Can We Have The NFL Replacements Back, Please?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Matt Forte injured on reversed defensive touchdown call - NFL Videos

Jim Daopoulos on week 12.

Mike Pereira on week 12.

There was also an IW which took away a defensive touchdown. Tough week for the regular guys.

Steratore, Winter, and Vinovich have been great in the games that I've seen.

And R85 used the word "buttocks" on the mic.

I've never heard buttocks used as a singular noun before.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

The replacements got a bad rap because everyone perceived that every call was wrong....remember the Broncos @ Falcons game early in the year? John Fox and the Bronco coaching staff were whining like babies even AFTER a replay review confirmed they had 12 on the field. They were STILL convinced the replacements were wrong....they would NEVER do that to the "regulars"....but now we know how bad the regulars have been this season!

True. And don't forget that "the worst call in the history of football" ... the horrid call that ended the lockout - that appalling thing at the GB vs Seattle game that challenged the integrity of the playoff chase this year... was actually called correctly.

[maven]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

True. And don't forget that "the worst call in the history of football" ... the horrid call that ended the lockout - that appalling thing at the GB vs Seattle game that challenged the integrity of the playoff chase this year... was actually called correctly.

You can't possibly mean that the mechanics were sound, and that alone is a significant indictment.

You must mean that the outcome was correct, and I think you're in a relatively small minority in believing so.

[APG]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

True. And don't forget that "the worst call in the history of football" ... the horrid call that ended the lockout - that appalling thing at the GB vs Seattle game that challenged the integrity of the playoff chase this year... was actually called correctly.

From everything I've seen, the call was incorrect. And this play has come up a handful of times this season (obviously not in as big of a situation) and they correctly gave the ball to the play that controlled the ball first.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by maven

You can't possibly mean that the mechanics were sound, and that alone is a significant indictment.

You must mean that the outcome was correct, and I think you're in a relatively small minority in believing so.

Point taken on both. And no need to hijack the thread by rehashing or defending my position here.

[maven]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

And no need to hijack the thread by rehashing or defending my position here.

That does not seem to constitute a hijack: the OP's point seems to be that the replacement officials were as good as those they replaced, and you're offering (what you take to be) evidence in favor of that point.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by maven

That does not seem to constitute a hijack: the OP's point seems to be that the replacement officials were as good as those they replaced, and you're offering (what you take to be) evidence in favor of that point.

Hmmm...

Well, if I went there, it would become a topic about that one play, not what the OP intended (and one I believe we hashed pretty much to death when it was fresh).

Also - I would be arguing for evidence in favor of a point I disagree with generally.

[maven]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Also - I would be arguing for evidence in favor of a point I disagree with generally.

Well, if you're that conflicted and distraught over the matter, then I concur it would be unproductive to go there.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

As I said, it's not just that they got the call wrong....THEY HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. 7 guys on the field in stripes....and they didn't know what to do!!!!!!

I can buy the change in positioning of the Umpire to behind the line of scrimmage causes a "hole" in the sight lines (both the Bears v Vikings game AND Lions v Texans game could have used an Umpire in the "old" position to see both of these plays).....but these are "Pro's", the "best of the best", highly-paid professionals - this should NEVER happen.

I hate to be the one to break it to you: no referee is perfect. It is going to happen.

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

I haven't even mentioned the Lions v Texans TD run that the officials incorrectly allowed (another complete embarassment).....

While I'm not a huge fan of letting the play run because replay can fix it, I think you're wrong here. This would have been very difficult to catch. He simply doesn't look down in the full speed replay.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

While I'm not a huge fan of letting the play run because replay can fix it, I think you're wrong here. This would have been very difficult to catch. He simply doesn't look down in the full speed replay.

Better to let it run and let replay overturn it than the other way around... Consider the reverse situation of the aformentioned TD run. Runner appears down but isn't, official blows the whistle and stops play as the runner takes off for a touchdown. Now you're screwed when the replay shows that the runner wasn't down.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Better to let it run and let replay overturn it than the other way around... Consider the reverse situation of the aformentioned TD run. Runner appears down but isn't, official blows the whistle and stops play as the runner takes off for a touchdown. Now you're screwed when the replay shows that the runner wasn't down.

There's always going to be a line between the referee being sure the player is down and not sure the player is down. It seems to me the NFL referees are waiting until they are 125% sure the player is down to blow there whistle. I'd prefer 105%. You'll sometimes be wrong at either standard but I feel like there's too many replay reversals on these.

Regardless, this particular play I have no problem with there not being a whistle.

[JRutledge]

The play in the Auburn-Oregon BCS game a couple of years ago would have never been called properly if people listened to Twocentsworth.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

There's always going to be a line between the referee being sure the player is down and not sure the player is down. It seems to me the NFL referees are waiting until they are 125% sure the player is down to blow there whistle. I'd prefer 105%. You'll sometimes be wrong at either standard but I feel like there's too many replay reversals on these.

Regardless, this particular play I have no problem with there not being a whistle.

Sorry to pick, but this is a pet peeve of mine. 100% means fully and completely. You can't be 105 or 125 percent sure of something. Your point is lost in the meaninglessness.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sorry to pick, but this is a pet peeve of mine. 100% means fully and completely. You can't be 105 or 125 percent sure of something. Your point is lost in the meaninglessness.

And yet, I'm willing to wager you know exactly what I mean and therefore it is not lost.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

And yet, I'm willing to wager you know exactly what I mean and therefore it is not lost.

Conceptually perhaps, but are you really saying that if an official is 80% sure a player was down, he should blow the whistle? If not... then no, I don't know exactly what you mean. Sure is sure. Not sure is, well, not sure. Currently the line is 100% vs anything else. Not 100% sure = don't blow the whistle... so what do you really mean?