NFL 2012

[Jimmy... Dead.]

aahhh Yea, I'm not sure about Dallas being a top D right now. I'll wait to see what they do in Baltimore.

 

[skeptik]

The Seahawks D is legit. They were legit last year, and building up to it the year before as well when they won the division.

Regarding the Cowboys incident: the hat was thrown because Miles Austin stepped out of the back of the end zone. Obviously the ref was stupid the throw it right in the path of the receiver, but the ref and the hat are regarded as part of the field of play. That said, there is no conspiracy. But there should be a rule about referee interference. If a referee interferes with a play, outside of a player accidentally running into him or something like that, the play should have been blown dead.

Oh, and:

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Bottom line: catch on the field. You can't turn a touchdown into an interception upon review and it was clearly not incomplete.

Actually, the man up in the booth could have overturned the call:

Here's the worst part -- there was a lot of speculation that the "simultaneous possession" aspect of the play was not reviewable. Turns out, replay official Howard Slavin -- who is NOT a replacement official -- could have reversed the ruling on the field.
Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-supports-simultaneous-catch-statement-says-golden-tate-165145380--nfl.html

Bottom line is that this was a terrible call on the field. It was obvious that Jennings had the ball. It was tight against his body and he had two hands around it. Tate had one arm slightly around the ball, but barely. Should have been called an int. on the field and should have been reversed in the booth.

I think the refs just didn't have the guts to overturn the call with the crowd going wild and the Seahawks already celebrating. This is why they shouldn't be out there. They are not psychologically prepared for the pressure of the situation.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Oh and as for the Eagles, Michael Vick sucks. But you knew that already. Now instead of throwing a million interceptions he's waiting for players to be WIDE OPEN before throwing the ball. At this point I'm just waiting for him to get injured so we can see what Nick Foles has to offer. Heck, if I have to watch a quarterback play like a rookie, he might as well actually be a rookie.

The O-line is in trouble too. The backup center Dallas Reynolds really struggled. Demitris Bell is terrible. I really hope Dunlap is ready for Sunday night. Well if not, it might not be the worst thing. Maybe JPP can put Vick out of his misery.

A note the Cardinals: Daryl Washington had an amazing game. I didn't watch a lot of AZ last year, but if this game was indicative of what Washington can do, then he is becoming one of the best 3-4 ILBs in the NFL.

 

[skeptik]

It's ridiculous to say that ANYTHING was obvious about that play in real time. It'd be nice if everybody (and this is after a nauseating day of listening to sports radio) could stop acting as though they knew immediately that the ball was intercepted and that any idiot should know that. Nobody knew exactly what the hell happened when it happened. The referee put his arms up signaling a touchdown after Jennings jerked his arms, which apparently made him think he didn't have clear control. By the time the officials saw what was going on while they were on the ground, it's not hard to see how they called it a touchdown, as at that point neither person clearly possessed it. Whether or not it should have been overturned depends on how literally one takes the requirements for overturning regarding indisputability.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

It's ridiculous to say that ANYTHING was obvious about that play in real time. It'd be nice if everybody (and this is after a nauseating day of listening to sports radio) could stop acting as though they knew immediately that the ball was intercepted and that any idiot should know that. Nobody knew exactly what the hell happened when it happened. The referee put his arms up signaling a touchdown after Jennings jerked his arms, which apparently made him think he didn't have clear control. By the time the officials saw what was going on while they were on the ground, it's not hard to see how they called it a touchdown, as at that point neither person clearly possessed it. Whether or not it should have been overturned depends on how literally one takes the requirements for overturning regarding indisputability.

Sorry man, that was so obvious in real time. When a guy comes down with both hands around the ball and it tucked to his body, that's an obvious int. The back judge (the one who called touchback) was in the perfect spot to see it. Tate barely had one hand on the ball; certainly not enough to qualify as possession. Why the other ref called touchdown without conferring with the other refs can only be chalked up to the pressure of the situation.

And even if it was as close as you suggest, that still wouldn't explain why it wasn't overturned on the review, considering that such a reversal is allowed in the endzone. Just a debauchery by the refs that could potentially heavily distort the NFC playoff race.

 

[Dak]

I'm really trying to figure out how the NFC East, known for some of the best offensive lines in NFL history in their respective glory days, now owns the absolute worst collection of o-lines across the board, divisionally speaking. It's like they got so excited about signing the Carrs, the RG3s, the Bryants, the Mannings, they forgot about the guys that allow the offense to actually do anything.

With CHurch gone for the year, Dallas signs ST journeyman Frampton to bolster Safety depth

It sucks 4th round pick Matt Johnson can't get healthy. This would be his big break.

 

[skeptik]

Sorry man, that was so obvious in real time. When a guy comes down with both hands around the ball and it tucked to his body, that's an obvious int. The back judge (the one who called touchback) was in the perfect spot to see it. Tate barely had one hand on the ball; certainly not enough to qualify as possession. Why the other ref called touchdown without conferring with the other refs can only be chalked up to the pressure of the situation.

And even if it was as close as you suggest, that still wouldn't explain why it wasn't overturned on the review, considering that such a reversal is allowed in the endzone. Just a debauchery by the refs that could potentially heavily distort the NFC playoff race.

Forgive me if I don't believe that you were jumping up and down screaming "OBVIOUS INTERCEPTION" when it happened. I'm confident that every single person that says he was absolutely positive of what happened as it happened is lying. And Jennings didn't have the ball pinned to his chest for long if at all, despite him claiming to (like Tate claimed he didn't push off). Tate's hand was between the ball and Jenning's chest, making it impossible.

Grounds for reversal on a review necessitates 100% indisputable, concrete evidence. It could have reasonably gone either way, but not both.

Shit happens. But I'm still glad I'm not a Packers fan.

Re: NFC East offensive lines, with the injuries Philadelphia's dealt with, the Giants may surprisingly actually have the best line in the division, at least based on the last game and a half with Beatty at LT and Locklear at RT. We'll see if that continues though. Honestly, neither direction would surprise me.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Forgive me if I don't believe that you were jumping up and down screaming "OBVIOUS INTERCEPTION" when it happened. I'm confident that every single person that says he was absolutely positive of what happened as it happened is lying.

Well that's self righteous of you. Clearly, if you don't see things the way other people did, then the other people must being lying. Including professionals. Let's not get into what we saw on TV, but rather what the refs saw at the game. All the guys on the ESPN post game show (Steve Young, Trent Dilfer and Stuart Scott) were saying it was an obvious int; I don't see why they would all agree to lie about what they saw. Steve Young especially described it with a degree of detail I find hard to believe he just made up on the spot.



Jump to the 43 second mark. Look at the back judge on this play. He basically has the same view as the camera, but from a little further away and one player somewhat blocking the angle (but not Jennings's hands). He calls interception. He had the correct angle to see that Jennings had possession first and called it as such.

Now go back and watch the play in real time. The back judge and the head ref never exchange a word after the play. There is no communication between the two men. That's totally unprofessional and would never happen with the real refs, especially on a game deciding play. These guys just choked in the situation (especially with the crowd, players and coaches going crazy), failed to communicate and consequently blew the game. And that's why this was an out and out fiasco and not just something that you can be blown off by saying "shit happens".

And Jennings didn't have the ball pinned to his chest for long if at all, despite him claiming to (like Tate claimed he didn't push off). Tate's hand was between the ball and Jenning's chest, making it impossible.

That's a factually incorrect statement. Tate's hand isn't even on the ball. It's on Jennings's chest, next to the ball. It certainly isn't between Jennings's body and the ball.

Grounds for reversal on a review necessitates 100% indisputable, concrete evidence. It could have reasonably gone either way, but not both.

So you're saying after watching the replays, you honestly believe that there is even a fraction of a chance that Tate had possession? Unless your answer is "yes" (in which case you don't understand the rules or are just extremely hardheaded) then you must agree that the call should have been reversed.

 

[skeptik]

Well that's self righteous of you. Clearly, if you don't see things the way other people did, then the other people must being lying. Including professionals. Let's not get into what we saw on TV, but rather what the refs saw at the game. All the guys on the ESPN post game show (Steve Young, Trent Dilfer and Stuart Scott) were saying it was an obvious int; I don't see why they would all agree to lie about what they saw. Steve Young especially described it with a degree of detail I find hard to believe he just made up on the spot.



Jump to the 43 second mark. Look at the back judge on this play. He basically has the same view as the camera, but from a little further away and one player somewhat blocking the angle (but not Jennings's hands). He calls interception. He had the correct angle to see that Jennings had possession first and called it as such.

To claim that you fully processed what happened on that play in real time, and did not confirm what you saw on a subsequent view, is simply arrogance. The way that the entire situation has been so completely oversimplified is ridiculous. By the way, are you seriously telling me the back judge has a great view of the play? And nobody has even mentioned that Jennings' foot was out of bounds while he was wrestling on the ground. This is what the play looked like when both of Jennings' feet finally touched the ground. In other words, nothing that happened before this point even mattered regarding catch/no catch. And this is what the play looked like to the back judge when Jennings' feet finally came down. He can't see shit. Bonus: here is Tate's arm under the ball.

Now go back and watch the play in real time. The back judge and the head ref never exchange a word after the play. There is no communication between the two men. That's totally unprofessional and would never happen with the real refs, especially on a game deciding play. These guys just choked in the situation (especially with the crowd, players and coaches going crazy), failed to communicate and consequently blew the game. And that's why this was an out and out fiasco and not just something that you can be blown off by saying "shit happens".

I never denied that the lack of communication was an error, but to suggest that it wouldn't happen with the regular referees is a bit of a stretch. In fact, the scabs have a far greater propensity to discuss calls before making them.

That's a factually incorrect statement. Tate's hand isn't even on the ball. It's on Jennings's chest, next to the ball. It certainly isn't between Jennings's body and the ball.

Okay...first of all, that image does show that his right hand was in the mix there. But the picture I provided above was of his left hand. You can't see his left hand in that picture. His left hand which was on the ball the entire time. I certainly wouldn't say with absolute certainty that Jennings clearly has the ball pinned flatly against his chest on that picture. But that doesn't even matter. You don't need to have the ball on your chest to make a catch, so the point is moot. Also, you can pin the ball to your opponent's chest and make the catch as well. If you can use your opponent's back, it stands to reason you can use his chest too.

So you're saying after watching the replays, you honestly believe that there is even a fraction of a chance that Tate had possession? Unless your answer is "yes" (in which case you don't understand the rules or are just extremely hardheaded) then you must agree that the call should have been reversed.

Of course there is a fraction of doubt. It would have been overturned if there wasn't. But what you willfully ignore is that I said it could have reasonably gone either way.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Cliff Notes version; I don't want to waste too much time arguing with someone who can't see a wall right before his face.

-The back judge is in a fine spot, about 10-15 yards from the play with a direct line of vision.

-Clearly Jennings gets both feet in bounds. Just watch the play in real time and focus on his feet. In fact, I'm not even sure his feet ever touch the out of bounds line. That's probably just the angle of the picture.

- The regular refs usually huddle for these kinds of important calls. The sub refs huddle for the obvious stuff, but don't have the composure to handle the high pressure situations like this. Appealing to the fact that they "huddle a lot" is just stupid.

-That final argument that "it would have been overturned if there wasn't" just begs the question.

 

[skeptik]

Funny. I take the time to take clean snap shots to make my points and you short change it by basically calling me blind. Instead of having a reasonable discussion about it. But then again you actually think that you knew immediately what actually happened, despite not seeing Jenning's foot out of bounds and Tate's left hand on the ball, or the fact that the back judge, as I showed, could not have possibly seen shit, like, at all, when Jennings' feet touched the ground, when you can't have possession of the ball before your feet are on the ground. The fact that Jennings' foot was out of bounds could potentially be relevant if one determines that neither person had clear possession until a certain point while they were on the ground. And it's not just the angle. I don't have to watch it on a shitty youtube video.

Your point was that the regular refs would have huddled. That's far from a sure thing. And the fact that the replacement refs huddle all the time is pertinent to the discussion; i.e. given the frequency that the replacement refs discuss calls with each other, and the fact that they didn't huddle for this, is not a strong argument in favor of your assertion that the regular refs would have.

The call WOULD have been overturned if there was absolutely no dispute whatsoever about what happened. Why would it not have been overturned if what happened was perfectly clear beyond a reasonable doubt? I think the NFL has enough grounds to make the argument that from the time that Jennings' feet were on the ground to the time that Jennings lurched his arms--the act that drew the official to signal a touchdown--there is no conclusive, definitive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field that it was a simultaneous catch. Tate has his hand on the ball early enough, and, again, THIS IS WHAT THE PLAY LOOKED LIKE when Jennings' feet hit. Can you honestly say that you can clearly see, incontrovertibly, that there is certain possession by one player or another and not both from this image?

Now, does the league wish that the official didn't signal a touchdown? You bet. But I'd also bet that they're fine with sticking by the decision not to overturn the call by citing the wiggle room of lack of conclusive evidence and the fact that so many aspects of the rules specifically pertaining to the play are somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Sorry man, I'm not wasting any more time on this. Believe what you want to believe. I don't really care if you choose to be ignorant.

 

[skeptik]

Way to end on a pathetic cheap shot. Like a true Eagles fan.

The bottom line is this: This right here is the moment at which both players' feet were on the ground for the first time, which is essential to completing a catch. It sure as hell looks like both players have a good chunk of the ball here. At worst, you simply can't tell what the fuck is happening. No matter how much you want to think that you do.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Please stop masturbating in public. I already said I was through with you.

So does anyone think the Browns have a shot against the Ravens? Short week, division rival and the Ravens are coming off a tough, emotional victory. Seems like a good recipe for an upset. The Ravens defense has been suspect too.

 

[Dak]

I dont, and thanks for that screencapture DG.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The only way the Browns upset the Ravens is turnovers and special teams. If the Ravens play a conservative clean offensive game with decent special teams play it's going to be a blow-out

 

[skeptik]

Unfortunately, I think the Ravens offense has taken as big a step forward as any potential step backward the defense has taken. In addition, it's looking like Courtney Upshaw is going to be pretty good pretty early on after all. And I do like their secondary quite a bit. The Browns being without Joe Haden (suspension) doesn't help.

 

[skeptik]

Regular refs will be in place for tomorrow night's game.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Great news. From the initial reports I read, it sounds like the refs got what they wanted1. It sounds like the refs got their pension. Not sure what ended up happening with the "bench refs". We'll probably find out more tomorrow. The NFL was basically cornered after the Monday night fiasco, so I wouldn't be surprised if they caved.

Mike Florio put up a great article where he breaks down how based on the defintion of terms in the NFL rulebook and the available replays, there was indisputable evidence that Jennings had the interception. A very detailed and informative read.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/