Stupid NFL Rule - End Zone

[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.

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.

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/vi...6178&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

[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.