Stupid NFL Rule - End Zone

[Fritz]

I can't stand the way the NFL has effed up the definition of what is a catch in the end zone. I'm sorry, but Shiancoe's end zone catch was a catch - he had possession, both hands, and the ground did not help him.

Plus, Buffalo had a CLEAR interception in the end zone against Baltimroe (anybody see it?) and the refs said it was not an interception.

So let me get this straight: A guy running into the end zone can cross the plane with the ball and then drop it and it's not a fumble, but a guy can catch a ball in the end zone but if he uses the ball to get up after the catch and it comes out, it's not a catch?

Stupid.

[mmmdk]

The Calvin catch is still strange to me; he put the ball down and everything looked ok to me even within new rules but his fingers moved the ball as he opened his hand and ran towards stands or was it teammates! Everything picture perfect exept for that roll by fingers. Ground did nada and refs forgot to freeze frame at the right moment.

The Viking TD yesterday was not a TD as the tip of football touched ground first and clearly moved during V's possession - and ground hence aided with control of ball. Clear cut case.

Calvin's "no TD" vs Bears was robbery and a stark misinterpretation of new rules.

[pbmax]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

[3irty1]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

[sheepshead]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

[ThunderDan]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

I saw that replay on ESPN and his hands were definately in a different position pre and post contact with the ground. An HD widescreen TV is such an awesome thing when watching football.

[Cheesehead Craig]

While I agree that logically it looks like a catch, the rules state that it wasn't. PB has it right that the definition is there to make it easy on the officials. Ball hit the ground so therefore it's not a catch per the rules.

It's like in court, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

[SkinBasket]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

[sheepshead]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

I agree with your post. Except it was a catch. In college, the old days of the NFL it would have been a catch. Just like the Detroit Chicago game. Its criminal to take those plays away from players no matter whom youre cheering for.

[pbmax]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.
That was a bad game from the refs. Was it Scott Green? I thought he was the guy who did us in Arizona for the playoff game? Maybe he is still shook up from it? :D

Just checked, same guy. Here are the ref lineups:

2010 Vikes game: Referee:Green, Scott (19), Line Judge: Barnes, Tom (55), Head Linesman: Stabile, Tom (24), Field Judge: Prioleau, Dyrol (109)
Umpire: Stritesky, Bruce (102), Side Judge: Rose, Larry (128), Back Judge: Helverson, Scott (93)

Arz 2009 Playoff Game: Referee: Green, Scott (19), Line Judge: Symonette, Thomas (10), Head Linesman: Stabile, Tom (24), Field Judge: Cheek, Boris (41), Umpire: Hannah, Butch (40), Side Judge: Rose, Larry (128), Back Judge: Dyer, Lee (27)

[sharpe1027]

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

Not to mention Mathews getting smashed in the head/chin about five different times (that I saw). I guess at least they called that once.

[red]

honestly, when i saw the tip of the ball hit the ground i thought it was incomplete no matter if the ball moves or not

the shear fact that fans have no clue what is and isn't a catch, and the fact that the refs and coaches are just as clueless tells me that the NFL has made a complete cluster fuck out of the whole situation

[sharpe1027]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

I don't think they made it any easier to officiate, they just changed what the argument/decision is about. Instead of deciding whether the ball touched the ground, they need to decide whether the WR used the ground to aid in the catch. I don't see that as making it easier.

[MadScientist]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

I agree with your post. Except it was a catch. In college, the old days of the NFL it would have been a catch. Just like the Detroit Chicago game. Its criminal to take those plays away from players no matter whom youre cheering for.

No, in the old days a ball that touched the ground at all it was incomplete, even if it did not move. They added the rule about the ball moving so that diving catches could be made. The tip of the ball hit, and hit hard enough for the ball to move in his hands, so no catch. It is a correct call and the rule is about as reasonable as it can be to eliminate traps.

I don't fault the refs for missing this in real time, but the out of bounds plays were inexcusable.

[Tarlam!]

honestly, when i saw the tip of the ball hit the ground i thought it was incomplete no matter if the ball moves or not

the shear fact that fans have no clue what is and isn't a catch, and the fact that the refs and coaches are just as clueless tells me that the NFL has made a complete cluster fuck out of the whole situation


I don't think they made it any easier to officiate, they just changed what the argument/decision is about. Instead of deciding whether the ball touched the ground, they need to decide whether the WR used the ground to aid in the catch. I don't see that as making it easier.

Agree totally. I acknowledge the goal of trying to make a catch call more objective, but the NFL really hasn't achieved that IMHO.

[Spaulding]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

I agree with your post. Except it was a catch. In college, the old days of the NFL it would have been a catch. Just like the Detroit Chicago game. Its criminal to take those plays away from players no matter whom youre cheering for.

When is it a catch when the ball hits the ground first? Also, if this was college Harvin's catch would have been legit given he had one foot in - thank goodness they got the call right on both catches.

[pbmax]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

I don't think they made it any easier to officiate, they just changed what the argument/decision is about. Instead of deciding whether the ball touched the ground, they need to decide whether the WR used the ground to aid in the catch. I don't see that as making it easier.
Well, using the ground to help secure the ball is a new one to me, unless its just a new way to say trapped.

I meant the going to the ground and maintaining control of the ball. What they have done is given the refs two points of reference, the first is two feet inbounds and the second is control of the football until the play is over and the player gets up from the ground. Easy to judge as they can watch for the first and then wait for the second. The only question is control at same time feet come down which is reviewable.

But the practical result of that easy to ref rule is that Calvin Johnson makes a catch and while getting up to celebrate, he drops the ball. No catch. Which makes no sense if you have ever watched or played football.

[Airin' Rodgers]

Something I was hoping someone could help me out on..

On Rodgers 2nd interception, the one tipped in the endzone. I thought it was pretty clear that Walker ran out of bounds, came back in, and then tipped the ball.

Since he was the first one to touch it after being out of bounds, isn't that an illegal touch penalty? Someone help me out here

[Cheesehead Craig]

Something I was hoping someone could help me out on..

On Rodgers 2nd interception, the one tipped in the endzone. I thought it was pretty clear that Walker ran out of bounds, came back in, and then tipped the ball.

Since he was the first one to touch it after being out of bounds, isn't that an illegal touch penalty? Someone help me out here
Only applies to the offensive player.

[bobblehead]

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

Not to mention Mathews getting smashed in the head/chin about five different times (that I saw). I guess at least they called that once.

Yea, this crew was horrible, but at least they benefitted us with their ineptitude once. I commented to friends that the crew missed the first 3 or 4 TD calls. They got everyone wrong. Then they got the one wrong at the end where harvin was out by at least 2 feet. They were so bad that the Quarless TD they fucked up on replay.

I don't mind the intent of the new rule, but the application is sketchy. CJ was getting up when he lost the ball. Last year Jennings took almost 2 full steps with possession before being tackled out of bounds and losing it. Those should be TD's. Quarless clearly dropped the ball. They were so busy seeing if he landed in bounds they never noticed (or did minny not challenge possession, merely him coming in bounds?).

Clay took so many hands to the facemask he pushed his own helmet off so he could see once. The only call they made is when his head was nearly ripped off. Our guys did some nice holding as well this game without getting called.

My biggest gripe of the day was the non call on FWalker that lead to an interception. He grabs, pulls and then pushes GJ out of bounds in the open field about 15 yards off the line and they miss it?? HOW? And it did lead to the pick as GJ would have blown by him and had an easy TD without the interference. The call was a gamechanger, but this team still persevered.

MM made me proud winning his first two challenges, but not challenging the spot on that 3rd down play was awful. Its your ball, you have time to look at it upstairs, you got timeouts....for God sake if you are going for it anyway, challenge it. If you lose, go for it.


I have other gripes, but I can say this. I love our D even banged up...lets get it relatively healthy. We are running effectively on first down out of the I when everyone in the stadium knows its coming....lets do more of it. Arod is adjusting to life without finley. The OL is coming around.

The kool aid is flowing, bring on the Jets.

[Airin' Rodgers]

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

Not to mention Mathews getting smashed in the head/chin about five different times (that I saw). I guess at least they called that once.

Yea, this crew was horrible, but at least they benefitted us with their ineptitude once. I commented to friends that the crew missed the first 3 or 4 TD calls. They got everyone wrong. Then they got the one wrong at the end where harvin was out by at least 2 feet. They were so bad that the Quarless TD they fucked up on replay.

I don't mind the intent of the new rule, but the application is sketchy. CJ was getting up when he lost the ball. Last year Jennings took almost 2 full steps with possession before being tackled out of bounds and losing it. Those should be TD's. Quarless clearly dropped the ball. They were so busy seeing if he landed in bounds they never noticed (or did minny not challenge possession, merely him coming in bounds?).

Clay took so many hands to the facemask he pushed his own helmet off so he could see once. The only call they made is when his head was nearly ripped off. Our guys did some nice holding as well this game without getting called.

My biggest gripe of the day was the non call on FWalker that lead to an interception. He grabs, pulls and then pushes GJ out of bounds in the open field about 15 yards off the line and they miss it?? HOW? And it did lead to the pick as GJ would have blown by him and had an easy TD without the interference. The call was a gamechanger, but this team still persevered.

MM made me proud winning his first two challenges, but not challenging the spot on that 3rd down play was awful. Its your ball, you have time to look at it upstairs, you got timeouts....for God sake if you are going for it anyway, challenge it. If you lose, go for it.


I have other gripes, but I can say this. I love our D even banged up...lets get it relatively healthy. We are running effectively on first down out of the I when everyone in the stadium knows its coming....lets do more of it. Arod is adjusting to life without finley. The OL is coming around.

The kool aid is flowing, bring on the Jets.

Good post. But Minnesota never challenged the Quarless TD. Which is why it stood. If they challenged, I'm sure the call would have been reversed

[sharpe1027]

Well, using the ground to help secure the ball is a new one to me, unless its just a new way to say trapped.

I meant the going to the ground and maintaining control of the ball. What they have done is given the refs two points of reference, the first is two feet inbounds and the second is control of the football until the play is over and the player gets up from the ground. Easy to judge as they can watch for the first and then wait for the second. The only question is control at same time feet come down which is reviewable.

But the practical result of that easy to ref rule is that Calvin Johnson makes a catch and while getting up to celebrate, he drops the ball. No catch. Which makes no sense if you have ever watched or played football.

I agree 100% that the rule has created ridiculous results.

Just how easy is it to judge "control of the football?" I think you just have a whole new set of close calls that are difficult to officiate (like the Shancoe play).

I would also argue that because it was a new rule without any previous application, they could have ruled the C. Johnson play a catch by stating that he maintained possession to the ground and then released it upon an effort toward getting up. Now, they are stuck with a stupid result and we will likely end up yet another rule change.

[mngolf19]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

[hoosier]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

The clear evidence would be that the ball clearly touched the ground and his hold on it clearly shifted as that was happening. He didn't bobble it but he didn't have a tight enough grip on the ball for it to remain in the same position either. Look at the replay on nfl.com if you doubt that. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but that sounds to me like as good a definition of "maintaining control" as any.

[mngolf19]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

The clear evidence would be that the ball clearly touched the ground and his hold on it clearly shifted as that was happening. He didn't bobble it but he didn't have a tight enough grip on the ball for it to remain in the same position either. Look at the replay on nfl.com if you doubt that. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but that sounds to me like as good a definition of "maintaining control" as any.

His hands move, but I think anytime a receiver lands in that manner his hands are going to move. Question is whether the ball was secured or not. And I still don't see "clear evidence" that it wasn't. I would have completely understood if the ref didn't call it a catch in real time and would not have expected the replay to show evidence otherwise.

[red]

like i said before. the tip of the ball clearly hit the ground. i always thought that ment automatic incomplete until the play last night when everyone questioned it

i mean, thats why guys that dive for balls turn their bodies to the side and ball the ball in so the ball never hits the ground

obviously something have to be done to clarify what is and isn't a catch because there have been a ton of questionable calls this year and everyone is confused as to what is and isn't a catch

[Little Whiskey]

MM made me proud winning his first two challenges, but not challenging the spot on that 3rd down play was awful. Its your ball, you have time to look at it upstairs, you got timeouts....for God sake if you are going for it anyway, challenge it. If you lose, go for it.




I didn't want him to challange that play. it was his last challenge, and it was early in the 4th (i think). there was alot of football to play. the way the officiating was going he might have had to challange a more important play. if that Percy TD happens outside of 2mins he would have had to challange that. which would have been a bigger play than a spot on 3rd down.

speaking of Harvin's TD/non-TD. I'd have to look at the replay again, but at first glance i didn't think he even got one foot in bounds. the second foot was clearly out. those guys were horrible all night both ways. but its easier for us to swollow because of the positive packer outcome.

[Brandon494]

NFL just confirmed that it should have been a TD catch. LOL sorry Vikings :lol:

[CaptainKickass]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

The clear evidence would be that the ball clearly touched the ground and his hold on it clearly shifted as that was happening. He didn't bobble it but he didn't have a tight enough grip on the ball for it to remain in the same position either. Look at the replay on nfl.com if you doubt that. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but that sounds to me like as good a definition of "maintaining control" as any.

His hands move, but I think anytime a receiver lands in that manner his hands are going to move. Question is whether the ball was secured or not. And I still don't see "clear evidence" that it wasn't. I would have completely understood if the ref didn't call it a catch in real time and would not have expected the replay to show evidence otherwise.

I'm pretty sure y'all are missing out on the "when" of the situation. The ball touched the ground FIRST - as in - before any part of the player touches the ground.

Pretty sure the rules are black and white about this. If the ball touches the ground FIRST - then it ain't a catch.

.

[CaptainKickass]

NFL just confirmed that it should have been a TD catch. LOL sorry Vikings :lol:


I still agree with the call in the game. The ball hit the ground first. This just adds to my feeling that the NFL and their officials are run very poorly.

[bobblehead]

NFL just confirmed that it should have been a TD catch. LOL sorry Vikings :lol:


I still agree with the call in the game. The ball hit the ground first. This just adds to my feeling that the NFL and their officials are run very poorly.

If that is true the NFL is fucked. CJ catches a ball, holds it out with one hand to show he has it, rolls over, puts it to the ground to celebrate and the NFL later confirms the officials got it right...no TD.

Shiancoe is flying through the air, catches it, falls to the ground, the tip hits the ground pushing it up in his hands...catch and a TD.

Really, I might be down to only baseball that I can watch before long.

PS...did they mention the blatant PI between jennings and walker since they were reviewing things, or did they only step up and mention that chilly was right about the TD?

[hoosier]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

The clear evidence would be that the ball clearly touched the ground and his hold on it clearly shifted as that was happening. He didn't bobble it but he didn't have a tight enough grip on the ball for it to remain in the same position either. Look at the replay on nfl.com if you doubt that. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but that sounds to me like as good a definition of "maintaining control" as any.

His hands move, but I think anytime a receiver lands in that manner his hands are going to move. Question is whether the ball was secured or not. And I still don't see "clear evidence" that it wasn't. I would have completely understood if the ref didn't call it a catch in real time and would not have expected the replay to show evidence otherwise.

The point isn't whether his hands move, it's whether or not the ball changes position in relation to his hands. He had has hands around the ball the entire time, but the ball was clearly moving around inside his hands. I figured that ball movement must have been the rationale for calling it incomplete. On still further review, I guess I would have been wrong. :lol:

[Bretsky]

IMO the Vikes got screwed on that deal.......and I was happy to see it :lol:

[pbmax]

NFL just confirmed that it should have been a TD catch. LOL sorry Vikings :lol:
That was just a weird game. I am not surprised after I convinced myself it was questionable, that they then confirm TD.

[Bretsky]

can you url the article noting the official pissed that call up ?

No surpirse if that's the case; I thought this was the mother of all f'ck ups and if the referee didn't know the rule he should be suspended

I heard this crew was the same squad that f'cked up the AZ game. Maybe it was a make up call for the ending our playoffs :lol:

[Joemailman]

So let me get this right. If a guy catches the ball in the end zone, gets both feet down, falls down and loses control of the ball it's not a catch. But if a guy flies through the air, gets both hands on the ball and the nose of the football touches the ground before any part of his body does, it is a catch?

[ThunderDan]

can you url the article noting the official pissed that call up ?No surpirse if that's the case; I thought this was the mother of all f'ck ups and if the referee didn't know the rule he should be suspended

I heard this crew was the same squad that f'cked up the AZ game. Maybe it was a make up call for the ending our playoffs :lol:

No doubt. I didn't think they made any statements until after the last game of the week which would be Dallas vs NYG that is on right now.

[pbmax]

can you url the article noting the official pissed that call up ?

No surpirse if that's the case; I thought this was the mother of all f'ck ups and if the referee didn't know the rule he should be suspended

I heard this crew was the same squad that f'cked up the AZ game. Maybe it was a make up call for the ending our playoffs :lol:

So far all I can find are links back to the Chilldress press conference today. So its on Brad's word alone so far. Nothing on JSO either.

Here is the Official Word from Zulgad's Twitter account:

http://twitter.com/JuddZulgad/status/28719432301

P.S. I always knew my complete infatuation with this game would cause me to behave like a 13 year old girl. And here I am reading people's Twitter accounts. If I start posting info from Live Journal blogs, just do me a favor and run me down in the street. :lol:

[Joemailman]

Article on what Childress says he was told:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-20101025_childress_says_nfl_admits_blown_calls_in_ vikings_loss

[pbmax]

Yep, I missed this one as well. JSO has Chilldress' fuller comment. He is naming the guy he spoke to, so it would seem unlikely he is embellishing.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105740748.html

[bobblehead]

So let me get this right. If a guy catches the ball in the end zone, gets both feet down, falls down and loses control of the ball it's not a catch. But if a guy flies through the air, gets both hands on the ball and the nose of the football touches the ground before any part of his body does, it is a catch?

can't be any clearer than that can it?

[Bretsky]

Yep, I missed this one as well. JSO has Chilldress' fuller comment. He is naming the guy he spoke to, so it would seem unlikely he is embellishing.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105740748.html

1. The referee should be suspended for not knowing the rule
2. From now on when we piss and whine about referees and how we always get boned........as all I have to say is Shiancoe

Thanks for botching up the call for the good guys :!:

[pbmax]

Yep, I missed this one as well. JSO has Chilldress' fuller comment. He is naming the guy he spoke to, so it would seem unlikely he is embellishing.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105740748.html

1. The referee should be suspended for not knowing the rule
2. From now on when we piss and whine about referees and how we always get boned........as all I have to say is Shiancoe

Thanks for botching up the call for the good guys :!:
You can say Shiancoe, but I will say Greg Jennings from last year. The scales eventually balance, but some calls are worse than others.

[Tarlam!]

In any other sport with an egg-shaped ball, it was a catch. He had total control, if he didn't, the ball bounces out.

It was a TD.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I saw that replay on ESPN and his hands were definately in a different position pre and post contact with the ground. An HD widescreen TV is such an awesome thing when watching football.

Totally agree. 40" HD and it sure looked like his hands slid down the ball when the tip hit the ground, which means it moved in his hands, which means trap which means no catch. At first I thought the call was complete shit, but after watching it again, they got it right.

[mmmdk]

Get HD or be forever silent :lol:

[MichiganPackerFan]

Good post. But Minnesota never challenged the Quarless TD. Which is why it stood. If they challenged, I'm sure the call would have been reversed

This unfairness almost made it fair. We had to spend two challenges to get non-TD's reversed, MIN should have spent one.

[MichiganPackerFan]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

The clear evidence would be that the ball clearly touched the ground and his hold on it clearly shifted as that was happening. He didn't bobble it but he didn't have a tight enough grip on the ball for it to remain in the same position either. Look at the replay on nfl.com if you doubt that. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but that sounds to me like as good a definition of "maintaining control" as any.

His hands move, but I think anytime a receiver lands in that manner his hands are going to move. Question is whether the ball was secured or not. And I still don't see "clear evidence" that it wasn't. I would have completely understood if the ref didn't call it a catch in real time and would not have expected the replay to show evidence otherwise.

I would respectively say that if his hands slide on the ball at all, that means the ball isn't secure. If it was "secure" it wouldn't move.

[Tarlam!]

I would respectively say that if his hands slide on the ball at all, that means the ball isn't secure. If it was "secure" it wouldn't move.

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

[Zool]

I would respectively say that if his hands slide on the ball at all, that means the ball isn't secure. If it was "secure" it wouldn't move.

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

I guess I'm with MPF on this one. The ball is a good 6 inches outside his hands before it hits the ground. The ground clearly moves the ball as it hits. I guess the letter of the rule should be used. I just don't know what it is specifically.

[sharpe1027]

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

IDK, you can have the ball in your hands, yet clearly trap the ball on the ground to complete the catch and never have the ball bounce. I don't think that hypothetical situation is a catch.

[ThunderDan]

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

I didn't know a football was egg shaped! :lol:

[Tarlam!]

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

IDK, you can have the ball in your hands, yet clearly trap the ball on the ground to complete the catch and never have the ball bounce. I don't think that hypothetical situation is a catch.

Yeah, but I think that argument supports he had total control. I don't think he trapped it, I think he kept possession despite a good amount of force hitting the ground. If he didn't the ball pops out.

Even the NFL concedes it was a catch.

[Bretsky]

Yep, I missed this one as well. JSO has Chilldress' fuller comment. He is naming the guy he spoke to, so it would seem unlikely he is embellishing.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105740748.html

1. The referee should be suspended for not knowing the rule
2. From now on when we piss and whine about referees and how we always get boned........as all I have to say is Shiancoe

Thanks for botching up the call for the good guys :!:
You can say Shiancoe, but I will say Greg Jennings from last year. The scales eventually balance, but some calls are worse than others.


OK, you already have me defeated........what would Jennings from last year mean ?

When I think of Jennings from last year I think of that nightmarish throw that should have ended the game vs. AZ

[Bretsky]

I saw that replay on ESPN and his hands were definately in a different position pre and post contact with the ground. An HD widescreen TV is such an awesome thing when watching football.

Totally agree. 40" HD and it sure looked like his hands slid down the ball when the tip hit the ground, which means it moved in his hands, which means trap which means no catch. At first I thought the call was complete shit, but after watching it again, they got it right.


Absolutely disagree......and I have HD :lol:

[Bretsky]

I kind of find joy in saying the refs f'cked the Vikings; nothing wrong with feeling like you are on the good end of the schtick

[sharpe1027]

Yeah, but I think that argument supports he had total control. I don't think he trapped it, I think he kept possession despite a good amount of force hitting the ground. If he didn't the ball pops out.

Even the NFL concedes it was a catch.

I think it was a catch too, but it is pretty clear nobody (even NFL head referees) really knows for sure what the rule is.

[Tarlam!]

...it is pretty clear nobody (even NFL head referees) really knows for sure what the rule is.

Yup. Sad.

[packerbacker1234]

Guys, they removed the rule a couple years back that the hands have to be under the ball when you go to the ground. If the catch is made in the air, and then you go to the ground, the only thing that must occur is one: Clear possession of the football prior to the contact with the ground

Check.

Secondly, when the ball hit the ground, did it cause any loss of control - this is the bobble rule we all know in maintaining a catch through ground contact. upon hitting the ground, the ball did not move. In the process of rolling over, he tucks the ball, causing the change of hand position. The actual contact did not move the football. That was made extremely clear in the replays. Most of the time, the Wr's hands are not strong enough, and thus in that position the ball clearly moves - but in the replay, the ball didn't budge an inch in his hands when it hit the turf.

So, thus, according to the rules as they presently, read, that is a catch. There was absolutely no loss of control in the process of making the catch, and the ruling on the field was a Touchdown. IT has to be inconclusive evidence to overturn it, and it was far from inconclusive regardless of the proper call.

The only way you can make that call is to determine Shianco did not have clear possesion of the ball prior to it making contact with the ground. While a judgement call, my judgement and eyes showed he had clear possession to me. That ball just doesn't move. I am even more shocked wathcing it not move as it slames into the turf, and then watching him tuck it as he rolls. Very shocked, but he clearly has some strong ass hands.

It's a call that went our way, and yes, made a difference int he game. Instead, score is tied and the vikings, if things still go roughly the same, are in FG range to win with a kicker who knows how to kick on our field better than anyone else in the NFL.

Not saying we couldn't have won the game, but it was an overturned call that, to me, lacked evidence, and fit within the spirit of the rule. I think the NFL either needs to start dumping hte judgement and clearly defining what the spirit of the rule actually is, or they need to be strict to waht the ruling is right now and explain it to the refs.

[mission]

I kind of find joy in saying the refs f'cked the Vikings; nothing wrong with feeling like you are on the good end of the schtick

I'm with ya. Actually thought it was a drop when I saw the replay just based on the ball point being so far out but I don't really know the exact interpretation of the rule.

Makes me feel good to know that maybe there isn't a conspiracy against the Packers all of the time. :lol:

[packerbacker1234]

I kind of find joy in saying the refs f'cked the Vikings; nothing wrong with feeling like you are on the good end of the schtick

I'm with ya. Actually thought it was a drop when I saw the replay just based on the ball point being so far out but I don't really know the exact interpretation of the rule.

Makes me feel good to know that maybe there isn't a conspiracy against the Packers all of the time. :lol:

Oh I am happy the refs were in our corner for once, but some calls are absolutely baffling, and at times It's hard to watch the integrity of the game being effected. As an example, Shianco's TD was a booth review, not a challenge,

Why then was quarless's td not booth reviewed? It was even clearer in those replays that it wasn't a catch.

[Airin' Rodgers]

I kind of find joy in saying the refs f'cked the Vikings; nothing wrong with feeling like you are on the good end of the schtick

I'm with ya. Actually thought it was a drop when I saw the replay just based on the ball point being so far out but I don't really know the exact interpretation of the rule.

Makes me feel good to know that maybe there isn't a conspiracy against the Packers all of the time. :lol:

Oh I am happy the refs were in our corner for once, but some calls are absolutely baffling, and at times It's hard to watch the integrity of the game being effected. As an example, Shianco's TD was a booth review, not a challenge,

Why then was quarless's td not booth reviewed? It was even clearer in those replays that it wasn't a catch.

Shiancoe's td was challenged by mm..... THERE ARE NO BOOTH REVIEWS EXCEPT FOR THE LAST TWO MINUTES

[Sparkey]

NFL's definition of possession

23. 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.


According to that definition, he did not posses the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, since his hands and the ball touched the ground prior to the rest of his body.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.

[Bretsky]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

[packerbacker1234]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

Yeah, just heard on ESPN radio today that the Head of Officiating in the NFL admitted the call on the replay was wrong. The ruling on the field was a TD, and there was not nearly enough evidence to overturn the call. He also said if it was ruled incomplete and being challenged for a TD, that there was enough evidence to call it that.

In other words, the refs got it wrong. Admitted as much by the NFL themselves. The ex head of officiating said they got it wrong the night of the game. It's a generally clear consensus that that was a TD catch from every angle and every aspect of what presently constitutes a catch in the NFL. It's been made clear, now, that the ref simply got it completely wrong. May not be his fault entirely - officiating really needs to meet so they can get the catch rule down straight, because it seems every ref calls it differently.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

Let me emphasize..

[mraynrand]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

Yeah, just heard on ESPN radio today that the Head of Officiating in the NFL admitted the call on the replay was wrong. The ruling on the field was a TD, and there was not nearly enough evidence to overturn the call. He also said if it was ruled incomplete and being challenged for a TD, that there was enough evidence to call it that.

In other words, the refs got it wrong. Admitted as much by the NFL themselves. The ex head of officiating said they got it wrong the night of the game. It's a generally clear consensus that that was a TD catch from every angle and every aspect of what presently constitutes a catch in the NFL. It's been made clear, now, that the ref simply got it completely wrong. May not be his fault entirely - officiating really needs to meet so they can get the catch rule down straight, because it seems every ref calls it differently.

That's interesting, because it's a judgment call:


Mike (Pereira), Please talk about the call with Visanthe Shiancoe’s TD that got called back in the Vikings-Packers game. Pretty happy with the call as a GB fan, but did they get it right?

No, they didn't. The ruling on the field was touchdown. In order to overturn that to incomplete, there has to be indisputable visual evidence that he lost control of the before or after the ball hit the ground. You could make a case that the ball might have been moving a bit on his way to the ground but he still had both hands on it and has it secure enough to deem control. The ball moving is not considered loss of control. It is a judgment call but this was not enough to reverse the call that was made on the field.

As usual, Mike Pereira talks out of both sides of his ass on this. essentially, he throws his fellow (former) officials under the bus by saying his judgment is correct.

[sharpe1027]

It is sad that the NFL's new push is to make the rulings more clear and more objective, yet they have only made matters worse by changing the rules so much that nobody knows what is up or down.

[denverYooper]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

Yeah, just heard on ESPN radio today that the Head of Officiating in the NFL admitted the call on the replay was wrong. The ruling on the field was a TD, and there was not nearly enough evidence to overturn the call. He also said if it was ruled incomplete and being challenged for a TD, that there was enough evidence to call it that.

In other words, the refs got it wrong. Admitted as much by the NFL themselves. The ex head of officiating said they got it wrong the night of the game. It's a generally clear consensus that that was a TD catch from every angle and every aspect of what presently constitutes a catch in the NFL. It's been made clear, now, that the ref simply got it completely wrong. May not be his fault entirely - officiating really needs to meet so they can get the catch rule down straight, because it seems every ref calls it differently.

That's interesting, because it's a judgment call:


Mike (Pereira), Please talk about the call with Visanthe Shiancoe’s TD that got called back in the Vikings-Packers game. Pretty happy with the call as a GB fan, but did they get it right?

No, they didn't. The ruling on the field was touchdown. In order to overturn that to incomplete, there has to be indisputable visual evidence that he lost control of the before or after the ball hit the ground. You could make a case that the ball might have been moving a bit on his way to the ground but he still had both hands on it and has it secure enough to deem control. The ball moving is not considered loss of control. It is a judgment call but this was not enough to reverse the call that was made on the field.

As usual, Mike Pereira talks out of both sides of his ass on this. essentially, he throws his fellow (former) officials under the bus by saying his judgment is correct.

Ah, but was he drunk when he said that?

[mraynrand]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

Yeah, just heard on ESPN radio today that the Head of Officiating in the NFL admitted the call on the replay was wrong. The ruling on the field was a TD, and there was not nearly enough evidence to overturn the call. He also said if it was ruled incomplete and being challenged for a TD, that there was enough evidence to call it that.

In other words, the refs got it wrong. Admitted as much by the NFL themselves. The ex head of officiating said they got it wrong the night of the game. It's a generally clear consensus that that was a TD catch from every angle and every aspect of what presently constitutes a catch in the NFL. It's been made clear, now, that the ref simply got it completely wrong. May not be his fault entirely - officiating really needs to meet so they can get the catch rule down straight, because it seems every ref calls it differently.

That's interesting, because it's a judgment call:


Mike (Pereira), Please talk about the call with Visanthe Shiancoe’s TD that got called back in the Vikings-Packers game. Pretty happy with the call as a GB fan, but did they get it right?

No, they didn't. The ruling on the field was touchdown. In order to overturn that to incomplete, there has to be indisputable visual evidence that he lost control of the before or after the ball hit the ground. You could make a case that the ball might have been moving a bit on his way to the ground but he still had both hands on it and has it secure enough to deem control. The ball moving is not considered loss of control. It is a judgment call but this was not enough to reverse the call that was made on the field.

As usual, Mike Pereira talks out of both sides of his ass on this. essentially, he throws his fellow (former) officials under the bus by saying his judgment is correct.

Ah, but was he drunk when he said that?

Ask the experts:

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=16178&start=260

[mmmdk]

I think the review was right, but I do think the refs who did the review owed a better explanation of the reason behind their decision to reverse.


I think it's pretty reported that the NFL admitted they were incorrect

Yeah, just heard on ESPN radio today that the Head of Officiating in the NFL admitted the call on the replay was wrong. The ruling on the field was a TD, and there was not nearly enough evidence to overturn the call. He also said if it was ruled incomplete and being challenged for a TD, that there was enough evidence to call it that.

In other words, the refs got it wrong. Admitted as much by the NFL themselves. The ex head of officiating said they got it wrong the night of the game. It's a generally clear consensus that that was a TD catch from every angle and every aspect of what presently constitutes a catch in the NFL. It's been made clear, now, that the ref simply got it completely wrong. May not be his fault entirely - officiating really needs to meet so they can get the catch rule down straight, because it seems every ref calls it differently.

That's interesting, because it's a judgment call:


Mike (Pereira), Please talk about the call with Visanthe Shiancoe’s TD that got called back in the Vikings-Packers game. Pretty happy with the call as a GB fan, but did they get it right?

No, they didn't. The ruling on the field was touchdown. In order to overturn that to incomplete, there has to be indisputable visual evidence that he lost control of the before or after the ball hit the ground. You could make a case that the ball might have been moving a bit on his way to the ground but he still had both hands on it and has it secure enough to deem control. The ball moving is not considered loss of control. It is a judgment call but this was not enough to reverse the call that was made on the field.

As usual, Mike Pereira talks out of both sides of his ass on this. essentially, he throws his fellow (former) officials under the bus by saying his judgment is correct.

Ah, but was he drunk when he said that?

Ask the experts:

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=16178&start=260

It is a judgment call - c'mon! Get HD - picture doesn't lie.

NO TD FOR YOU [Vikings, Drunks & Ex-refs].

[channtheman]

Okay how can the call be considered wrong if it is a judgment call? Isn't it by the judgment of the ref who watched the replay Sunday night that it wasn't a catch? So what the fuck is the issue? My judgment is different from yours so it was the wrong call? BS.

[Bretsky]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

[Fred's Slacks]

I still don't get how it can be a catch when it starts between his wrists and after he hits the ground it ends up between his hands and his chest. :?:

[bobblehead]

I still don't get how it can be a catch when it starts between his wrists and after he hits the ground it ends up between his hands and his chest. :?:

My sentiments exactly. The NFL in saying it should have been a catch is basically making me feel even more like they are against us.

"We know its judgement, and the refs in the booth judged it incomplete, but the packers tried to force the all time jersey salesman into retirement, so we should have shafted them here."

[MJZiggy]

I still don't get how it can be a catch when it starts between his wrists and after he hits the ground it ends up between his hands and his chest. :?:

My sentiments exactly. The NFL in saying it should have been a catch is basically making me feel even more like they are against us.

"We know its judgement, and the refs in the booth judged it incomplete, but the packers tried to force the all time jersey salesman into retirement, so we should have shafted them here."

Last I understood the rules, the ball's not supposed to hit the ground at all while you're catching it. That would make it a trap and this rule doubles the subjectivity of trapping...

[Iron Mike]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

If we don't believe you, there's thousands of Queens fans that continue to whine:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/105655803.html

[Tarlam!]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81bb1fd0/article/conference-call-with-all-officials-will-address-recent-mistakes?module=HP_headlines



Conference call with all officials will address recent mistakes
NFL.com Wire Reports
Published: Oct. 28, 2010 at 07:52 p.m. Updated: Oct. 28, 2010 at 10:08 p.m.

Thursday on NFL Network's "NFL Total Access."

An officiating source told Glazer that the purpose of Friday's call is to give a pep talk and clean up mistakes by officials. Sources say having all the officials involved in the call is rare, if not unprecedented.

The conference call comes on the heels of two high-profile officiating decisions in Week 7.

Late in Sunday's game between the Steelers and Dolphins, Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger scrambled out of the pocket and lunged for the end zone. The ball was knocked loose right around the goal line, but the officials ruled that Roethlisberger had scored a touchdown.


A Dolphins player emerged from the ensuing end-zone pileup with the football. When the ball was determined on replay to have come out before Roethlisberger reached the goal line, Miami believed it had a touchback. But since officials initially ruled that Roethlisberger had scored a touchdown, they didn't bother to see who recovered the ball, because it technically was no longer in play.

Pittsburgh was awarded the ball on the Miami 1-yard line and went on to kick a go-ahead field goal and hold on for a 23-22 victory.

The second controversy came in the Sunday night matchup between the Vikings and Green Bay Packers, when Minnesota tight end Visanthe Shiancoe made a diving grab in the end zone and appeared to secure the ball as he rolled onto his back. Officials ruled the play a touchdown but overturned the call on review. Minnesota settled for a field goal and lost 28-24.

Vikings coach Brad Childress publicly criticized the officiating in the game, then was fined $35,000 by the NFL.

Carl Johnson, the NFL's vice president of officiating, wasn't happy about the reversal of the Shiancoe catch.

"We wish the ruling on the field would have stood as a completed catch," Johnson said on Wednesday's "NFL Total Access."

League spokesman Greg Aiello tweeted a statement later Thursday, downplaying the implied meaning of the call.

"It's a routine part of Carl Johnson's expanded communications program for officiating," he wrote. "It's a follow up to their preseason clinic. There will be another conference call near the end of the season before the playoffs. It is like team meetings."

[retailguy]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

If we don't believe you, there's thousands of Queens fans that continue to whine:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/105655803.html

It isn't Bretsky you should believe, but the NFL HEAD OF OFFICIATING.... :roll:

We got away with one, for a change....

[mraynrand]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

Applying the 50 drunks rule, it looked like a catch. But the NFL has these rules, you see, so Cal Johnson COULD have been getting up and NOT going to the ground, but IF he WAS going to the ground, the refs would have to rule incomplete. Shianco COULD have had control, but when the ball moves in a players hands when it hits the ground a ref COULD rule that the player didn't have control. Rules and Judgments, Judgments and Rules. Gotta like the officials standing up for the Bears against the Lions ("It's GOOD when a team from Chicago does well!") but not the Packers against the Vikings (It's GOOD for ratings when Brett Favre wins - it's easier to write those intros to playoff games when it's Favre versus anyone else).

BTW, the difference was four points, and there's no guarantee the Packers wouldn't have won the game anyway.

[mmmdk]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

Applying the 50 drunks rule, it looked like a catch. But the NFL has these rules, you see, so Cal Johnson COULD have been getting up and NOT going to the ground, but IF he WAS going to the ground, the refs would have to rule incomplete. Shianco COULD have had control, but when the ball moves in a players hands when it hits the ground a ref COULD rule that the player didn't have control. Rules and Judgments, Judgments and Rules. Gotta like the officials standing up for the Bears against the Lions ("It's GOOD when a team from Chicago does well!") but not the Packers against the Vikings (It's GOOD for ratings when Brett Favre wins - it's easier to write those intros to playoff games when it's Favre versus anyone else).

BTW, the difference was four points, and there's no guarantee the Packers wouldn't have won the game anyway.

TD was a judgement call - could've been a TD but that judgement was not made.

JUDGEMENT: as in the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

Get it?

Johnson would have liked it to have been ruled a TD

LIKED: as in nearly; closely; approximately OR corresponding or agreeing in general or in some noticeable respect.

Get that?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda liked...it's all VERY weak. Even the NFL isn't making a big deal about it but will evaluate later. Pretty anemic altogether & you'd get bent over and screwed in court too.

NO TD FOR YOU [Vikings, Drunks, NFL & BF anal lovers]

This topic is only interesting here on PR 'cos it's the end of a BF pass that wasn't ruled a TD. But I slay BF trolling with my CLAYMORE.

[mraynrand]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

Applying the 50 drunks rule, it looked like a catch. But the NFL has these rules, you see, so Cal Johnson COULD have been getting up and NOT going to the ground, but IF he WAS going to the ground, the refs would have to rule incomplete. Shianco COULD have had control, but when the ball moves in a players hands when it hits the ground a ref COULD rule that the player didn't have control. Rules and Judgments, Judgments and Rules. Gotta like the officials standing up for the Bears against the Lions ("It's GOOD when a team from Chicago does well!") but not the Packers against the Vikings (It's GOOD for ratings when Brett Favre wins - it's easier to write those intros to playoff games when it's Favre versus anyone else).

BTW, the difference was four points, and there's no guarantee the Packers wouldn't have won the game anyway.

TD was a judgement call - could've been a TD but that judgement was not made.

JUDGEMENT: as in the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

Get it?

Johnson would have liked it to have been ruled a TD

LIKED: as in nearly; closely; approximately OR corresponding or agreeing in general or in some noticeable respect.

Get that?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda liked...it's all VERY weak. Even the NFL isn't making a big deal about it but will evaluate later. Pretty anemic altogether & you'd get bent over and screwed in court too.

NO TD FOR YOU [Vikings, Drunks, NFL & BF anal lovers]

This topic is only interesting here on PR 'cos it's the end of a BF pass that wasn't ruled a TD. But I slay BF trolling with my CLAYMORE.


:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Maybe try again when you sober up

[mmmdk]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

Applying the 50 drunks rule, it looked like a catch. But the NFL has these rules, you see, so Cal Johnson COULD have been getting up and NOT going to the ground, but IF he WAS going to the ground, the refs would have to rule incomplete. Shianco COULD have had control, but when the ball moves in a players hands when it hits the ground a ref COULD rule that the player didn't have control. Rules and Judgments, Judgments and Rules. Gotta like the officials standing up for the Bears against the Lions ("It's GOOD when a team from Chicago does well!") but not the Packers against the Vikings (It's GOOD for ratings when Brett Favre wins - it's easier to write those intros to playoff games when it's Favre versus anyone else).

BTW, the difference was four points, and there's no guarantee the Packers wouldn't have won the game anyway.

TD was a judgement call - could've been a TD but that judgement was not made.

JUDGEMENT: as in the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

Get it?

Johnson would have liked it to have been ruled a TD

LIKED: as in nearly; closely; approximately OR corresponding or agreeing in general or in some noticeable respect.

Get that?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda liked...it's all VERY weak. Even the NFL isn't making a big deal about it but will evaluate later. Pretty anemic altogether & you'd get bent over and screwed in court too.

NO TD FOR YOU [Vikings, Drunks, NFL & BF anal lovers]

This topic is only interesting here on PR 'cos it's the end of a BF pass that wasn't ruled a TD. But I slay BF trolling with my CLAYMORE.


:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Maybe try again when you sober up

Are you trying to be funny? I think you're a smart & good poster - so I'll let it go.

[mraynrand]

why is it so easy to scream when we are jilted but so hard to admit it when our opposition was screwed ????

Anybody see the interview with the real Head of Officiating on the NFL Network last night to hear what the NFL feels

Be happy; we screwed the pooch on this one and the VIkes were the victim


:glug:

Applying the 50 drunks rule, it looked like a catch. But the NFL has these rules, you see, so Cal Johnson COULD have been getting up and NOT going to the ground, but IF he WAS going to the ground, the refs would have to rule incomplete. Shianco COULD have had control, but when the ball moves in a players hands when it hits the ground a ref COULD rule that the player didn't have control. Rules and Judgments, Judgments and Rules. Gotta like the officials standing up for the Bears against the Lions ("It's GOOD when a team from Chicago does well!") but not the Packers against the Vikings (It's GOOD for ratings when Brett Favre wins - it's easier to write those intros to playoff games when it's Favre versus anyone else).

BTW, the difference was four points, and there's no guarantee the Packers wouldn't have won the game anyway.

TD was a judgement call - could've been a TD but that judgement was not made.

JUDGEMENT: as in the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

Get it?

Johnson would have liked it to have been ruled a TD

LIKED: as in nearly; closely; approximately OR corresponding or agreeing in general or in some noticeable respect.

Get that?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda liked...it's all VERY weak. Even the NFL isn't making a big deal about it but will evaluate later. Pretty anemic altogether & you'd get bent over and screwed in court too.

NO TD FOR YOU [Vikings, Drunks, NFL & BF anal lovers]

This topic is only interesting here on PR 'cos it's the end of a BF pass that wasn't ruled a TD. But I slay BF trolling with my CLAYMORE.


:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Maybe try again when you sober up

Are you trying to be funny? I think you're a smart & good poster - so I'll let it go.

I just didn't understand what you wrote. Maybe I'm the one who needs to sober up...

[pbmax]

I think the entire post (nearly Woodbuckian in its length and bolding) was an expression of his belief that Referee coordinator Johnson would not have over ruled it himself, but that it was ultimately a judgment call both on the field and in the booth.

I think, though, that the indisputable visual evidence test renders this reading moot.

Back to you, Nina.

[mraynrand]

I think, though, that the indisputable visual evidence test renders this reading moot.

I'd dispute that