Pandemonium at the NFL

By Jeralyn, Section Off Topic
Posted on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 08:30:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I don't watch football, but my Twitter feed is filled with tweets about a bad call during Monday night football that cost the Green Bay Packers the game against the Seattle Seahawks. Sounds like it might be the final straw, as the bad calls have become routine with this season's use of stand-in referees for the usual ones, who have been locked out in a labor dispute.

Everyone seems to agree the stand-in refs, who come from college and minor league teams are unqualified (I see lots of comparisons being made to substitute teachers).

This recap by an LA Times sports writer seems typical of the post-game ranting going on in MediaLand.

If I understand what happened correctly (and I probably don't, since the articles are all filled with game terms that are so completely foreign to me, I might as well be reading Greek) it boils down to this: It was the end of the game. Someone threw something called a "desperation pass" , which others call a Hail Mary Pass, to the end zone. The pass was caught by two people, one from each team. Many people thought the Packers' guy intercepted the pass, but when the refs came out, one called it a touchdown for Seattle. Another ref saw it differently and called it a "touchback", and there was a review. The review, which took 10 minutes, concluded the ref calling a touchdown for Seattle was right. Both teams were called back so Seattle could kick for the extra point. Seattle won the game. Even haters of Green Bay are saying Green Bay got robbed. [More..]

Here's the NFL Playbook and the operative section appears to be this:

"It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball."

The bigger story is that this is the final straw for many, as the stand-in refs have been blowing calls for the past three weeks.

Everyone wants the regular refs back.

How do they do that? Unfortunately, I also know nothing about Labor Law. But I have a common sense answer: Pay the locked out refs what they want. The NFL can afford it. And the money they stand to lose if fans sit out a year has to be much more than what the refs are demanding.

Actually, if I were advising the locked-out refs (put aside that it would be complete malpractice given my less than zero comprehension of the game and labor law) I'd tell the locked out refs to double down on their demands now: their value seems to have just risen exponentially.

Who should pay the extra money the refs want? I'd say the team owners and high-level managers but not the players. Why? The absurd sums the players get are not out of line when you consider they can only play for a relatively short number of years, after which their bodies will start to fall apart from the concussions, joint damage, knee damage and brain damage. They will be massively out of shape and overweight once they stop practicing regularly. And other than the few who get sponsorship deals and commercials, they don't have great careers to go on to, meaning there won't be much money coming in. So the salaries they get now help cover them for their lifetime, since they gave their mental and bodily health up for the game.

The owners and high level managers have no such excuses. They just rake in the money, while they sit in big offices, take meetings, and on game days, sit in a warm sky box. They can do this for generations. Their brains aren't operating at 50% capacity like the former players.

Also, if football is indeed the "national pasttime" of this country, it's because of the players, not the owners. Sure, it takes a village to put on games, but the players are the star attraction.

So let the owners and high-level managers cough up the bucks and meet the regular ref's demands. If they don't, the owners may find themselves sitting at a box at an empty stadium, losing far more money than the refs were demanding.

It sounds to my admittedly unformed mind that the real problem here is greed at the top. Why should football be any different than any other corporate organization where the big honchos rake it in while those at the bottom get a raw deal?

I feel worse for the players than the fans. They are the ones who are dedicating their most productive years to the game while putting their future health at risk.

If the owners won't settle with the regular refs, they might consider doing away with all refs and settling the matter with a coin toss. At least they'd have a 50% chance of being right, which would be a better record of accuracy than the replacement refs.

Feel free to correct my interpretation, or disagree -- as I said, I'm really just writing this because I think people will want to discuss it.

< Prosecutors Reject Charges in FL Shooting Citing Stand Your Ground | CA Judge Frees Wrongfully Convicted Gang Member After 19 Years >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pandemonium at the NFL | 133 comments (133 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Makes me glad I stopped watching football (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by scribe on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:20:18 AM EST

after Sunday's series of epically missed and bad calls.

You're quite right, TL, that the problem is greed at the top. The referees' demand, over which the owners locked them out, is something far smaller than one-tenth of one percent of the league's profit. Not the league's gross, but rather its profit.

It was only a matter of time before the ineptitude of the substitute refs manifested itself in full flower. In the season, the first couple weeks are usually a period of everyone feeling out what will and will not fly this year. The third week - this week - is when things really have been figured out. The coaches and players have gamed out what will and will not go and now they're exploiting that to the fullest.

I don't want to knock the substitute refs too badly as they are in a situation where they have little chance of coming out "winners". If they had been first quality refs, they would have been in the league long ago. 37 years in Division II college football (as was one of the refs in a Sunday debacle) tells me maybe Division II college football is all the higher he should have gone. Admittedly, the substitutes' situation is partly one of their own making - no one held a gun to their head to make them take the gig.

The only thing which will break the owners' intransigence is people telling them they are going to pass on watching football and then go do that. When the TV revenue takes a hit, they'll sit up and take notice. Not until then.

How to win the state of Wisconsin for Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by DFLer on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 08:36:27 AM EST

Paint the NFL debacle as greedy owners (versus a collective bargaining unit), who are so selfish and unwilling to give the employees any concessions that they are willing to take down the Packers and ship the referee jobs "overseas" to the college high-school ranks because those NFL refs are merely commodities with no intrinsic value to their operation. The Baining of the NFL!

my brother had the best post I saw (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:17:10 AM EST

What do you expect when the only people on the field who were NOT union member were the refs?

Then my sister bashed the Packers anyway. In my family we like to combine our pro-union rants with some Packers bashing.

New Jersey Housewives (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Stellaaa on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:50:11 AM EST

I don't know, I was sort overwhelmed by the events between Teresa and Melissa. Amazing how a sport business becomes such a national topic. I find the Real Housewives much more compelling and filled with real issues.

Governor Walker supports the Union? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:36:22 AM EST

I'm thinking towanda will find some seriously shake her head funny in this tweet this morning.

Governor WalkerVerified ‏@GovWalker
After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs

Yep, we are having a weird day (none / 0) (#18)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:45:24 AM EST

in Wisconsin, where we pro-union folks wuz robbed again. The pro-union folks, of course, include the unionized Packers players, who had no prob finding comfy shoes to very publicly stand with us last year.

Btw, BTD, what you're missing is that the terrible call at the end of the game came after an entire game of terrible calls, so this last play was the last straw. Throughout the game on the live blogs, sportswriters as well as fans kept writing that the NFL really had to face the need to settle with the refs, as the calls were ridiculous against both sides.

The local blogs and Facebook here today are full of posts with the home phone number of Roger Goodell, if anyone wants it -- although by now, he probably has had that line disconnected after thousands of calls, if everyone who claims to have used the phone number did so.

Also, a point of order re the rule quoted: Another rule says that there is to be no review when the call is simultaneous possession. So, by reviewing the call, did the refs nullify the previous ruling of simultaneous possession?

We await the NFL presser today. . . .


not only did BTD not write this (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:01:08 AM EST

but I said in the first paragraph:

Sounds like it might be the final straw, as the bad calls have become routine with this season's use of stand-in referees for the usual ones, who have been locked out in a labor dispute.

: Yes. So we were in agreement (none / 0) (#33)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:11:15 AM EST

I thought . . . although I was using the same cliche to give others who did not see it some context on the entirety of this game to more fully understand the outcry at the end -- and perhaps the appeal to come, if it raises the point of the pattern of bad calls in this game. (I don't think that a team can raise the issue of a pattern of bad calls in games throughout the league/season.)

Puhleeze, Towanda. Reading skills, (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:51:11 AM EST

BTD did not write this post!


Sorry, and we must have had (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:53:22 AM EST

simultaneous possession of our "send" keys.

See my mea culpa below, sent at the same time.


I have a conflict of interest (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:04:48 PM EST

Please weigh in. (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:06:59 PM EST

: He had Seattle (none / 0) (#58)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:09:54 PM EST

cx: make that (none / 0) (#22)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:51:50 AM EST

"Btw, Jeralyn. . . ."

I still can't see straight, after watching that debacle, only for a while, last night!


Bill Clinton agrees we wuz robbed (none / 0) (#35)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:18:12 AM EST

by two touchdowns, in his interview on "Morning Joe" today, our local media report.

So Scooter Walker agrees with Bill Clinton.

In other news, up is down.


I'm sure that you will be thrilled (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Zorba on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:54:50 PM EST

to learn that Paul Ryan agrees with Scott Walker (and Bill Clinton), although he, of course, had to add a slap at Obama in his comments.

"It is time to get the real refs," Ryan said in Cincinnati. "And you know what, it reminds me of President Obama and the economy. If you can't get it right, it is time to get out."

: What a jerk. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by Angel on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:01:02 PM EST

After further review, the runner did not (5.00 / 5) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:03:56 AM EST

touch second base. Touchdown Celtics.

: Puh-leeze, The Celtics aren't in the NFL. (none / 0) (#44)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:03:27 PM EST

I mean, everyone who's anyone knows that they won the Stanley Cup only two short years ago -- right, Jeralyn?

: Gooooaaaallllll! (none / 0) (#74)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:03:38 PM EST

actually, it's latin, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:33:59 AM EST

with greek subtitles. the labor issue, if you're interested ms. merrit, is about the ref's pension fund. the owner's want to change it from a "defined benefit" plan, to a 401(k) plan, simply because they want to, not because continuing with the present plan would have some egregious affect on their obscene profits. that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

the pre-season and regular season have been a complete shambles, officiating wise. interestingly, the players have a clause in their union contract, which allows them to stop working (playing), if the owner's fail to provide a safe working environment. normally, this would be about facilities (playing surface, practice facilities, etc). however, it could be invoked, if the officiating is so bad, that it puts the players at a higher than normal level of risk of injury. i think we've already seen some of that, with officials losing control of games.

the owners figure the fans will watch, regardless of the poor officiating. as long as the tv ratings stay high enough, the networks won't gripe. it may have reached that point.

I read that the players' union already (none / 0) (#43)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:45:41 AM EST

sent a letter to the league, protesting the lack of safe working (aka playing) conditions. A first step toward a strike?

I also am reading of a fan protest afoot to stop watching the game -- publicly, going to game bars but with the tv's turned off -- and to boycott tv advertisers because the big money for the league, of course, is tv revenue.


A first step toward a strike? (none / 0) (#48)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:14:21 PM EST

Not likely. Average NFL player salary in 2011 according to Bloomberg News: $1.9 million.


while that may well be true, (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:07:48 PM EST

Not likely. Average NFL player salary in 2011 according to Bloomberg News: $1.9 million

a player who suffers a career ending injury won't be getting that big salary, will he?


So are you saying (none / 0) (#50)
by sj on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:25:57 PM EST

that the only reason for me (for example) to strike is because of MY salary? Safety doesn't enter into it? or solidarity? or principle?

Now I'm not saying that they'll strike -- wildcat or not -- but I think that some of them might see that weakening one union weakens all unions.

Reagan knew that. All the anti-union folks know that. Too bad all of those protected by all of those imperfect unions don't also see that.


The players can't complain (none / 0) (#52)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:51:05 PM EST

of a lack of safety if the lack of safety is due to their own overaggresive play.


Oy (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by sj on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:06:51 PM EST

Which (convenient) "they"? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:11:39 PM EST

This reminds me of being told that I, as an individual woman, cannot complain about a concern if "they," some undefined collective of women, think otherwise.

So, for example, a quarterback or a kicker, not in positions to do the aggressive pileups, cannot complain about refs not making calls on other players who pile on after a play is over, pull on face masks, and otherwise break rules that could cause serious injury to players weighing less by a hundred or more pounds?

So, will you allow players who are not overly aggressive to complain about lack of enforcement? Good; then we are in agreement.

Now, so as to get past that vague pronoun, just point us to the players who are complaining who are within their rights to do so, in your rulebook.


First (2.00 / 1) (#86)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:32:34 PM EST

you'll have to point me to a current player that says the game is too rough. The common player complaint is that the league keeps trying to take aggressiveness out of the game.

On more neutral ground for the two of us: Good news for Wisconsin. A Senate poll yesterday put Baldwin up 12 points over Thompson 52-40 marking her 5th straight poll with a lead. And I read where she currently has ten TV spots for every one for Thompson right now.

The same poll yesterday also had Obama at +12 in Wisconsin, giving him 8 consecutive polls with the lead.


I see (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by sj on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:36:38 PM EST

You seem to think that unless a group wants to self-regulate that no regulation is necessary.

I sometimes forget that about you.


I did, at the start of this subthread (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:22:57 PM EST

in noting that the players' union had sent a letter to the league about safe working conditions. If you need me to Google for that for you, fine, but just say so rather than pretend that your reply was not about that letter.

Or your issue is whether this is a "current" concern of players? I needed to state that letter was this season? Really? When it's about the scab refs this season?


: About that letter . . . (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:24:31 PM EST

Did you see the hit to Heyward-Bey's head? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:21:15 PM EST

and lack of penalty flag? Dude was out cold . . .


Indeed (none / 0) (#95)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:44:27 PM EST

ugly and wrong and Ryan Mundy will likely be fined for the hit just as all Pittsburgh Steelers have in recent years whether there was a penalty on the play or not. Coached that way in Pittsburgh? That I don't know. But in recent years James Harrison (fined repeatedly and suspended), Ryan Clark fined multiple times), and now Ryan Mundy will be fined, all while playing for the Steelers and delivering hits with their helmets.

The Steelers were fined 13 times last season for these type hits. A flag doesn't stop them and the amount of the fines haven't stopped them yet.

Ryan Clark's comment after a $40,000 fine last season, "So it's going to turn into if you're going to fine me $40,000, I might as well put him to sleep for real or I might as well blow his knee out."

Ray Lewis of the Ravens on the same thing, "You can't stop playing defense the way defense has always been created to play. When the receiver has the ball, your job is to disengage him from the ball."


Still should have been flagged (none / 0) (#99)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 06:12:13 PM EST

Is there talk of Mundy being fined? I've been out of that loop since Sunday.

I hate to tell Ray Lewis, but Heyward-Bey was not holding the ball with his head . . . .


: From a Steeler's site (none / 0) (#104)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 07:14:48 PM EST

Ryan Mundy likely will pick up a $21,000 fine for his early fourth quarter helmet-to-helmet hit on wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey...Last week Steelers LB Lawrence Timmons was fined $21,000 by the NFL for his helmet-to-helmet hit on New York Jets QB Mark Sanchez.

This is a wonderful post! (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 07:27:03 AM EST

I have no opinion but I predict Romney disagrees w/Jeralyn.

Query: if the scab refs usually preside at college football games, why are they deemed incompetent to work pro football games?

Most of the scabs... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by kdog on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 08:41:35 AM EST

come from the lower divisions of the NCAA, Arena League, etc. Different rules, and the speed of the NFL game is something they are wholly unprepared for.

I know the players union sent a letter to the league stating the scabs are creating an unsafe work enviroment...if that doesn't break this lockout, the players need to refuse to take the field next week. The league would fold in ten minutes if the players refused to take the field and CBS/Fox lost but 180 seconds of ad revenue.


This is a gem: (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 08:21:26 AM EST

Someone threw something called a "desperation pass" , which others call a Hail Mary Pass, to the end zone.

hee hee...who are these people who do NOT (none / 0) (#8)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:15:03 AM EST

call it a Hail Mary pass? I have not watched regularly for a long time, but seems to me that term was engraved in stone!


Henceforth known as an "HMP." (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:21:27 AM EST

I do hope DK radio picks up this post. Maybe Jeralyn will start posting her picks.


: Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:31:28 AM EST

we need to have Jeralyn go head to head against BTD in five pre-picked games per week and get their analysis.

Truly. I always (none / 0) (#25)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:54:20 AM EST

have heard it called a Hail Mary pass, for half a century now.


But you didn't capitalize "Pass." (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:56:19 AM EST

The phrase originated (none / 0) (#30)
by MKS on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:07:58 AM EST

in the mid 1970s when Roger Staubach of the Dallas Cowboys threw a desperation pass caught by Drew Pearson (with or without a shove against the Vikings DB) that won the game for the Cowboys.

Afterwards, the press asked Staubach about the pass, he said he just threw it as far as he could and said a Hail Mary.


I always think of it (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:44:33 AM EST

in connection with John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin.


Thanks. I long had heard (none / 0) (#34)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:13:23 AM EST

that it originated at the college level -- at Notre Dame. There is so much mythology in sports.


"The" Hail Mary (none / 0) (#46)
by MKS on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:07:16 PM EST

as it is known.

To go along side "The Catch" and the "Icebowl"--both Dallas losses.


Not to be confused with (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:17:04 PM EST

Hail Flutie in 1984


NOOOOO!! (none / 0) (#111)
by indy in sc on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:17:04 AM EST

Have some compassion! That play is on a constant loop in my nightmares! :) My poor Hurricanes...


: as is the Drew pearson catch in mine! (none / 0) (#113)
by DFLer on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:09:45 AM EST

Ahhh, "The Catch"! :D (none / 0) (#47)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:08:29 PM EST

True too (none / 0) (#106)
by MKS on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:16:11 PM EST

Here is the Wikipedia blurb

The expression goes back at least to the 1930s, being used publicly in that decade by two former members of Notre Dame's Four Horsemen, Elmer Layden and Jim Crowley. Originally meaning any sort of desperation play, a "Hail Mary" gradually came to denote a long, low-percentage pass. For more than forty years its use was largely confined to Notre Dame and other Catholic universities.[1]
The term became widespread after Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach (a Roman Catholic) said about his game-winning touchdown pass to wide receiver Drew Pearson in a 1975 playoff game against the Minnesota Vikings, "I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary." [2]

In Jerilyn's defense (none / 0) (#59)
by cal1942 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:12:12 PM EST

A Hail Mary Pass is a desperation pass. In addition the term desperation pass was used for the same situation a few decades ago. I'm not sure about the origin of the term Hail Mary Pass, but maybe the Doug Flutie (Boston College) pass against Miami had something to do with the term.


Per Wiki, the last word in correct grammar, (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:18:55 PM EST

it is "Hail Mary pass (note the small "p") or "Hail Mary route" and use of the phrase was confined to Catholic colleges originally:

Hail Mary pass


Guess things never change (none / 0) (#67)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:38:30 PM EST

in that article, where they say the term Hail Mary reached modern day lexicon with the media with the Staubach to Pearson pass ... the Vikings complained that pass interference should have been called.


: I can personally confirm (5.00 / 0) (#77)
by brodie on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:28:43 PM EST

hearing the Hail Mary term numerous times on tv broadcasts of the NFL in the 70s, predating Flutie in the next decade. Back when the term was still fairly fresh and slightly humorous.
The term has become so widespread and well known, I'm pretty sure even our shadowy (but mostly benign) ET visitors from other parts of the Milky Way are familiar with it.

: Cool, love the old video (none / 0) (#107)
by MKS on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:26:57 PM EST

Look how skinny the linemen are.
Staubach just reared back and heaved that ball.

Aha, as I was taught, the term (none / 0) (#70)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:55:23 PM EST

is attributed to the Fighting Catholics at Notre Dame. Thanks.


Great comment, Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#6)
by christinep on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:00:09 AM EST

Perceptive. In the morning kick-off, you caught it & ran it all the way back, IMO.

And, DFLer 's take is so close to the analogous mark. Even Bill Clinton smilingly weighed in on the botched McAllen this am.

In a way, I'm glad to have missed the newest scab debacle...else the damage the TV would have sustained would have had a direct negative effect on my personal $$$.

: Mcallen? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by christinep on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:01:55 AM EST

Hmmm. Read: Scab call.

Luckiest people last night (none / 0) (#10)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:40:39 AM EST

The Packers offensive line. They gave up 8 sacks and it's not even mentioned this morning.

Also wondering how long it took for a defensive coach to walk up to M.D. Jennings after the game and say, "Your entire life you've been coached to knock the ball down on 4th down and the last play of the game. If you did what you were supposed to do we win the game".

Agree on first point (none / 0) (#13)
by brodie on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:12:38 AM EST

Re the DB knocking the ball down: this ex gridiron veteran has never liked that bit of dubious advice. First the instinct of a football player -- when he sees the ball coming at him and knows he has a chance to catch it -- is to catch the ball, and it's very difficult to unlearn this instinct.

Second it does happen that if a defender tries to knock it away, it gets tapped into a second up for grabs situation, or into the hands of another nearby receiver. This actually happened, exactly like that latter scenario, in a game this weekend (can't recall if NFL or College) resulting in a last-second "desperation pass" victory for the tappee team.

That DB made a fine play and should have been awarded the interception and the game ball. Instead we get a horrible call by the scab refs which was somehow not reversed on review.


It wasn't (none / 0) (#94)
by NYShooter on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:43:59 PM EST

"..a horrible call by the scab refs" It was a horrible call by A scab ref. The first call by a ref, and the one closest to the play, immediately put his hands straight up, indicating a touchback. The ref who called it a touchdown was 15 yards away and his view appeared blocked by the pile of players around the ball.

Why the Head Ref didn't call for a conference between the two conflicting refs, and get it straightened out is beyond me.


Sorry, jim (none / 0) (#96)
by NYShooter on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:48:30 PM EST

didn't see your post below when I wrote this. I agree with your interpretation, except I thought the villain ref was 15 yards away, not 25:)


I didn't see either ref make (none / 0) (#98)
by brodie on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 06:02:16 PM EST

any quick call. They both ran to the scene of the crime, looked in on the tussle for a few seconds (by my count), then as the nearer one signaled TD the other waved his arms for the clock to stop.

At that point the head ref needed to get together with them and closely question as to who saw it better, who had the more persuasive call.


: I wasn't arguing (none / 0) (#102)
by NYShooter on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 06:45:05 PM EST

with your interpretation of the play; I was only adding to it.
But, having said that, I went back and watched the video several more times, Here, Link, and it seems like the two refs closest to the play raised their hands exactly simultaneously. The other ref, the one from over 15 yards away, who also called it a touchdown, wasn't visible in this video.

You might not want to bring up the union (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:54:28 AM EST

thing... Many people remember the NBA's Joey Crawford

Having said that, I love football and watched every minute of the game. And to be transparent I lived in Seattle during the 80's and developed a love for the Seahawks and was hoping to see them upset the Packers.

Here's what I saw.

The game's outcome was determined by replacement officials who, at best, can be described as incompetent.

On the final drive I saw:

A roughing the QB call that clearly was not.
A defensive pass interference call that clearly was on the offense.

On the final play I saw:

An offensive pass interference that was not called.
A defender clearly intercept the ball and have control. The WR never had any part of control prior to the defender clearly having control.
An official who was 25 yards away from the play and not in position signal touchdown.'
An official who was in position to see what happened signaled interception.

The head official didn't intercede.

Then even stranger, we are now told that the replay official couldn't intercede because it was a "judgement" call.

Really? Every scoring play is a touchdown/field goal based on the judgement of the officials and every scoring play is supposed to be reviewed. Or at least that is what we've been told time and time again.

Here's the deal for me.

I'm done wasting my time watching a game that is no longer a game of talent, work, skill and preparation.

: Yep. (none / 0) (#19)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:50:11 AM EST

Spouse Towanda, still pacing the house today, just detailed again all of what you write above, particularly the four missed and/or bad calls on the last play alone . . . as well as all of the bad calls all throughout the game, which caused constant outcries from the tv room last night. I was in the next room by the second half, having given up on having any fun watching such a debacle, and was trying to read.
I could not get through a single paragraph without hearing the outcries, again and again. I found myself welcoming the commercial breaks, for once, so that I could read in peace.

: Nice breakdown (none / 0) (#38)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:29:45 AM EST

Why blamed the temp refs? (none / 0) (#16)
by ding7777 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:34:09 AM EST

All touchdowns are reviewed upstairs by an official who is not a replacement.

This TD was reviewed and confirmed by a "real ref" upstairs using instant replay.

How much pressure - real or perceived - (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Anne on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:09:46 AM EST

do you think there might be for not overturning the replacement refs' calls in order for the league to be able to make the argument that the guys from Foot Locker are getting these calls right?

For some reason, the league seems to think the concern is about how many flags are thrown, not about whether the flag should have been thrown, and whether the refs know the rules.

But, speaking of "real refs" or "real officials," what was the excuse for the on-site NFL rep not stepping in and disallowing Jim Harbaugh's no-timeouts-left challenge in the 49-ers game against Minnesota?

Last week in the Baltimore/Phila. game, there were two 2-minute warnings in the first half - how does that happen if there's someone from the league on-site?

What was the on-site NFL rep doing when the replacement refs counted off a penalty against the Lions from the wrong yardage marker - moving the Titans an extra 12 yards into Detroit territory? Refs called a personal foul on Detroit, which should have been marked off from the Tennessee 44, taking the ball to the Detroit 41; instead, they counted off 15 yards from the Detroit 44, putting the Titans on the Detroit 29 yd line. There's a big difference between being at the 41 and being at the 29 - and the NFL guy didn't catch that? What's the point of having them there, then?

How did the replacement ref in the end zone not see the illegal hit Darius Heyward-Bey took - and how did the NFL rep not see it the 40 times it was shown in replays? Sure, Josh Mays will get a bill from the league, and maybe a suspension, but if the league says it is committed to safety, having refs on the field allowing that kind of play doesn't seem too consistent with that agenda, does it?

Is it any wonder that, late in the Ravens/Patriots game, the Baltimore fans were chanting "Bullsh!t" so loud you could hear it on the network broadcast? I would look to hear that chant often, all over the country, if this keeps up.

And, sadly, I think it will, unless people stop going to games or watching them on TV, or the NFLPA institutes some kind of job action on the basis of unsafe conditions, the NFL will just keep on keeping on. In other words, until the league starts to feel the pinch, they have no incentive to do anything.

Shocking, I know.


But see comment above that (none / 0) (#20)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:50:53 AM EST

there is to be no review on a call of simultaneous possession. So did the review nullify that call?


Are you referring to the guy doing commentary (none / 0) (#36)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:22:14 AM EST

I know the color commentators have experienced refs who look at plays for them. To my knowledge the scabs are looking at the review plays as well as calling the shots on the field. But I could be wrong.

What's annoying me is that there is a really high level of tension/smack talking among the teams. All this smack talk and shoving creates a more amped up environment, and then you get more personal foul flags thrown - which are practically random considering how many actual personal fouls are happening because the refs can't handle the situation generally. My 2 cents.


No, I'm referring to the league putting (none / 0) (#51)
by Anne on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:29:44 PM EST

NFL reps at every game to serve as insurance that rules and procedures are being followed and to advise, if need be, the officials on the field.

As for the chippiness that's been evident around the league, replacement refs have yet to really get control of that. In the Ravens/Eagles game, the refs thought they could solve the problem by flagging both teams at the same time, which solved nothing; offsetting penalties just slowed the game down and didn't do anything to control the scuffling.

The amount of money we're talking about here is just miniscule compared to the amount of money the league is raking in; they need to get it together before 2012 becomes the asterisk season - the one where no one gives any credence to the standings or playoffs or Super Bowl because too many games were decided by bad officiating like we've been seeing.


I was replying to ding (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:09:47 PM EST

did the NFL rep approve the touchdown on review? That doesn't sound right, maybe I'm wrong. Here's what ESPN says:

The replacement officials ruled on the field that Tate had simultaneous possession with Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, which counts as a reception. The NFL says that once that happened, the referee was correct that no indisputable visual evidence existed on review to overturn the touchdown call.

I don't know if the rep was there or not. Whatever the rep from the NFL is doing he/she is clearly giving the replacement refs a lot of space.

And yeah I watched the Eagles/Ravens game, and quite a few others, and most of them have been chippy. Redskins lost an opportunity to win last week because their wideout committed a personal foul after the catch, terribly unprofessional behavior. But these guys are worrying the crap out of each other on the field and getting totally out of hand. Refs can't handle it.


: Re "chippy." New useage to moi, but (none / 0) (#64)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:22:22 PM EST

it made the Oxford Dictionary:

Christian Science Monitor Explanation (none / 0) (#24)
by Slayersrezo on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:53:48 AM EST

Or, in case that doesn't work because the link button on here is usually screwed up:
hxxp://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0921/NFL-referee-lockout-drags-on-4-issues-keeping-replacemen t-refs-on-the-field/Full-time-vs.-part-time
Replace "x"'s with a "t".

Anyway, on the four issues:

The NFL shouldn't mess with the retirement program, so I have to go with the players here.
Salary: Both sides can easily compromise on this, the expense is really nothing.
Extra Officiating Crews: I think something can be worked out, but if the owners want to utilize this process to do employee evaulations, they are going to, at minimum, agree to a neutral third party grievance process. I mostly like the idea, but not how the NFL plans to implement it.

4.Full vs part: I'm with the NFL on this. It could only make games better.

I understand that number 1 is the main sticking point for the refs, and I urge the NFL to back down on that as soon as possible.

Foolproof way to link: (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:59:27 AM EST

Copy the URL, paste it into your comment, surround that by brackets, insert "link" or whatever you like just after the first bracket. Voila.


Whenever I do that (none / 0) (#80)
by Slayersrezo on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 03:20:12 PM EST

I get sh** on for breaking the code of the page or some such, so forget about it. I know how to insert direct html into pages, I've coded webpages before. But for some reason, even after checking security settings and having the latest version of FireFox I still have issues using the link button here.


: Just highlight a word in the body of your comment (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 03:25:56 PM EST

and click on the "link" icon above the comment box, a box will appear directing you to enter your url, copyNpaste your url into the box, then click "OK." Could not be easier.

: Believe me, if I can do it, you can too. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 08:45:05 PM EST

My method doesn't use the "link" function above the comment box.

Need to do-over of the entire thing. (none / 0) (#32)
by Angel on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:11:13 AM EST

: Duh. Can't type and talk on the phone at the (none / 0) (#37)
by Angel on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:25:25 AM EST

same time. Need a do-over of the game and my original post. Sheesh.

NFL Office speaks (none / 0) (#39)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:32:55 AM EST

Call stands. Game official.

Here' s some news: (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 11:38:59 AM EST

some betters get relief on game decided by botched call [NYT.]

I got a no bet too (none / 0) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:03:35 PM EST

: I thought you did "investments?" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by NYShooter on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:59:57 PM EST

Who did you place it with, Chuck, 3-fingers, Schwab?

"Dean of NFL Referees" calls play (none / 0) (#45)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 12:04:05 PM EST

for the Packers.

At presser, NFL stands by the call, but with yet more rationalizing that will invite more catcalls.

In reading through that (none / 0) (#65)
by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:29:09 PM EST

perhaps I'm missing something, but I never see him saying he would call it for the Packers.

When specifically asked...he passed

Just from the video, it looked like he (Jennings) went up and caught the ball first while he was still in the air. As he came down to the ground, I couldn't tell - I don't know if anybody could tell - if the Seattle guy was also involved until they got to the ground. That's hard to say unless you break it down and put it on a screen in a theatre exactly when the Seattle guy got a hold of it.

I did get a kick out of this line from him on his time officiating:
"I came over and said, `Nope, incomplete pass.' Of course, I was hung in effigy in Houston."


Read up (none / 0) (#73)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:00:43 PM EST

to this:

What are the things you're looking for in making the decision on who caught it?
You establish if the ball is caught and whether it was by an individual or whether it was a simultaneous catch. It certainly appeared that the Green Bay Packer defender had it first and perhaps the Seattle guy took it away from him as they were down there.

And his comments that, basically, the refs blew it in not conferring on their differing calls, etc. As I read the totality of his comments, it was a comedy of ref errors.

But they're not laughing in Titletown about the potential economic impact, another intriguing story (in the same newspaper).


the two critical factors, with respect to a pass: (none / 0) (#84)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:12:49 PM EST

possession: did the player catch it and have it in their hands?
control: did the player have clear possession of it for at least 3 seconds, and make a "football move" with it? a "football move" is defined as any movement (a step forward or sideways) ordinarily made by one in possession and control of the ball.

with as many cameras as NFL Films, and the networks have at these games, one of them got just the right angle to make a correct determination.


A problem is that the refs (none / 0) (#91)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:27:12 PM EST

were not where they ought to have been to make the call. Then, we were told that the review -- of the film -- supported that call.

But we have not seen the NFL film, have we? Now, could there be a reason that the NFL would claim, no matter what, that its film supported the call? Oh, wait, it's claiming that its film supported other aspects -- because simultaneous possession is not to be reviewed. Hmmmm.

And we have seen other film that does not support the call, haven't we? Hmmmm, again.

But, because the NFL had to claim that its film supported the call, the crucial point again is where the refs were when making the call, and that's not where experienced refs would be.


: I didn't sense the refs were out (none / 0) (#93)
by brodie on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:39:36 PM EST

of position.
My take is that they weren't fully versed on the rules, perhaps thinking secondary (partial) possession by Tate was tantamount to primary possession (as the DB seemed to have) -- as in so long as the receiver had his hands on the ball at about the same time, that was all that counted.

I don't think your #2 (none / 0) (#92)
by brodie on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:29:44 PM EST

applies in the NFL. Not the "football move" or the supposed "3 second" rule.

Just catch and control with two feet down inbounds, is what the rule says.

But this controversy is about the rules re simultaneous possession, and a secondary issue about booth review of such judgment call plays.


Well, the NFL started a new controversy (none / 0) (#100)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 06:23:40 PM EST

today, or revived another from last night, in admitting that the call ought to have been offensive pass interference -- which would have made moot the subsequent mess about simultaneous possession, reviewing that (when it is not supposed to be reviewed, which would moot the call of simultaneous possession), etc. . . .

But the NFL will do what it does so well now, making more money from this, when it fines players -- many today breaking the rule about criticizing the league, refs, etc., in social media. And those players are well aware of the rule and say that they just don't care, go ahead and fine us, because we have to speak out before these inexperienced refs cause real tragedy.


And though that interference (none / 0) (#101)
by brodie on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 06:39:16 PM EST

was truly egregious, traditionally the refs have allowed a good deal of pushing and shoving on end of game Hail Mary plays -- pass interference galore by both teams.

But Tate's two handed shove in the back amounted almost to abuse of tradition.


: Agreed to a point (none / 0) (#103)
by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 06:54:34 PM EST

as end-of-game deciding-the-game calls tend (with experienced refs) to be more carefully made, in consultation with each other (as the NFL admitted today ought to be done), etc.
And definitely agreed that Tate ought to have been called for it -- as the NFL also admitted today. Of course, that would have made moot the call that ended the game, but the NFL won't put its money where its mouth is. That's it for game-watching for me and for a lot of other folks I know, some even cancelling plans to go to Green Bay this weekend -- and not giving away the tickets but planning for empty seats! never seen in Green Bay -- and cancelling NFL cable, etc.
Next, if the NFL upholds other rules -- the ones that make it money and make it look like a good league -- will come fines for Aaron Rodgers and others speaking out today on social media. If so, then could come escalated fan reaction.

: apparently there was an (none / 0) (#114)
by DFLer on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:13:19 AM EST

egregious pass interference call awarded to the Packers earlier in their last scoring drive, allowing them a 1st down and extending the drive. Without that, who knows? That last Hail Mary may not have been necessary to win for Seattle. Just saying.

: And, how could it be simultaneous (none / 0) (#126)
by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:41:52 AM EST

possession when the Green Bay player had the ball against his chest, the Seattle player did not, and the Seattle player just put his hands on the ball belatedly from behind the GB player????

Brodie, I have heard of the football (none / 0) (#125)
by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:38:32 AM EST

move but not a three second rule. Possesion, two feet down and a football move--but there is an exception when the receiver is hit by another player, and I really don't understand that wrinkle.

It is apparently a new rule.

I watch the film of Butch Johnson catching a TD from Staubach against Denver in the Super Bowl with the assumption that that pass would be called incomplete today. Johnson, as you may recall, dove for the ball, caught it in flight while he was in the End Zone, rolled over and then fumbled the ball. I recall thinking it was incomplete at the time. Johnson reacted as if he though it was incomplete too. But I think the rule at the time was that he had possession when in the End Zone, and thus it was an immediate TD before he fumbled.

Three second rule. Never heard of that. Three Mississippis, yes, but not for receptions.


The ground cannot cause a fumble (none / 0) (#131)
by NYShooter on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 05:48:57 PM EST

Catching the ball while in the air, then hitting the ground and fumbling.......touchdown!


: But the ground (none / 0) (#132)
by CoralGables on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 10:13:45 PM EST

can cause an incomplete pass:
In the NFL:
Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.

: So in the case you describe (none / 0) (#133)
by CoralGables on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 10:17:01 PM EST

"Catching the ball while in the air, then hitting the ground and fumbling......."
It's not a touchdown or a fumble in the NFL. It's an incomplete pass.

Until fans stop watching or going (none / 0) (#60)
by Slado on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:18:00 PM EST

there will be no movement.

There are a few angry fans voicing their opinion but if there is no noticeable drop in ratings or attendance the league has no reason to settle.

The players just ended their stand vs. the NFL so I doubt they will be so bold as to lock the NFL out.

Keep in mind the commissioner works for the owners so until the owners agree with the refs demands there will be no solution.

Owners tend to be very stubborn when they have no concern of losing money.

Well, there you have it, Slado (none / 0) (#78)
by Zorba on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:33:57 PM EST

I agree. It's about the benjamins. Until the owners believe that the replacement refs will hurt their bottom line, why should they care?


: pretty much. (none / 0) (#85)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:13:52 PM EST

It's about the benjamins. Until the owners believe that the replacement refs will hurt their bottom line, why should they care?

Great article on (none / 0) (#62)
by Slado on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:20:29 PM EST

ESPN

Ooops (none / 0) (#63)
by Slado on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:20:47 PM EST

: "Kneel down" in the context of (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by oculus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:32:44 PM EST

American football, hasn't made the on line dictionaries yet.
Also, is the term "flopping" confined to basketball? In you link there is reference to "lobbying."

Bombshell... (none / 0) (#68)
by kdog on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:49:55 PM EST

Some of the scabs are allegedly Lingerie Football League flunkies...I sh*t you not.

Have you seen any of the games? (none / 0) (#69)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:51:49 PM EST

The girls are athletes.


: I have... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by kdog on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:56:30 PM EST

those ladies can ball, no doubt...but if you're an official deemed unfit to officiate in the LFL, how the f8ck do you wind up officiating in the NFL? I'm floored.
I'm waiting to turn on MNF and see one of my rec-league refs in way over their head!

Oh, and the announcement reads like (none / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:57:44 PM EST

something my 13 y/o would write, similar to the emails that you get which start with, "You have inherited the sum of Eleventy Million dollars in my small country of Zaire but we need your bank information in order to deposit your money."


Fair enough... (none / 0) (#75)
by kdog on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:06:26 PM EST

it is Deadspin, the National Enquirer of Sports....but with the officiating we've seen I can totally buy it.

Maybe thats why the players are getting away with so much holding, failed LFL refs aren't used to jerseys;)


: a, I saw a game over the weekend wher ethe WR's (none / 0) (#76)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:12:05 PM EST

jersey was pulled off his shoulder pads, but no call...

I remember (none / 0) (#109)
by kmblue on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:32:01 AM EST

the good old days when the professional refs never made a wrong call. :)

One of the greatest email exchanges (none / 0) (#110)
by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:01:53 AM EST

took place yesterday between a fan and NFL ref Ed Hochuli:

Ed,
I've wasted some of my breathe cursing referees in the NFL for calls that (in my opinion) were incorrect. However... I feel like I owe you an apology. I don't think I could appreciate what an amazing job you all do until I saw these guys, who I recognize are doing their best, fail so miserably...
Gareth
Gareth,
Thank you very much for your support... Seriously, thanks for your email, but I'm sure a week after we're back, you'll be cursing me again!!!! That's half the fun. :)
All my best, Ed

And do you also remember (none / 0) (#112)
by Towanda on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:19:44 AM EST

no discussion of those wrong calls?

Especially last-second calls that decided games?

Of course not. So your point is?


The last second calls (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:02:24 AM EST

don't decide games. The games are 60 minutes long. Every single play in the game decides the game.


I remember nothing Towanda (none / 0) (#115)
by kmblue on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:36:25 AM EST

I don't watch football. Just trying to point out the pros make mistakes too. IMHO the owners are at fault out of sheer greed. Now, what shape is a football again? ;)


Whaaaa? (none / 0) (#116)
by Towanda on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 01:44:45 PM EST

Well, I certainly will remember this exchange.


Towanda (none / 0) (#117)
by kmblue on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:39:08 PM EST

I hope not in a bad way. Peace. ;)


I don't know about the refs (none / 0) (#118)
by jondee on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:48:54 PM EST

but, I'm starting to wonder if Mike Tomiln holds some secret on-going training camp to teach his defensive players how to go helmet-to-helmet for maximum devastating results..

Harrison, Ike Taylor..and Sunday, Matthews took out Heyward Bey, and then, no more than three minutes later, came in helmet-first on another reciever who was lucky to escape with his brains unscrambled..

Screw Pittsburgh (not to put too fine a point on it..)


Yes, well, I certainly won't (none / 0) (#119)
by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 05:17:55 PM EST

defend the Steelers. They have a reputation in recent times for playing, shall I say, rough football. I'm not even so sure that the regular refs would call them on this, but I'm d@mned sure that the replacement refs won't.
Yes, football is a rough game, but I really don't think it has to be an unnecessarily nasty game. Someone has to call the Steelers (and others) on the helmet-to-helmet hits, that's for sure.


The league fined (none / 0) (#120)
by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 05:25:49 PM EST

Ryan Mundy $21,000 today for the hit on Heyward-Bey.


Good (none / 0) (#121)
by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 05:52:00 PM EST

Although, I'm not sure that amount will make a whole heck of a lot of difference to him- what is his yearly salary?
At least it's a start.


: $1.26 million (none / 0) (#122)
by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:35:39 PM EST

Good (none / 0) (#127)
by jondee on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:54:52 AM EST

though my problem is, as I said before, after he went helmet-to-helmet on Heyward-Bey, he did it to another guy a few minutes later.


The NFL should go back to (none / 0) (#128)
by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:59:55 AM EST

leather helmets. It is more than what Rugby players have.


: It's all "entertaining" and all that.. (none / 0) (#130)
by jondee on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 02:48:57 PM EST

but one of these guys who can bench 400 and run a 4.3 40 is going to kill somebody out there..
And then all the fan/sports journalist soul-searching is REALLY going to go into high gear..
Of course, alot of boxers have died over the years, and that sport hasn't changed much..

Glad to hear that (none / 0) (#129)
by nycstray on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 01:55:13 PM EST

and I hope they start flagging more of these hits. It may stop some of them if they start losing games due to helmet hit penalties . . .


I really think (none / 0) (#123)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 11:00:45 AM EST

I really think that football games should be shortened to two minutes.

During the last couple minutes it's as if the rest of the game didn't happen. This is the case in so many games. All the pressure is on, say on one kicker, and he is a hero or a demon based on what he does in the last 10 seconds of the game. Who cares if botching other critical plays resulted in an outcome that put so much pressure on this one person?

In fact, the Greenbay/Seahawks game was full of bad calls. Some of them helped Green Bay score. You have to ask yourself, if all of the bad calls were reversed, who would have won?

We don't know.

We know that there was a bad call that obviously affected the outcome of the game....just like all the other bad calls did, but in maybe a less obvious way. Let's all focus on that one call instead of on the whole game? Or, IMHO, let's not.

I am from the Seattle area. In their history, the Seahawks lost a playoff game to the Jets because of a horrible call by a regular ref....and I said the same thing at that time too.

Yep, we should probably shorten football to 2 minutes. .....Because to fans, those are the only minutes that matter. The rest is just fluff.