I watched some of a CFL game not long ago. My memory isn't too fresh, but I believe one team was down by one point, and was attempting a field goal, don't remember how long, but doesn't distance count as to the amount of points given. Let's cut back to the chase though. The kicking team missed the attempt, and defensive team had to run the missed kick out of the end zone (or the vast wasteland as I like to call it) to avoid the kicking team getting one point, and tying the score.

My details are sketchy at best.

Correct me if I'm wrong, or even tell me if I got anything right......:)

I was actually harking back to some old rules that were apparently in place back it the 60's. I was aware that Seattle didn't attempt a try after. I thought maybe it had changed when the NFL put in the two point conversion try, and/or overtime.


But then again they had the rule where you couldn't wear white tape to hold up the baseball leggings in which socks had to worn over the stirrups. They had to use what looked to be clear shipping tape to hold them up. What was that all about?

I don't know all the rules, but then again...........that's best reason I have to ask questions.

I thought Seattle did, in fact, kick the extra point in this game.

They did...after about the 5-7 minutes it took for the league representative to tell the officials the try had to be attempted and they had to get 11 players from Green Bay back on the field.

Did anyone notice that the replacement officials didn't have their position (SJ, U, etc.) on their shirt, but the regular ones do? I'm wondering if guys were moved around some and/or the regular guys are using last year's equipment.

Mike Pierra answered this question a couple of weeks ago...they didn't have position letters exactly for the first reason you're thinking...officials weren't "locked" into a position and would allow the league to switch positions if need be.

To add to this, when they were looking for the guys to work during the lockout, it was unclear what positions everyone had worked. So they did not initially give them positions on their back because they did not know if someone would had extensive Referee experience as opposed to wing experience. The Referee that worked the HOF Game was a Referee in D3 and a crew chief, but for the lack of a better description, might not have been the best suited for that position. The NFL kind of took the word of the officials background more than they should or really could in that short period of time. And when the officials went to the training initially, they did not keep everyone that attended.

Peace

Jeff- did they submit any video of their work to the NFL during the hiring process? I can't imagine many or any were ever scouted at that level.

I saw some rust on Mike Carey's crew at the St. Louis game today while I was in attendance...


Several dropped balls during tossing them to set for play.
Carey pointed the wrong way on penalties twice.
I thought there was two DPI calls that were missed (one for STL and one for SEA).
The umpire fell backing out for a punt formation.

Just a little rusty from what I saw. Nothing that can't be worked out in a couple weeks though!

I do not think so, but then again many answered a "request" for officials to work these games. Some names were recommended by "scouts" that had some college experience that knew officials that might be willing to make that move. I do not know all the details, I just know guys in our area names were initially given to NFL people.

Peace

There were a number of gaffes over the first Sunday with the regulars that, had these calls been made by the replacements, the media would had renewed its feeding frenzy.

The biggest was the fumble by Sproles in the NO/GB game that could have victimized the Packers for the second straight week. It would have been interesting to hear the press conferences and read the tweets if GB hadn't come back to win that one.

Well, the mistakes were surely less.

Regarding GB, though, I watched that whole game - and wondered at BOTH of Green Bay's challenges. The first was as GB was driving in the 2nd. It was an incomplete pass - winning the challenge would have made it about 3rd and goal from the 5 or 6 rather than from the 12. So the reward was small - and the risk high, as it was rather clear to me it was incomplete. Whoever told him otherwise should be canned.

The second was early in the 3rd quarter, on a simple first down completion by New Orleans in the middle of the field. Yes - a successful challenge means NO has to punt, but still - medium reward, and high risk again, given it was their 2nd challenge and it looked to me to be obviously complete.

I honestly don't think Green Bay can ***** about the fumble given that they gave away their 2 challenges for nothing. Coaches forget these are limited and challenge stupid crap like these two plays. Save them for IMPORTANT challenges, and for goodness sake, get someone in your booth that has a clue and will tell you when a challenge is likely to be upheld.

I do think there was a bit of a double standard regarding the replacement officials. Everything they did wrong, they were crucified. In the games yesterday, the mistakes (real or perceived) of the "original" refs were pointed out and let go.

I do think there was a big difference in adminstration of a game, but the calls, at least from what I saw yesterday weren't much different.

Don't get me wrong, NOT critizing, just saying the reporting was different.

I think the first challenge was a bad challenge without a doubt. The second one not so bad, I would predict 75% of the time they would win that challenge, but not yesterday.

But regardless, when a ball carrier is standing up and fumbles and you rule down by contact, that is not a good call. Even if you accept the premise that GB f'd up on using their challenges, doesn't mean it wan't a bad call. Just as a team shouldn't blame an official for their mistake, an official shouldn't blame a team for his. ( I suspect the officials involved would take responsibility)

Also even if they had a reviewchallenge left, it would have been ruled a fumble, with no clear video evidence of recovery and NO would have kept the ball. So GB would have lost out either way.

It's a honeymoon. Should be over after tonight.