You gotta be f**king kidding me

[Jimx29]

[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

[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.

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/201...#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.