We are sorry

[b bulldog]

The Packers recieved word today from the NFL that the Harris interception should have stood.

[oregonpackfan]

The Packers recieved word today from the NFL that the Harris interception should have stood.

Talk about "Water under the Bridge" type of apology! That play could have been a critical turnaround in the game. It apology ended up being "Flash Flood Under The Bridge!" :x

[Joemailman]

Do we get a rain check for the next time we play Dallas? T.O.'s first reception counts as an interception by Harris?

[The Leaper]

Until the NFL gets rid of this stupid notion that some decisions are "not reviewable", there really is no point in having instant replay at all.

Any decision should be reviewable. Hiding behind "forward progress" or other judgment calls that the NFL has designated as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the refs is ludicrous.

If they are wrong, they are wrong...and teams should have the opportunity to correct it regardless. Every decision refs make are a judgment, so how can you label some as being OK to challenge and some as not OK to challenge?

[digitaldean]

Until the NFL gets rid of this stupid notion that some decisions are "not reviewable", there really is no point in having instant replay at all.

Any decision should be reviewable. Hiding behind "forward progress" or other judgment calls that the NFL has designated as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the refs is ludicrous.

If they are wrong, they are wrong...and teams should have the opportunity to correct it regardless. Every decision refs make are a judgment, so how can you label some as being OK to challenge and some as not OK to challenge?

That is what so mindnumbingly moronic with instant replay. The NFL is going to end up having instant replay go bye-bye in the next 5 years if they don't fix this issue and fast.

The refs on the field shouldn't be involved at all.

One thing that should be changed for next season is the force out rule. It is applied so haphazardly that its never applied the same way for the same situation. Either make the forceout rule go away or alter it so we don't have more plays like Bubba's TD getting nixed.

[MTPackerfan]

It is ridiculous that the office of officials or what ever, comes back a week later and tells a team the screwed up a call that could have changed the completion of the game, with an Oh we are sorry. Either allow these to be reviewed or don't do anything.

[MJZiggy]

I say let any call be reviewed. Admittedly the refs are out there doing a difficult job and it shouldn't be any insult for them to have the plays looked at after the play is blown dead if there's any question about it. I mean isn't the goal supposed to be to be consistent and get it right?

[BEARMAN]

Still crying over spilled milk ? Get over it already, it's over, done, finished ! Move on to the next team. You team had better be getting ready for the Raiders, they are no joke. :shock:

[Harlan Huckleby]

These reviews are a hornets nest. The games are slowed down painfully by reviews already. You can't say "review everything". Maybe some of the rules need to be tweeked here and there, but I think they are close to an optimal balance.

[StPaulPackFan]

Still crying over spilled milk ? Get over it already, it's over, done, finished ! Move on to the next team. You team had better be getting ready for the Raiders, they are no joke. :shock:

Isn't it about time that you change your sig? :idea: I mean, get over it already, it's over, done, finished!

[PlantPage55]

Still crying over spilled milk ? Get over it already, it's over, done, finished ! Move on to the next team. You team had better be getting ready for the Raiders, they are no joke. :shock:

You don't think we should be upset that this is the 3rd time THIS YEAR that the refs have had to apologize to us for a specific and very serious miscall during a game?

It's a wonder they haven't screwed us out of this season!

[MadtownPacker]

No surprise here. We all knew this was coming. Sorry ass POS refs.

[mmmdk]

Encroyable! :doh:

[jramsey495]

where did you find this out? do they publish a list of screw-ups each week?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Every team gets these. There have been bad calls. Some games we get the short end of the stick, but overall I don't think it's been worse than any other team. All fans cry that their teams have been screwed by the refs.

[b bulldog]

107.5 tHE fAN REPORTED TODAY THAT THE LEAGUE SENT WORD to the Packers that the call was wrong

[MadtownPacker]

Every team gets these. There have been bad calls. Some games we get the short end of the stick, but overall I don't think it's been worse than any other team. All fans cry that their teams have been screwed by the refs.Calls like the Bubba TD pushout I guess you can understand but this shit was super obvious. The ref made the right call and some asswad overrules it. Even owens knew it was a turnover because he tried to tackle Al.

I thought someone mentioned that the idiot that called this play also called the Tramon PI at the end of the game?

[BallHawk]

Every call should be allowed for review, with the exception of penalties. If you allow challenges on penalties you are going to slow down the pace of the game and you will almost always lose. You can't challenge pass interference or holding, simply because it's a judgment call and seeing a ref review it isn't going to change anything.

One could argue that things such as late hits and roughing penalties should be reviewable but where do you draw the line. If you allow one penalty to be reviewed you have to allow every other one to be review, too.

[MJZiggy]

Every call should be allowed for review, with the exception of penalties. If you allow challenges on penalties you are going to slow down the pace of the game and you will almost always lose. You can't challenge pass interference or holding, simply because it's a judgment call and seeing a ref review it isn't going to change anything.

One could argue that things such as late hits and roughing penalties should be reviewable but where do you draw the line. If you allow one penalty to be reviewed you have to allow every other one to be review, too.

You draw the line that any penalty that costs a team more than 15 yards is reviewable. Calling PI and handing a team a 40-yard gain with goal to go and no way to review it is a little nuts....and how often a game does it happen? Maybe once? Twice? Any call that could affect possession should be able to be looked at as well. They're game changing calls made in an instant and refs should have the ability to take a second look at them and coaches to challenge when they think it's wrong.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think any play that potentially decides a change of possession or any play in the end zone that could decide a td or possession should be reviewable. Those two things rise to the level of being reviewed. Penalties or no calls should not be challengeable.

[BallHawk]

You draw the line that any penalty that costs a team more than 15 yards is reviewable. Calling PI and handing a team a 40-yard gain with goal to go and no way to review it is a little nuts....and how often a game does it happen? Maybe once? Twice? Any call that could affect possession should be able to be looked at as well. They're game changing calls made in an instant and refs should have the ability to take a second look at them and coaches to challenge when they think it's wrong.

I think any PI call, unless blatent, should be a max penalty of 15 yards. To give a guy 40 yards for a little shove is pathetic and ruins the integrity of the game. However, you simply can't review PI. It's a judgment call, the most ultimate of all judgment call. You can review a play and see a runner was down. You can review a play and see the receiver had possession. That's easy. But you can't look at a replay and easily say "Oh, yeah, he pulled on his shoulder, but it didn't affect the WR ability to catch the ball."

If anything can be done to fix some of the BS Pass Interference calls it would be to give the referee closest to the play authority over every other referee, including the Head Referee. Twice the referee closest to the play ruled in favor of the Packer's defense (Harris' strip of Owens and PI on Austin) But then a referee with a worse view than the other ref came over and ruled the play in favor of the Cowboys. I'm sorry, but that defies all logic. If you see somebody commit a robbery do you ask the clerk for the description of the criminal or do you ask the guy hiding in the back of the store? Give the Head Ref authority on certain calls, but don't give a guy who doesn't have the best view the authority over the guy standing right in front of the play.

[4and12to12and4]

What sickens me is that the official under the hood, even though he technically was suppose to only be reviewing if TO had possession or not, would not have been scrutinized if he just simply ruled "no" to that, because he had possession without making a "football move" which under the rules constitutes two steps after reception. So, he came out of the hood knowing that it was clearly an interception and should've just said he never established control before the ball was taken away, and would've been applauded by most media for at least having the call go to the right team. Instead, he helps the home team and an asshole receiver. I don't get it. I swear this game seemed fixed for the Boys from the kickoff on. We would have won this game but not for the zebras screwing us.

But, I'm telling you, watch how this playoff picture develops. It's so screwy, there is a good chance if we get second seed, we will play against a team better matched for us to win against, cuz a this point, the wildcard teams are better than the division leaders, so we should be in great shape. And if both the South and West divisionwinners win their first round games , it nullifies Dallas' home field advantage in our first game, because both of those teams will be beaten by the Boys and us. We lost nothing in that game, and probably should've used our second stringers for the whole game so Dallas doesn't have good film to view before the NFC Championship game. But, MM would've been blasted for that if we lost the game. At least we didn't show them our true gameplanning, thanks to our offense not running as we usually do. We just need to take care of business these last few weeks, get the bye, and I will consider us the team to beat in the NFC at that point. Two wins,baby, and my Rat name will be officially prophetic. The better teams in the NFC are on the out looking in, the Bears, Skins, and Eagles. Things are falling like perfectlu placed dominoes, we just need to get healthy and win a couple, and we will be sitting perfectly in place to get to Favre's third SB. We have NO pressure now, and Dallas will expend a lot ot mental pressure the rest of the season trying to hold the top spot, which may wear them out emotionally 'til the playoffs begin, and we will be under the radar, just where we need to be. This, IMO, was the perfect loss, especially because we made a game out of it without the best player in the NFL. Brett watching AR scoring against their defense should mentally help him play well against them if we play them again, because instead of him looking at the past failures, he's gonna realize that with him being better than Aaron, he should have his way against them, and that might take the jitters from him, and he should play spectacular. With his competitive nature, watch, if he's healthy, he will throw at least three TD's against his next opponents. Losing a game like this seems to always spark that inner something in a team so they play outstanding focuse football, the Boys will play overconfident the rest of the way, and if we face them again with Jolly, KGB, Rouse, Underwood, and Chuck, they will not be prepared for how good our defense really is when healthy. BUT, WE MUST get healthy before playoffs, and they should make Woodson sit out at least two or more weeks, so he if one hundred percent fresh and healthy. We can clinch a bye without them, and it's in oujr best interest. If MM plays Chuck Sunday, I will lose respect for him, unless Chuck is fully recovered, which is impossible. Plus, we could start Tramone for a couple of games, and let his unbelievable talent show itself on the field, giving us depth in the secondary, which is a necessity going into the playoffs. We need him to be that third corner we can rely on when we play against good teams in the plaoffs. He is the x factor along with the rest of the "d" getting healthy before the playoffs. Giving them rest for a couple to few weeks will only help us. BTW, STOP using Chuck as a return man, use Robinson, Chuch is WAY to valuable to risk injury on a return, and it's not like he is Hester. So, play him on defense only, and we will be better all around.

Another point, the flea flicker and onside kick were excellent moves for MM to pull out, if for no other reason, making playoff teams scheme and spend time trying to come up with defenses to stop those plays. But, him going to those plays showed me that MM was less interested in winning this game, and more interested in showing them little to view tape against us for the playoffs. It really did seem like he played very differently in all aspects of the game, so as not to show them what we can and will do if we meet them again. If so, it is a brillian idea. On the other side of it, we saw everything the Boys can and will do against us, which bodes well for the playoffs. We won this game in a mental frame than the Boys, and I am sure, if we meet again, we will have a huge schematic advantage over them.

[4and12to12and4]

BTW, whomever changed my pic to that cool pic of Favre, thank you, I didn't know how, so I appreciate you doing that for me.

:worship:

[BF4MVP]

Instead of admitting they were wrong NOW, how about getting the call correct during the game??? They reviewed it..There is just no way that should not have been overturned. It was right there in plain sight, Harris stripped the ball from Owens and controlled it with both feet in bounds. And the ref didn't even explain why he didn't overturn it. What a douchebag...

[GrnBay007]

BTW, whomever changed my pic to that cool pic of Favre, thank you, I didn't know how, so I appreciate you doing that for me.

:worship:

Looks good. Both yours and BF4MVP's!!

[Noodle]

Here's a news flash to folks -- at the end of the day, it's a friggin' game played and officiated by friggin' humans. Bad calls are going to happen. So are bad throws in to double coverage. You deal with it.

I think the NFL has it about right with their replay procedures. Part of life is dealing with the fact that things aren't always fair. STFU, button your chinstrap, and get after it. The Pack didn't lose because of some bad calls.

[VegasPackFan]

Two issues:

You cant slow down the game by reviewing EVERYTHING. It would be horrendous to watch a game and the NFL would lose fans/viewers in droves.

The most popular league in the country should have full-time officials. These guys wont be professionals until the league MAKES THEM professionals.

[sepporepi]

Any link available to the official statement or at least to quote of McCarthy confirming it?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

These reviews are a hornets nest. The games are slowed down painfully by reviews already. You can't say "review everything". Maybe some of the rules need to be tweeked here and there, but I think they are close to an optimal balance.

But there’s a limit on the number of challenges a team can use anyway, so why not let them review the play that‘s questionable? I don't think it will slow down the game because coaches have gotten better at challenges and usually only challenge a play unless after having their guys look at it once.

[Patler]

Personally; I enjoyed football much more WITHOUT instant replay. The officials made the calls and you simply accepted it and went on. No one is perfect in their execution of the game, not the coaches, or the players, or the officials. I am willing to accept that, in all sports.

[Rivers Rutherford]

I am beginning to hate instant replay. It takes way too long in the NFL, when it was first brought back I thought that it was supposed to have a time limit.

No ref is going to want to go under the both and review one of his colleagues in terms of penalties. This will never happen, since I believe refs can't stand replay to begin with.

Most of you fail to realize the play couldn't be reviewed because of the early whistle. It could have been a fumble recovery or an INT, but the bottom line was referee that was in front of the play blew his whistle before Owens went out of bounds, the official that was in back of the play ruled it was a turnover.

Pass interference is a crap call in the NFL due to the way they penalize it.

[MadtownPacker]

The Pack didn't lose because of some bad calls.Sorry man but this call was HUGE on a Donald Trump scale. The score was 3-0 and if the Packers get that ball on there is a great chance they score and go up 10-0. Would that have effected Favre's decision to go deep? Would it have helped out the D? Would it have helped MCCarthy's playcalling?

I say it would have affected all these things. It was that critical of a play. It was that obvious. The first ref called it right and another one overruled him.

[The Leaper]

Every call should be allowed for review, with the exception of penalties.

I would generally agree. I don't think penalties should be reveiwed. However, any potential turnover or touchdown should be able to be reviewed, regardless of forward progress, down by contact, push-outs, etc.

I also don't think pass interference should be a spot foul EXCEPT in the final 2 minutes of the half, so teams don't tackle a receiver late to prevent a team from getting into scoring position.

[Guiness]

I think any play that potentially decides a change of possession or any play in the end zone that could decide a td or possession should be reviewable. Those two things rise to the level of being reviewed. Penalties or no calls should not be challengeable.

I really don't see why just about everything should be reviewable. Just keep the two review rule - and let the coach decide what is important enough. That shouldn't slow things down much.

The only question in my mind is if the call is overturned on review, should that count as a challenge, or should the coach get it back because he was right?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Here's a news flash to folks -- at the end of the day, it's a friggin' game played and officiated by friggin' humans. Bad calls are going to happen. So are bad throws in to double coverage. You deal with it.

I think the NFL has it about right with their replay procedures. Part of life is dealing with the fact that things aren't always fair. STFU, button your chinstrap, and get after it. The Pack didn't lose because of some bad calls.
Amen. This one call did not lose the game for us. Sure, one can speculate that the course of the game would have been changed. But it's just that, speculation and it has no basis in fact, regardless of how you want to spin it.

Our pass defense was pathetic that game as was our pass protection and pass rush. That's what lost that game, not 1 call by an official.

[Green Bud Packer]

It would be great if the game was always left to the players and game after game it is but when it isn't it just does not seem fair.

If the N.F.L competition commitee wants to tweak replay I'd like to see teams given one more challenge per game and no more unreviewable plays because of it being a judgement call such as Franks' T.D. or an inadvertant whistle such as Harris' pick.

I just hope it never gets to where thet are reviewing every placement of the ball.

[The Leaper]

I think any PI call, unless blatent, should be a max penalty of 15 yards. To give a guy 40 yards for a little shove is pathetic and ruins the integrity of the game.

I agree, although you have to think about the end of the half where a team is attacking downfield to get in scoring position. You wouldn't want the defense to be able to take a penalty on purpose that prevents the offense from having a chance to get into scoring position. That would also ruin the integrity of the game.

I think PI should be a spot foul after the 2:00 warning of the half. Otherwise, 15 yards and a first down is plenty.

[The Leaper]

Here's a news flash to folks -- at the end of the day, it's a friggin' game played and officiated by friggin' humans. Bad calls are going to happen. So are bad throws in to double coverage. You deal with it.

That is logical.

However, there also is a system in place that is supposed to let teams have a couple chances to challenge judgments they feel are unfair or questionable. If that is the case, then selectively choosing what you can and can't challenge seems ridiculous to me. You should be able to challenge any situation that you think unfairly went against you...and a situation like the Harris-Owens one could be reviewed and overturned. No one is saying we would've won the game if the call went our way, or that we lost the game because of that call.

I understand the necessity of blowing whistles to stop a play to prevent injury. In the Harris-Owens situation, there is no doubt the ref did so to prevent another player from coming in and taking a free shot at the situation since the play was clearly heading OOB anyway. However, the refs do not know when a potential game/momentum changing play may occur...or could be blocked from the view of a play like that altogether...and blowing a whistle a split second before one occurs should not impede the ability of a team to challenge the call and get it changed to be the right call.

[Zool]

The Pack didn't lose because of some bad calls.Sorry man but this call was HUGE on a Donald Trump scale. The score was 3-0 and if the Packers get that ball on there is a great chance they score and go up 10-0. Would that have effected Favre's decision to go deep? Would it have helped out the D? Would it have helped MCCarthy's playcalling?

I say it would have affected all these things. It was that critical of a play. It was that obvious. The first ref called it right and another one overruled him.

What if there was a fumble on the next play and the Cowpies returned it for a TD. You can what-if situations like this to death.

[The Leaper]

What if there was a fumble on the next play and the Cowpies returned it for a TD. You can what-if situations like this to death.

How does that change the fact it was the wrong call, as the NFL admits, but was impossible to correct because of current rules?

Again, I do not see anyone suggesting that the call cost us the game. People are saying that instant replay doesn't seem to be accomplishing the purpose for its existence.

Your hypothetical has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

[Zool]

What if there was a fumble on the next play and the Cowpies returned it for a TD. You can what-if situations like this to death.

How does that change the fact it was the wrong call, as the NFL admits, but was impossible to correct because of current rules?

Again, I do not see anyone suggesting that the call cost us the game. People are saying that instant replay doesn't seem to be accomplishing the purpose for its existence.

Your hypothetical has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

Actually Mad was very close to saying just that. I guess Mad gets a pass on his hypothetical cause he's a minority?

[MJZiggy]

No, as far as I recall hypotheticals are among the types of speech allowed around here...but I think it's perfectly understandable in this situation since the call was wrong and the league admitted as much, to wonder how the blown call might have affected things. Yes it's water under the bridge (or dam if you are Aaron Kampman) but it's natural to think about what could have been if they had gotten the call right. Especially if they ended up scoring on that drive.

[MadtownPacker]

What if there was a fumble on the next play and the Cowpies returned it for a TD. You can what-if situations like this to death.

How does that change the fact it was the wrong call, as the NFL admits, but was impossible to correct because of current rules?

Again, I do not see anyone suggesting that the call cost us the game. People are saying that instant replay doesn't seem to be accomplishing the purpose for its existence.

Your hypothetical has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

Actually Mad was very close to saying just that. I guess Mad gets a pass on his hypothetical cause he's a minority?Maybe Im the minority where you live but Im by far the majority where I live. :roll:

But let me continue the bitch slap started by Leaper..

Your what-if is BS because it NEVER HAPPENED. The takeaway by Harris DID HAPPEN. It was stolen by the bullshit ref and therefore COULD have had a significant affect on the game.

IT happened, Pack got robbed, you can't deny that or else you can put on you owens or romo jersey. Either way you are speaking like a detractor.

[BF4MVP]

BTW, whomever changed my pic to that cool pic of Favre, thank you, I didn't know how, so I appreciate you doing that for me.

:worship:

Looks good. Both yours and BF4MVP's!!
Thanks, I appreciate it! :D

I love this avatar. 8-)

[BF4MVP]

PS I see what some of you guys are saying..I can live with a bad call..

What I can't live with is him looking at it for 2 minutes IN SLOW MOTION and STILL making the wrong call..And then to top it off, he didn't even explain why he didn't overturn it..All he said was "The play stands as called."

[wpony]

I agree with madtown on this one totally I think it was the undoing of Brett also look at Bretts first drive looked ok then this BS call happened and Brett seen the writing on the walls that it was going to be another game the referees were going to try and give to the Dallas and he paniced :evil:

[Zool]

What if there was a fumble on the next play and the Cowpies returned it for a TD. You can what-if situations like this to death.

How does that change the fact it was the wrong call, as the NFL admits, but was impossible to correct because of current rules?

Again, I do not see anyone suggesting that the call cost us the game. People are saying that instant replay doesn't seem to be accomplishing the purpose for its existence.

Your hypothetical has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

Actually Mad was very close to saying just that. I guess Mad gets a pass on his hypothetical cause he's a minority?Maybe Im the minority where you live but Im by far the majority where I live. :roll:

But let me continue the bitch slap started by Leaper..

Your what-if is BS because it NEVER HAPPENED. The takeaway by Harris DID HAPPEN. It was stolen by the bullshit ref and therefore COULD have had a significant affect on the game.

IT happened, Pack got robbed, you can't deny that or else you can put on you owens or romo jersey. Either way you are speaking like a detractor.

I'll detract you mexi-cali.

You guys all get your panties in a bunch too easy the week after a loss. All I was trying to say is, like Zig said, water under the Kampman dam. Thursday games are BS. We pick everything apart way more on extended times off.

[Bossman641]

PS I see what some of you guys are saying..I can live with a bad call..

What I can't live with is him looking at it for 2 minutes IN SLOW MOTION and STILL making the wrong call..And then to top it off, he didn't even explain why he didn't overturn it..All he said was "The play stands as called."

He couldn't overturn it. All MM could challenge was whether it was a catch or not. It was obviously a catch, it was also obviously a strip/INT but once the whistle is blown everything after that doesn't count.

TO caught the ball. He's gettin pushed toward the sideline. Whistle blows. Harris has the ball.

Everything from the whistle on doesn't matter. I'm sure the ref saw it and knew it should have been Packers' ball right there but according to the rule he couldn't make that call since the whistle had been blown.

The NFL said a couple years ago they were going to try and let plays play out longer before blowing the whistle to stop this kind of stuff (player being ruled down and whistle blown so that a fumble is not challengeable). I'm not so sure they've been doing it.

[The Leaper]

TO caught the ball. He's gettin pushed toward the sideline. Whistle blows. Harris has the ball.

Everything from the whistle on doesn't matter. I'm sure the ref saw it and knew it should have been Packers' ball right there but according to the rule he couldn't make that call since the whistle had been blown.

That is the problem though. The ref who blew the whistle did not have an adequate view of what was happening. He didn't even know Harris had taken away the ball. How does that ref know he blew the whistle before Harris had the ball if he couldn't see Harris take the ball away?

The whistle rule is dumb. If a whistle is blown before it should be, it should be ignored in a challenge review. That is the entire purpose of a challenge review to me...to determine if the ref made an error.

If you can't review certain aspects of the game based on a ref's decision that was made in error, why even bother with instant replay at all? Just get rid of the whole damned thing and speed up the game.

[Jimx29]

BTW, whomever changed my pic to that cool pic of Favre, thank you, I didn't know how, so I appreciate you doing that for me.

:worship:I snagged and cropped it, but it would take an admin/mod person to change it in your profile

[Bossman641]

TO caught the ball. He's gettin pushed toward the sideline. Whistle blows. Harris has the ball.

Everything from the whistle on doesn't matter. I'm sure the ref saw it and knew it should have been Packers' ball right there but according to the rule he couldn't make that call since the whistle had been blown.

That is the problem though. The ref who blew the whistle did not have an adequate view of what was happening. He didn't even know Harris had taken away the ball. How does that ref know he blew the whistle before Harris had the ball if he couldn't see Harris take the ball away?

The whistle rule is dumb. If a whistle is blown before it should be, it should be ignored in a challenge review. That is the entire purpose of a challenge review to me...to determine if the ref made an error.

If you can't review certain aspects of the game based on a ref's decision that was made in error, why even bother with instant replay at all? Just get rid of the whole damned thing and speed up the game.

I agree completely, it was stupid that the ref blew the whistle so quick and especially stupid since he couldn't see what was going on. I was just pointing out that, as the rule stands, there was no chance for the Pack to get the ball because it wasn't even reviewable.

You bring up an interesting point though, saying that the whistle should be ignored in a challenge. I feel like this might open up a whole new can of worms. Players are always taught to play to the whistle, what if they play past the whistle. Could lead to some late hits and possibly injury.

Bottom line, the stupid ref shouldn't have blown the play dead from the middle of the field when there's another one 2 feet from the action.

[Badgepack]

I thought the refs were instructed specifically to make sure that a play is dead before a whislte is blown, just in case things like this happen.

[swede]

I thought the refs were instructed specifically to make sure that a play is dead before a whislte is blown, just in case things like this happen.

They were, and they are doing their best.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/PE820163.jpg

[mraynrand]

If you can't review certain aspects of the game based on a ref's decision that was made in error, why even bother with instant replay at all? Just get rid of the whole damned thing and speed up the game.

Even better, just get rid of replay. After the play happens, no replay is allowed ever. No highlights, no NFL films. Also, encrypt the game so no one can tape it it on their VCR or store it on their DVR. No photographs either. No announcers can describe the play more than once. Make it illegal for fans to discuss the game. That way no one can ever know if a team got screwed. It would be happy time for all!