Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Store

Photo

Replacement refs

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Milkman

Milkman

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 05:15 PM

I honestly can't wait for the regular refs to be back. Not because of the bad calls or the "flow" of the game being disrupted. I can't wait so that I dont have to listen to every idiot fan in the bar blame every call on the replacement ref.

I was watching the Cowboys Giants game and after every call you would hear a host of moan and yells of "f'n replacements". Some were warranted but most weren't. I almost laughed outloud at a guy who yelled "damn replacements!" after a blindingly obvious false start.

Again I can't wait until we can move on from complaining about replacement refs and get back to complaining about the regular refs.

#2 fatbeer

fatbeer

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 147 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 08:38 AM

A few more horrible calls only makes the NFL product better. You don't want them in your teams game, but when your watching Ravens Bengals tonight an embarrassingly bad call that can't be reviewed and an entire stadium of booing fans only adds to the show.

#3 old nurse

old nurse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 11:35 AM

This Vikings team will do poorly regardless of the refs

#4 Milkman

Milkman

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:57 PM

http://espn.go.com/n...gular-refs-same

I am not defending the replacement refs. Honestly I don't care. It'll all work itself out in the wash. But what I find interesting is that the things ppl complain the most about the stats don't back up. Even the complaint about longer games..........a whopping 6 minutes longer.......doesn't seem so bad.

Granted I think Percy's pass interference should have been a no call and unfortunate they use his rant as an example. I still feel that's something that easily could have been called by the "old" officials. I am a big proponent of adjusting your game to the officials. This is why I will never be completely for eliminating umps in the MLB (stirkes and balls) I feel its part of the gamesmanship.

#5 Milkman

Milkman

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:46 AM

O_o wow um yea. I guess I was wrong.

I'll admit I took a lil pleasure in watching the packers get screwed over. But I do have to give them credit. Coming out onto the field for the extra point was very classy.

#6 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,906 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:27 AM

Quite frankly, I don't think the call to end last night's game was nearly as controversial as it is being made out. I think it's emotional hyperbole, when you really look at that play it's a much tougher call than people are saying. Consider: Tate's left arm was under and over the ball at the same time Jennings got both hands on it. Tate's right arm encircled his left before Jennings even pulled the ball to his chest, much less had a foot down. I think it could have gone either way and we'd be seeing this reaction, but for whatever reason, no one seems to acknowledge the NFL rulebook on this or what Tate did. Everyone jumps to the idea that Jennings "had it first" which isn't nearly as obvious as people think. He got two hands on it first, but that doesn't equate with possession.

Just my two cents on it, I realize I'm in the vast minority, but that's from actually watching the play and not getting so pent up about it right away. I think the announcers initial reactions are coloring a lot of reactions personally.

#7 Milkman

Milkman

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 10:37 AM

Quite frankly, I don't think the call to end last night's game was nearly as controversial as it is being made out. I think it's emotional hyperbole, when you really look at that play it's a much tougher call than people are saying. Consider: Tate's left arm was under and over the ball at the same time Jennings got both hands on it. Tate's right arm encircled his left before Jennings even pulled the ball to his chest, much less had a foot down. I think it could have gone either way and we'd be seeing this reaction, but for whatever reason, no one seems to acknowledge the NFL rulebook on this or what Tate did. Everyone jumps to the idea that Jennings "had it first" which isn't nearly as obvious as people think. He got two hands on it first, but that doesn't equate with possession.

Just my two cents on it, I realize I'm in the vast minority, but that's from actually watching the play and not getting so pent up about it right away. I think the announcers initial reactions are coloring a lot of reactions personally.


I agree that its not as cut and dry as everyone is making it out to be (although imo the call was incorrect) nor is it the worst blown call ever. The media is acting like this is something as obvious as a ball bouncing a yard infront of a reciever and calling it a complete pass/td. This is just confirmation bias. Everyone was waiting and wanting a call like this to happen so that they could justify freaking out.

#8 snepp

snepp

    Speediest Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 4,117 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

It may not be as bad as advertised, but it was still ****.
"Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
- Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

#9 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,955 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:49 PM

Ignoring Tate's push off prior to the supposed catch was the real criminal part. The ball was against Jennings body, I don't care where Tate's hands were; it's pretty thin evidence to award the touchdown.

#10 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,906 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 03:04 PM

Ignoring Tate's push off prior to the supposed catch was the real criminal part. The ball was against Jennings body, I don't care where Tate's hands were; it's pretty thin evidence to award the touchdown.


It's hard to have it against your chest when Tate's arm is on your chest. But yes, the push off was far more criminal.

Reality is, I've seen FAR worse examples of co-possession awarded to offenses than that play. It's just one of many rules that the NFL gives far too much deference to the offense on. And I'm not so sure it would've been ruled differently by the regular refs.

#11 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:00 AM

[quote name='TheLeviathan'][quote name='PseudoSABR']Ignoring Tate's push off prior to the supposed catch was the real criminal part. The ball was against Jennings body, I don't care where Tate's hands were; it's pretty thin evidence to award the touchdown.[/QUOTE]

It's hard to have it against your chest when Tate's arm is on your chest. But yes, the push off was far more criminal.

Reality is, I've seen FAR worse examples of co-possession awarded to offenses than that play. It's just one of many rules that the NFL gives far too much deference to the offense on. And I'm not so sure it would've been ruled differently by the regular refs.[/QUOTE]
They never call pass interference on those type of plays, but yeah, haha that was pretty brutal by Tate.

I understand them giving him possession, in real time when it first happened it looked pretty close to 50/50, of course once "still images" come out it makes it look much more damning, but in real time, and even on the replay it looked pretty close. Jennings should have just batted the ball down like you are taught to do, but nope, he tried to get the cheap INT, that's on him.

Also, **** the packers!!