Can We Have The NFL Replacements Back, Please?

[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

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by 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

Sitting on my couch thousands of miles away, even I could see that this play was called correctly.

Today's NFL officials seem to be following the rules from 60 yrs ago where you had to tackle the guy & lay on him for 3 seconds before was considered down.

Just wait Jeff...we'll ha e plenty more of these embarrassments by the NFL officials. Can't wait for the playoffs - they'll screw up a game For sure!

[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.

[twocentsworth]

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.

Isn't it amazing how many of these plays, which are allowed to continue to conclusion, turn into to touchdowns? Do you know why that is? BECAUSE ALL OF THE PLAYERS ON THE FIELD KNOW WHAT HAPPENED - they simply stop playi g...The 7 officials working the game don't know that they play was over!!!!!!!