the field. that is up to the game referee to make the call. all the replay guy does is cue up the tape, provide insight into what should be looked at, determine if a scoring play or turnover is to be reviewed and if a play with less than 2 mins left in either half needs to be reviewed. the call was up held by the replacement referee not the regular review official.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 12:13PM
Not sure that's right Jay. They've made some changes this year with all scoring plays being reviewed and with the replay booth guy having expanded powers because of the scab refs. I believe Aal scoring plays are reviewed upstairs not by the on field ref. Plus, there is a league supervisor helping the replay guy. 2 guys in the both got it wrong.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2012 12:16PM by Chraya.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 12:37PM
Quote
Chraya
Not sure that's right Jay. They've made some changes this year with all scoring plays being reviewed and with the replay booth guy having expanded powers because of the scab refs. I believe Aal scoring plays are reviewed upstairs not by the on field ref. Plus, there is a league supervisor helping the replay guy. 2 guys in the both got it wrong.

my understandin, which my be wrong, is that the final call if a review is stands, is confrimed or is over turned is decided on by the head game referee on the field. the guys in the box may watch and say yes this score of TO needs to be reviewed. they might even give suggestions, heck we dont hear what goes on. but i think even with the replacements it was the head game referee that makes the final call on the verdict of a fully reviewed replay.

go to the this to see the rules on roles of each official and replay rules [static.nfl.com]

rule 15 section 9 states as follows:

Review by Referee: All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consulation with the covering offical(s), prior to review. A decsision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change.

so it seems its on the Referee. however, this rules contradicts the NFL approved process in the letter they put out. according to john clayton who was on the sidelines close to the referee. after the play he went directly to the hood without consulating with the two officials that were making the call.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 11:16PM
You are correct. The referee on the field has and had final authority. Per a memo sent by the NFL to the teams before the regular season began:

Quote

As part of our effort to support the replacement officials, we will employ procedures similar to those in effect in the postseason. We will have an officiating supervisor from our staff in the replay booth at each game whose job will be to help ensure correct penalty enforcement, administration of rules not involving fouls, operation of the game and play clocks, and game administration. The supervisor will be able to communicate directly with the alternate official on the sidelines. The supervisor will not be involved in either the instant replay system or any judgment made by the officials on the field. As in all games, the final decision will be made by the referee on the field and no decision will be revisited or changed once the ball has been snapped for the next play.

The NFL official was an advisor. According to a report I heard on the radio with Wayne Larrivee, the replacement officials often deferred to the NFL official's advice in the case of instant replay, but it was the referee's call to make.



Ray Tetzloff
The Packer Wire Administrator/Webmaster
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 28, 2012 03:51AM
OK that helps. So the referee has the final say. There's a replay guy in the booth plus a supervisor in on the discussion. It seems to me that none of the three understood the rule. Once you understand the rule, the result is clear. If someone explains to the referee that he should focus not on who had possession when they hit the ground but who had possession first, you get a reversal. I'm willing to bet none of the three understood the rule properly at the time.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 03:52AM by Chraya.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 08:47AM
You appear to be correct. I hadn't yet had the time to check the casebook, which is something I wanted to do. I agree that was dishonest, and it would have been reviewable, probably overturnable given this evidence. Regardless, I still don't think the NFL was in a position to acknowledge that. Too much controversy. Maybe they had a moral obligation to do so, but with the scenario they were in, it's what they felt they had to do.



Ray Tetzloff
The Packer Wire Administrator/Webmaster
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 11:06AM
You've made some good points. Riddle me this: while they were reviewing the play, why didn't they show the replays on the in-stadium scoreboard? That was supposed to be the new protocol this year. That certainly would (should) have calmed the crowd down and made the correct decision easier. IMO the refs were afraid to make the wrong decision for the home team; consequently, they made the wrong decision.
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 27, 2012 11:43PM
I have not seen the actual text of the rule. It does not seem to be located in the Rule Book, which generally contains rules for competition. There are certainly a huge number of other rules, in which that one sits. If anyone finds some of these rules, I'd be very interested in looking.

That said, I was at the Packers-49ers game, and while they did show some of the replay as the referee was seeing it, it wasn't the entire thing. They went to an ad first, and then cut to the video. It was fun watching the play go forward and backward as he was checking out specifics on time, yard line, etc.

As such, I'm not sure what exactly they are required to show, if they're required to show anything at all. It's possible (and I've seen evidence both for and against this in news reports) that the teams are permitted to show what they like. I don't believe that's the case, but I also don't think they are required to show all of every challenge. Again, knowing what the actual rule is would be very helpful in determining whether the rule was broken.

That said, I'm not sure that it would have made a difference. You very well could be correct in saying that the referee feared for his and his crew's safety. It's not an unreasonable thought that someone accustomed to officiating games with hundreds, maybe thousands of fans would have an aversion to pissing off close to 70,000 people in direct proximity to him. I don't know whether it actually made a significant difference. I'm still not sold on the idea that there was indisputable evidence that the play was an interception. It was close, but I think there was some doubt, especially for someone maybe not having a full grasp on that one specific rule.



Ray Tetzloff
The Packer Wire Administrator/Webmaster
Re: Goodell thinks Packer Fans are idiots?
September 28, 2012 07:43AM
As partisan or fanatical that any of us are, knowledgeable fans can see penalties against their own team. For example, I wear my green & gold glasses, yet will admit when the opponent makes a good play or when the Packer are in the wrong. IMO, the same would hold in Seattle. I confess a little bias in that I have an affinity towards Seattle, but that's another story. I suspect that when the crowd would see that replay, we would have heard an audible reaction...like air escaping from a balloon. As for the in-stadium scoreboard rule, I'm not sure so much that they are required to show it, I do know that they are allowed to show it. Fairness dictates that if they show the home-team favorable, then they should show the unfavorable. I can see why that might not happen & I wouldn't want the league office to have to supply a scoreboard operator for each stadium.