You gotta be f**king kidding me

[Jimx29]

http://i.imgur.com/247sT.gif

[KYPack]

He threw in a "Goddamnit" at the end of that.

I remember laughing because I said the same thing at the time.

I know we'll end up in heaven this year.

We've served our time in hell.

[Fred's Slacks]

He threw in a "Goddamnit" at the end of that.

I remember laughing because I said the same thing at the time.

I know we'll end up in heaven this year.

We've served our time in hell.

Not with that language :no::grin:

[mraynrand]

when did this one occur? I can think of about at least 10 different times he could have said this!

[Lurker64]

when did this one occur? I can think of about at least 10 different times he could have said this!

That's not a loop, that's actually a video feed on McCarthy throughout the entire game. It stops after about three hours.

[mraynrand]

That's not a loop, that's actually a video feed on McCarthy throughout the entire game. It stops after about three hours.

:lol: repped

[pbmax]

OK. Can anyone understand how the official described in Peter King's MMQB should have been the one to call the fumble on Sproles?


2. The league can now do something about calls like the one that almost cost the Packers Sunday. A league source told me Sunday night the official who trails the kick returner out of the end zone until he gets to about the 40-yard line is the head linesman. Which means head linesman Phil McKinnely, a 10-year vet, is the one who blew the call and didn't see the Darren Sproles fumble. Officials who botch calls like that one are routinely graded down, and the NFL beginning in 2013 will have the right to bench underachieving officials and replace them with some of the 21 development officials on the taxi squad of sorts the NFL will form next offseason. "We'll be able to have some full-time officials, and we'll be able to build a bench to improve our officiating,'' said Patriots owner Robert Kraft. "We believe this will make officiating better in the long term."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/30/week-4/index.html#ixzz283TD8lop

[Patler]

OK. Can anyone understand how the official described in Peter King's MMQB should have been the one to call the fumble on Sproles?

If he was trailing the kick returner, I doubt he could see it. On the replays it seemed to be the shot from the front that showed it the best. Did any official have that view?

Wasn't that a situation where MM's wasted challenge in the first half bit him in the butt? I know the announcers stated there was no determination on possession, making review impossible anyway, but was that simply a case of the officials knowing the Packers were out of challenges?

[pbmax]

If he was trailing the kick returner, I doubt he could see it. On the replays it seemed to be the shot from the front that showed it the best. Did any official have that view?

Wasn't that a situation where MM's wasted challenge in the first half bit him in the butt? I know the announcers stated there was no determination on possession, making review impossible anyway, but was that simply a case of the officials knowing the Packers were out of challenges?

That's similar to what Rand thought, that the Refs have a get out of a bad review situation free card when they simply can call it down by contact and declare it unreviewable since there was a scrum and no clear recovery.

So I agree with the assessment of the blown first half challenge, I am not sure having one left would have done much good. The best replay I saw showed Moses falling near the loose ball, not clear recovery. I could have missed a better view though.

Never saw a wide angle of shot with officials, but there has to be one or two officials running down the field with the kicking team I would think. If not, if they stay back to cover a long return, that might explain why they went with the weasel call.

[Pugger]

If he was trailing the kick returner, I doubt he could see it. On the replays it seemed to be the shot from the front that showed it the best. Did any official have that view?

Wasn't that a situation where MM's wasted challenge in the first half bit him in the butt? I know the announcers stated there was no determination on possession, making review impossible anyway, but was that simply a case of the officials knowing the Packers were out of challenges?

Whoever told MM to challenge that non-catch by Jordy should be replaced. I remember screaming at MM to keep that damn hankie in his pocket cuz I knew we were gonna lose that one and it did indeed come back to bite us. Thankfully we won in spite of all of these officiating blunders.

[sharpe1027]

The rule about a failure to make a determination of who recovered the ball is just stupid in this type of situation. All they need to do is make the determination as if it was a fumble whenever there is any doubt. If the referees had called it a fumble, they needed to make that determination anyway.

This is a stupid and pointless exception to reviewing all turnovers. There is simply no reason to be able to review the same play when it is ruled a turnover and not when it is ruled down by contact. The same exact play should be reviewable in both situations, not contingent on which way the refs happen to call it (which defeats the purpose of having replay in the first place).

[Patler]

So I agree with the assessment of the blown first half challenge, I am not sure having one left would have done much good. The best replay I saw showed Moses falling near the loose ball, not clear recovery. I could have missed a better view though.

I saw that too. He looked to be going down in just about perfect position to scoop it and cradle it. Coupled with the fact that he came out of the scrum with the ball, it isn't much of a stretch to say he recovered it.

[Patler]

This is a stupid and pointless exception to reviewing all turnovers. There is simply no reason to be able to review the same play when it is ruled a turnover and not when it is ruled down by contact. The same exact play should be reviewable in both situations, not contingent on which way the refs happen to call it (which defeats the purpose of having replay in the first place).

Exactly why I have never been a fan of replay. That situation, the failure to overturn the simultaneous possession ruling last week, and the failure to overturn the catch on Sunday, pretty much prove that replay rulings are no more certain than the initial on field rulings. When it's inherent shortcomings fail to correct key rulings at crucial times, its not worthy the effort, in my opinion.

[pbmax]

Exactly why I have never been a fan of replay. That situation, the failure to overturn the simultaneous possession ruling last week, and the failure to overturn the catch on Sunday, pretty much prove that replay rulings are no more certain than the initial on field rulings. When it's inherent shortcomings fail to correct key rulings at crucial times, its not worthy the effort, in my opinion.

Agree. There are two things people never remember when the latest replay change (or any rule change, actually) comes down the pike:

1) A whole new category of "why wasn't that part of the play reviewable" is created.

2) Because of improving cameras, HD and omnipresent video replays in Super Slo Mo, everything about the game is picked apart. There will never be enough replays to cover all the questions. They are chasing their own tail.

The only solution is to have a second team of refs in the booth with virtual reality helmets on, getting nearly live feed slow motion replay so reviews can happen after every play from everywhere on the field.

[Patler]

2) Because of improving cameras, HD and omnipresent video replays in Super Slo Mo, everything about the game is picked apart. There will never be enough replays to cover all the questions. They are chasing their own tail.

Exactly. For example, they did and still do talk about if there was any ball movement during a catch. The problem is that high definition and super slow motion show that the ball almost always moves in a receivers hands, even when he seems to have complete control of it.

In the past I argued that replay should allow the ref to look at different angles, but he should only be able to watch at real-time speed. Let them see what positioning or players did not allow them to see, but don't show them what the human eye could not otherwise comprehend. Judge the replay the same as standard plays, but from a better angle.

[mraynrand]

Exactly why I have never been a fan of replay. That situation, the failure to overturn the simultaneous possession ruling last week, and the failure to overturn the catch on Sunday, pretty much prove that replay rulings are no more certain than the initial on field rulings. When it's inherent shortcomings fail to correct key rulings at crucial times, its not worthy the effort, in my opinion.

I don't think the circumstances you cite favor/support abolishing replay. 1) Last week at Seattle was a clear screw up. Read what Ed hochuli wrote and you know that 999/1000, normal refs would have ruled interception. 2) The catch that wasn't overturned on Sunday wasn't a terrible mistake. The receiver had the ball secured in his hands and next to his body when the nose hit the ground. it's easy for me to see why a neutral ref didn't see enough to overturn. The ball and the hands moved together when the nose hit the ground. Was that enough to rule that the catch wasn't secure and overturn? It's a judgment call. So the replay did what it was supposed to do - allow one team to force a review of what they deemed a questionable call.

Many times that I've seen, replay has allowed a very bad call on the field to be overturned. That's what it's for - so that a clear Jerry Rice fumble, just to take a random example, can be reviewed and corrected so that the outcome is mostly fair.

[mraynrand]

Exactly. For example, they did and still do talk about if there was any ball movement during a catch. The problem is that high definition and super slow motion show that the ball almost always moves in a receivers hands, even when he seems to have complete control of it.

Right - there wasn't enough to overturn. I suspect had the opposite call been made on the field and challenged, that might not have been overturned. That's one of the good things about the current replay system - the visual evidence standard for overturning a call is that it must be indisputable, and most of the time, the refs make sure that it is, or the cal stands. It's not perfect, but it's better than no ability to review.

[LEWCWA]

If they call it a fumble and decide who recovered it, guess what, the saints in turn can challenge if it was down. Don't they also review all turnovers now? Ref copped out. Call it the other way and they can get it right.

[mraynrand]

After extensive review, it seems the only place where the refs may have copped out on that fumble was in deciding there was no clear possession by either team. No clear possession of a non-fumble that is!

[Patler]

Right - there wasn't enough to overturn. I suspect had the opposite call been made on the field and challenged, that might not have been overturned. That's one of the good things about the current replay system - the visual evidence standard for overturning a call is that it must be indisputable, and most of the time, the refs make sure that it is, or the cal stands. It's not perfect, but it's better than no ability to review.

I don't see it as enough better than no review at all to have added yet another layer of complexity to what should be a simple game.

I think they screwed up the catch on Sunday, too. The ball was slipping through his hands, as evidenced by the growing length of the ball below his hands. The ground stopped that movement and allowed him to hang on to it. It seems everyone in the booth saw it that way too. What makes the ref's opinion the correct one?

The only things replay has done are extend the length of some plays and make officials more cautious. The game is played with players and coaches who do not perform perfectly. Since you will never make officiating perfect either, I say just leave it in the hands of humans, too.

By the way, I'm not convinced replay would have altered the ruling on Rice's catch, or that the Packers would have had a challenge left to use on it.

[mraynrand]

I don't see it as enough better than no review at all to have added yet another layer of complexity to what should be a simple game.

I guess we disagree. Hard to measure, but I think it's more complicated than you do, and I definitely want review available in some form.


I think they screwed up the catch on Sunday, too. The ball was slipping through his hands, as evidenced by the growing length of the ball below his hands. The ground stopped that movement and allowed him to hang on to it. It seems everyone in the booth saw it that way too. What makes the ref's opinion the correct one?

Sure, that call may have been incorrect. I see your POV. That's what I was screaming at the TV yesterday for sure :lol: The refs opinion isn't always correct, but they have the final word.


The only things replay has done are extend the length of some plays and make officials more cautious. The game is played with players and coaches who do not perform perfectly. Since you will never make officiating perfect either, I say just leave it in the hands of humans, too.

I strongly disagree with the only part. I suspect that is hyperbole on your part :mrgreen: All aspects of refereeing are in human hands. If you think there is a way to streamline reviews and make them better, I would agree with that. Perhaps unintentionally you raise an interesting point. We can't be too far off from computer-aided officiating. For example, I'm sure a computer algorithm could determine the level of ball security on any given play, and that possession could be set a certain threshold. But I agree with what Spock said to Kirk: "Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them."



By the way, I'm not convinced replay would have altered the ruling on Rice's catch, or that the Packers would have had a challenge left to use on it.

I am totally convinced it would have been ruled a fumble, and since it was with less than 2 minutes left, it would have been booth reviewed.

[pbmax]

I think they should go back to boundary rulings like in the original replay system and perhaps add in turnovers or disputed turnovers/down by contact/inadvertent whistle. Because for me the only ruling I want overturned from a historical perspective is Mike Renfro's non-touchdown versus the Steelers in the AFC Playoffs in 1979. They called him out and the Steelers won a close game.

Keep the challenge system. Could keep the peep show booth or have upstairs private booth review in the Champagne Room.

Forget catch/not a catch or spotting the football. Out of bounds, touchdowns and possession. End of story.

Maybe 12 men on the field, but that's it!

And Field Goals! But that's the last one!

And raise the FG uprights until flyovers need to dodge them.

[mraynrand]

We wuz ROBBED!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gCFx5jC_q4

[Patler]

All aspects of refereeing are in human hands. If you think there is a way to streamline reviews and make them better, I would agree with that. Perhaps unintentionally you raise an interesting point. We can't be too far off from computer-aided officiating. For example, I'm sure a computer algorithm could determine the level of ball security on any given play, and that possession could be set a certain threshold. But I agree with what Spock said to Kirk: "Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them."

But it is not left in human hands. We give them high definition, super slow-motion, telescopic images to judge, then we apply artificial rules to it. For example, why should he not have been able to correct the failure to call PI on Tate? It was just as determinative as the interception/reception call.

Why do we allow a team only to challenge a limited number of plays? if it is so important to correct errors, shouldn't all errors be corrected?

Why do we make a coach decide whether to challenge this call that he knows is wrong, but not real significant, or hold that challenge in case something of greater importance occurs? If it is important to correct error, shouldn't all errors be corrected? Does it make any sense at all for the correction of errors to have a strategy component to it, by making the coach decide whether or not to challenge?


I am totally convinced it would have been ruled a fumble, and since it was with less than 2 minutes left, it would have been booth reviewed.

I guess that would have depended on what review rules applied at the time, and whether or not the replay official was quick enough on the trigger. Besides, wasn't there an instance a few years back where a clear fumble was not reviewed due to a malfunction of the alerting buzzer, or something like that?

[mraynrand]

But it is not left in human hands. We give them high definition, super slow-motion, telescopic images to judge, then we apply artificial rules to it. For example, why should he not have been able to correct the failure to call PI on Tate? It was just as determinative as the interception/reception call.

Why do we allow a team only to challenge a limited number of plays? if it is so important to correct errors, shouldn't all errors be corrected?

Why do we make a coach decide whether to challenge this call that he knows is wrong, but not real significant, or hold that challenge in case something of greater importance occurs? If it is important to correct error, shouldn't all errors be corrected? Does it make any sense at all for the correction of errors to have a strategy component to it, by making the coach decide whether or not to challenge?

But it's humans deciding the rules of replay; what to review and what not to review, regardless of the technology. It's not like Skynet is in control. Perhaps the review process could be improved and streamlined?


I guess that would have depended on what review rules applied at the time, and whether or not the replay official was quick enough on the trigger. Besides, wasn't there an instance a few years back where a clear fumble was not reviewed due to a malfunction of the alerting buzzer, or something like that?

get that buzzer fixed!

[pbmax]

M3 in press conference said he saw one shot of Nelson's non catch and thought he maintained control. Threw flag on his own. After he threw it, knew he should't have after seeing 2nd replay.

Nearly did not challenge Graham TD because he only had one left and waited until last possible moment. After film still certain about that one.

Thought he would have had grounds to review Sproles if he had another challenge. Was told whistle blew and down by contact, but said Moses and all other players are taught to get ball regardless of whistle and get up with it and hand it back to ref to reduce the chance of an unclear recovery being called.

Also said MD Jennings had radio in helmet. Which seems odd, but thought that whoever got the radio next (Burnett, McMillan?) would not have been as comfortable relaying signals off it and might have contributed to late or confused calls.

[Patler]

But it's humans deciding the rules of replay; what to review and what not to review, regardless of the technology. It's not like Skynet is in control. Perhaps the review process could be improved and streamlined?

But
- they give them super slow motion
- they give them telescopic views
- they give them stop action
- they give them HD views showing mis-shappen texture on the balls (OK, I exaggerate a little)

As I stated earlier, (or was it in a different thread?) give them different angles, but not slow motion, etc. Make them review it as it would be in a real game situation, but with the advantage of the official in a better position to see it.

[sharpe1027]

But
- they give them super slow motion
- they give them telescopic views
- they give them stop action
- they give them HD views showing mis-shappen texture on the balls (OK, I exaggerate a little)

As I stated earlier, (or was it in a different thread?) give them different angles, but not slow motion, etc. Make them review it as it would be in a real game situation, but with the advantage of the official in a better position to see it.

For me there are two main issues.

1. The official on the field reviews the call.

This slows things down as he has to saunter over to the review booth only after announcing this to everyone.

The official may have misunderstood the rule in the first instance and only compound the problem.

This also is like having an internal review carried out by the people being reviewed. Not usually a good idea.

2. Only one person does the review.

On any one given call someone will disagree. That means that even though 70% of officials might make the call one way, you might get the other 30%.

Any one person can easily miss things that happen and/or not recognize the full implication of a rule.

My solution would be to have a group of 3 dedicated replay officials do all reviews. They can confer with each other and vote on the call. 2 out of 3 gets the call. This would help reduce the one-off calls be having multiple opinions. Also having the decision upstairs should speed things up. Finally, subjective decisions are usually improved by discussing the basis behind the decision.

[sharpe1027]

Also said MD Jennings had radio in helmet. Which seems odd, but thought that whoever got the radio next (Burnett, McMillan?) would not have been as comfortable relaying signals off it and might have contributed to late or confused calls.

Don't know if this is related but Clay was screaming at the sideline after one play. It looked like he was pissed about not getting the calls in on time.

[LEWCWA]

Check the cowboy/bear game, close fumble with dallas taking the ball away. Very close they call it a fumble and automatically review the play. reverse call on this one, but nobody had to use a challenge. same shoulda been done in the GB game and they would have gotton the call right.....

[Pugger]

M3 in press conference said he saw one shot of Nelson's non catch and thought he maintained control. Threw flag on his own. After he threw it, knew he should't have after seeing 2nd replay.

Nearly did not challenge Graham TD because he only had one left and waited until last possible moment. After film still certain about that one.

Thought he would have had grounds to review Sproles if he had another challenge. Was told whistle blew and down by contact, but said Moses and all other players are taught to get ball regardless of whistle and get up with it and hand it back to ref to reduce the chance of an unclear recovery being called.

Also said MD Jennings had radio in helmet. Which seems odd, but thought that whoever got the radio next (Burnett, McMillan?) would not have been as comfortable relaying signals off it and might have contributed to late or confused calls.

Good God. Somebody take the hankie away from him...

[Little Whiskey]

For me there are two main issues.

1. The official on the field reviews the call.

This slows things down as he has to saunter over to the review booth only after announcing this to everyone.

The official may have misunderstood the rule in the first instance and only compound the problem.

This also is like having an internal review carried out by the people being reviewed. Not usually a good idea.

2. Only one person does the review.

On any one given call someone will disagree. That means that even though 70% of officials might make the call one way, you might get the other 30%.

Any one person can easily miss things that happen and/or not recognize the full implication of a rule.

My solution would be to have a group of 3 dedicated replay officials do all reviews. They can confer with each other and vote on the call. 2 out of 3 gets the call. This would help reduce the one-off calls be having multiple opinions. Also having the decision upstairs should speed things up. Finally, subjective decisions are usually improved by discussing the basis behind the decision.

The problem with this solution is the time needed to bring a decision. it takes long enough with 1 guy looking at the reply. imagine 3 guys watching then debating the call, especially now that they have increased the number of plays replayed.

I like the idea of the official in the booth making the call.

[pbmax]

Don't know if this is related but Clay was screaming at the sideline after one play. It looked like he was pissed about not getting the calls in on time.

Yes, there was a problem. Burnett had the radio instead of Smith because they planned to use the Dollar package and that meant no Smith. Capers said it caused problems on the second drive for the defense. After that, the dollar was scrapped because of Doc Jennings injury.

[sharpe1027]

The problem with this solution is the time needed to bring a decision. it takes long enough with 1 guy looking at the reply. imagine 3 guys watching then debating the call, especially now that they have increased the number of plays replayed.

I like the idea of the official in the booth making the call.

I'm not so sure. First, having it in the booth will help speed things up. Second and as someone else posted, this isn't rocket science. You can only view a replay so many times. The rest is just trying to interpret what you saw. I can't remember a call that I truly needed the entire replay time to make up my mind.

You could always just give them a time limit. It could be, for example, a soft time that is their target time (say 2 minutes) and a hard time that they absolutely cannot go over (say 5 minutes).

Either way, I think it would be an improvement.

[smuggler]

It was an obvious fumble. On top of that, since Green Bay clearly recovered, if it had been ruled as a fumble on the field, New Orleans would have had a free review. It was just a horrible call to make.

[mraynrand]

I like the idea of the official in the booth making the call.

The peep show is a huge waste of time

[Pugger]

If they call it a fumble and decide who recovered it, guess what, the saints in turn can challenge if it was down. Don't they also review all turnovers now? Ref copped out. Call it the other way and they can get it right.

Yes, but the whole problem with that Sproles fumble is some goofball zebra blew the whistle so the play cannot be reviewed. I thought those bozos were supposed to not be so quick on the whistle. And how can he be down by contact when he was still very much upright before the ball came out? He was still moving forward along with the tacklers. All I can say is Triplette and his band of fools are the worst crew in the game.

[gbgary]

that's better than "what the hell is going on out here?" but sadly it's not going become as famous. lol

[smuggler]

Yes, but the whole problem with that Sproles fumble is some goofball zebra blew the whistle so the play cannot be reviewed. I thought those bozos were supposed to not be so quick on the whistle. And how can he be down by contact when he was still very much upright before the ball came out? He was still moving forward along with the tacklers. All I can say is Triplette and his band of fools are the worst crew in the game.

They changed the rule a few years back. The whistle no longer ends a play with regards to a fumble recovery. It can't be advanced, however.

[Pugger]

They changed the rule a few years back. The whistle no longer ends a play with regards to a fumble recovery. It can't be advanced, however.

I can't recall right now - did they review that play then?

[channtheman]

I'm actually leaning towards getting rid of reviews. What is always touted when speaking in favor of review? Getting the call right. Well, when the play is reviewed and they still get it wrong, I see no reason to review. Just call the game on the field and get rid of challenges and all reviews.

EDIT: (I know this will never happen.)

[Smidgeon]

I can't recall right now - did they review that play then?

I think they said it couldn't be overturned because no camera angle had direct evidence the Packers recovered. I'm not sure I buy that, but that's what they said.