Illegal forward pass?

[PackerTimer]

That is unquestionably one of the lamest explanations I have ever seen. The NFL has really fucked this one up. I hope MM and AR both come out and say something despite the fines they'll receive.

[Ballboy]

NFL has said several times that they don't referee "intent" but rather what really happens. The excuse makes no sense.

If you noticed as well, the helmet being taken off by Peterson is finally getting some pub.

[channtheman]

Does someone have a link to the NFL's response to that call? I'd like to check that out and show it to my dad sometime.

[Patler]

If that is the NFL explanation, it was obviously put out there for the majority of fans who have not seen the play, or who have seen it only briefly. As several of us have noted, it you watch it in slow motion (and I have several times) one of the replay angles clearly shows Rodgers turning his head and apparently looking directly at Humphrey before he flips the ball. I have no doubt that he knew Humphrey was there before he threw. I also have no doubt that Rodgers's intent was to simply get the ball in that general direction to avoid the safety, but there is nothing wrong with that.

I have long suspected that what the NFL tells the public about specific calls is not the same as what the involved officials are told about the same calls. I have a feeling the officials have been criticized in private about this one. In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

[Ballboy]

Does someone have a link to the NFL's response to that call? I'd like to check that out and show it to my dad sometime.

Here it is:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/34289804.html

[sharpe1027]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

[bobblehead]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

that is the impression I got and that leads me to think a rookie official was biased. I wonder if he is the same guy who called college for holding on that classic engage and cut on fat williams.

[Gunakor]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

I agree with your post 100%. And they won't learn anything from it if the NFL continues to defend the call, so I wouldn't expect any significant change in the accuracy of calls anytime soon.

[Patler]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

Did you read the rest of my post? I said that I suspect the comments given to the officials about the play might be much different than the line fed to the public. Everything the officials do is analyzed for retention, release, promotion. That's a given.

But on Tuesday or Wednesday, how does it matter what the league says about a play that happened on Sunday? While it may have had a profound effect on the game, after the game is done it does not matter what the league tells the public. They will not reverse, alter or replay the outcome. It will change nothing, so at that point the only thing that matters is that the officials learn from it and get better, so that these things are avoided in the future.

[Patler]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

I agree with your post 100%. And they won't learn anything from it if the NFL continues to defend the call, so I wouldn't expect any significant change in the accuracy of calls anytime soon.

I would agree if I felt they defended the officials as much in private as they do in public. I doubt that is the case. I am only guessing, but I think Riveron probably received low grades for his performance on Sunday. They most likely defended him in public, while privately criticizing him for explaining the call so poorly, especially after taking the time to confer about it.

[Gunakor]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

I agree with your post 100%. And they won't learn anything from it if the NFL continues to defend the call, so I wouldn't expect any significant change in the accuracy of calls anytime soon.

I would agree if I felt they defended the officials as much in private as they do in public. I doubt that is the case. I am only guessing, but I think Riveron probably received low grades for his performance on Sunday. They most likely defended him in public, while privately criticizing him for explaining the call so poorly, especially after taking the time to confer about it.

I'm sure even in private they are telling him that while the penalty he called was wrong, it was correct to throw a flag there. THAT is the issue I have a problem with, as nothing illegal happened on that play. It met the criteria of a legal forward pass, and landed in the vicinity of a receiver (meaning it did not meet the criteria of intentional grounding). There should have been no flag for any penalty whatsover, and that won't be explained even in private.

[Badgerinmaine]

I remember the play, called back then the Holly Roller --

I've also heard it called the Fumblerooski Play.

[Patler]

I'm sure even in private they are telling him that while the penalty he called was wrong, it was correct to throw a flag there. THAT is the issue I have a problem with, as nothing illegal happened on that play. It met the criteria of a legal forward pass, and landed in the vicinity of a receiver (meaning it did not meet the criteria of intentional grounding). There should have been no flag for any penalty whatsover, and that won't be explained even in private.

That is where we disagree. I have a feeling, based on nothing substantive really, that in private they were told that while a call of intentional grounding can be defended, the better action would have been to call nothing.

I would have disagreed with a call of intentional grounding, but I have a very difficult time saying that making that call would be 100% wrong. I have watched the play over and over again. The ball was on the 10 yard line when snapped. It looks like the ball landed short of the 9, maybe closer to the 8, maybe the 9. Humphrey was at the 11, but much farther away from the ball because of the angle of the throw. He was much nearer to the sidelines than where the ball hit, and the angle of the throw from when Rodgers threw it was not well-directed toward Humphrey. Humphrey came toward it, and the ball bounced toward him, but from one long wide angle view in the replay, Humphrey isn't even in the frame when the ball hits.

So while in my biased Packer mind I do not think it was intentional grounding, I really can't argue that a call of intentional grounding would be completely wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Did you read the rest of my post? I said that I suspect the comments given to the officials about the play might be much different than the line fed to the public. Everything the officials do is analyzed for retention, release, promotion. That's a given.

But on Tuesday or Wednesday, how does it matter what the league says about a play that happened on Sunday? While it may have had a profound effect on the game, after the game is done it does not matter what the league tells the public. They will not reverse, alter or replay the outcome. It will change nothing, so at that point the only thing that matters is that the officials learn from it and get better, so that these things are avoided in the future.

I re-read your post. I'll now ask you to read it. While one part of your post did talk about the differences between public statements and internal statements, I still don't read your last statement as only applying to the leagues statements to the public; regardless, I don't agree with you. It matters that there is some transparency. It matters that people have faith that this is not another NBA-type scandal waiting to happen. It matters that the perception is that the NFL thinks referees need some sort of protection. It matters because the appearance of a cover up keeps us talking longer than if they had just admitted to a mistake. It matters how teams game plan around things like WRs intentionally running over DBs just to get a call. It does matter.

[sharpe1027]

That is where we disagree. I have a feeling, based on nothing substantive really, that in private they were told that while a call of intentional grounding can be defended, the better action would have been to call nothing.

I would have disagreed with a call of intentional grounding, but I have a very difficult time saying that making that call would be 100% wrong. I have watched the play over and over again. The ball was on the 10 yard line when snapped. It looks like the ball landed short of the 9, maybe closer to the 8, maybe the 9. Humphrey was at the 11, but much farther away from the ball because of the angle of the throw. He was much nearer to the sidelines than where the ball hit, and the angle of the throw from when Rodgers threw it was not well-directed toward Humphrey. Humphrey came toward it, and the ball bounced toward him, but from one long wide angle view in the replay, Humphrey isn't even in the frame when the ball hits.

So while in my biased Packer mind I do not think it was intentional grounding, I really can't argue that a call of intentional grounding would be completely wrong.

Agreed, if they had called intentional grounding, I would probably have defended the call. I thought it was watching live action. After the replay, it looked closer than I originally thought, but I would have personally still called it grounding.