Packers-Seahawks debacle
http://www.nfl.com/videos/green-bay-packers/0ap1000000066103/Packers-broadcasters-react-to-final-play
I'm not sure how this was not overturned on replay at the very least. They are trying to say that both guys caught the ball at the same time but I don't see the same thing.
I also noticed, in addition to the normal jostling that goes on during "Hail Mary" plays, one of the Packers was blatantly shoved down and out of the way of the receiver.
The NFL is losing more credibility every week that it puts on the show with referees from D2 college football.
Quote: sodawaterRon C, I am guessing you forgot the word "was" in there -- from the replay it is clear that Tate (Seahawks WR) pushes off/shoves a Packer defensive back prior to attempting to catch the ball. Which Tate didn't catch or come close to catching to begin with.
Black eye for all of pro sports tonight.
Fixed it, thanks! My writing is bad enough on a normal day...it is even worse in the middle of the night!!
2) There was an interview with some retired ref(no clue on the name). He mentioned something like "when they go to replay all they are looking at is whether it was a score or not". If this is truly the case, then replay is just broken. If they actually weren't looking at whether or not it was a catch by 1 or 2 people, something is just wrong.
I don't blame the refs. These are D3/High School or retired refs. The NFL was forced into using these people because they are ok with the football monopoly and won't poach D1 refs. I'm fine with that, but the NFL has run into the situation where their personal is on strike and due to other policys they can't even hire the 2nd best out there.
I don't know the full extent of the negotiations. In generally I'm not a fan of unions since I've seen them bring along very bad people with the rest of the group just because they were in a union. Professional sports are unique in that there just are not many available so this isn't some 15000 member teachers union. This is a group wanting to get their share of billions. I did hear a rumor that the refs were asking for backpay for games that they missed due to the strike. :)
The NFL is far from dead, but they need to end this strike fairly soon. Week after week of people talking about replacement refs rather than the game is not good for those billions.
Quote: soulhunt791) I don't think it is possible to call pass interference from a replay, so that issue goes away. Whether or not the regular refs would have called that, I don't know, but I kindof doubt it.
The interference would have had to have been called by the referees on the field; they can't review penalties from every explanation I have heard. I would agree that most interference on "Hail Mary" plays is ignored but shoving someone out of the way in such an obvious manner might draw a flag...who knows...
Quote: soulhunt792) There was an interview with some retired ref(no clue on the name). He mentioned something like "when they go to replay all they are looking at is whether it was a score or not". If this is truly the case, then replay is just broken. If they actually weren't looking at whether or not it was a catch by 1 or 2 people, something is just wrong.
That sounds pretty strange indeed--there was either a "score" or a "touch back" depending on the call. Sounds like an excuse being made...
Quote: soulhunt79I don't blame the refs. These are D3/High School or retired refs. The NFL was forced into using these people because they are ok with the football monopoly and won't poach D1 refs. I'm fine with that, but the NFL has run into the situation where their personal is on strike and due to other policys they can't even hire the 2nd best out there.
I don't know the full extent of the negotiations. In generally I'm not a fan of unions since I've seen them bring along very bad people with the rest of the group just because they were in a union. Professional sports are unique in that there just are not many available so this isn't some 15000 member teachers union. This is a group wanting to get their share of billions. I did hear a rumor that the refs were asking for backpay for games that they missed due to the strike. :)
The NFL is far from dead, but they need to end this strike fairly soon. Week after week of people talking about replacement refs rather than the game is not good for those billions.
This is not a "strike"; the NFL "locked out" the referees back in June or so as part of a dispute over $16.5 million dollars. To be sure, refs are paid well (average salary of about $150k or so), but it is sad that the NFL would tarnish the product with people who clearly, game in and game out, cannot keep up with the speed of the game. I have to think they could have fixed the issue without making themselves look this bad.
I have nothing further to add. But if the NFL wants to use these refs instead of competent ones then who am I to complain. It probably means cheaper ticket prices for me even though I haven't been to a football game in 30 years.Quote: The AnnouncersThat's a travesty, that is awful.
Poe's Law smiley included :)
Quote: sodawaterThere was also talk of sports books declaring all bets on that game "no action." Is this possible to happen? I think that would be the right thing to do to avoid the appearance of profiting from this debacle.
I highly doubt that would happen. It would set a terrible precedent. You know the people who bet on Seattle will demand to be paid, and rightly go to Gaming if they are refused. The sports books will not pay one side and push the other, because somebody has to lose.
It is my understanding that the books go by NFL.com or the Associated Press for the actual score of the game, which will say that Seattle won by 2. Where it can get tricky is what happens if said source changes the result after initial publication? In that case, I think they go by what was initially published. This turned out to be the case with the number of kickoffs in the 2009 Super Bowl.
So, sorry Packer bettors, but you lost. Bad officiating is part of the game sometimes.
Yes, so is biased officiating sometimes. It seems to be more common in European sports that "a fix is in" than in American sports but lets face it. No matter how many times someone gets up there and talks about sports and sportsmanship and all that blather ... its the money that talks.Quote: WizardBad officiating is part of the game sometimes.
NFL, College Football, High School Football, Junior High School Football ... its the old Watergate advice: Follow the money!!
Finality is always needed. Not instant replays argued ad-infinitem or nullification due to mistaken or corrupt officials. One European contest was determined by some footnote in the rules... even after it was discovered that the power failure was due to gamblers having blown up the local bank of transformers with explosives.
There is a winner and there is a loser. And usually it seems the winner is the bookie.
Quote: WizardI highly doubt that would happen. It would set a terrible precedent. You know the people who bet on Seattle will demand to be paid, and rightly go to Gaming if they are refused. The sports books will not pay one side and push the other, because somebody has to lose.
It is my understanding that the books go by NFL.com or the Associated Press for the actual score of the game, which will say that Seattle won by 2. Where it can get tricky is what happens if said source changes the result after initial publication? In that case, I think they go by what was initially published. This turned out to be the case with the number of kickoffs in the 2009 Super Bowl.
So, sorry Packer bettors, but you lost. Bad officiating is part of the game sometimes.
Packers bettors now know how us Manny Pacquio bettors felt after the fight in June. Except we laid 4.5/1 on what seemed like a good bet before the fight and an even better one after the fight...until the decision was announced.
Quote: sodawaterThere was also talk of sports books declaring all bets on that game "no action." Is this possible to happen?
The gaming regulations say that every book has to have a set of "house rules" concerning situations not otherwise covered (for example, if a game ends early, at what point does it switch from "no bet" to "the result stands"). However, the game was a completed game under NFL rules, so I don't see any book being allowed to tell a Seahawks bettor that he can't collect - and if they pay off on the Seahawks bets, they are required to collect (as opposed to refund) on the Packers bets.
IIRC, there was a problem with the first ever sudden death NFL game (it was an NFL championship game in the 1950s, I think); the favorite covered the spread with the game-winning TD, but the losing team's backers claimed that they had beaten the spread when the game ended in regulation. I'm not sure how that was handled.
Quote: ThatDonGuyand if they pay off on the Seahawks bets, they are required to collect (as opposed to refund) on the Packers bets.
May I ask for a source on that?
Packers have only themselves to blame after playing such a lousy game.
As you might expect there were many complaints to Gaming. Gaming ruled that each sportsbook had a right to make it's own decision based on it's own rules.
http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/09/11/pac-12-changes-uscutah-final-score-sportsbooks-forced-to-choose-which-score-to-use/
Quote: kewljGaming ruled that each sportsbook had a right to make it's own decision based on it's own rules.
That is fine, but I think each sports book should have a policy in advance about how to handle changes in the score after the fact. It wouldn't surprise me if some don't have a policy in writing. With the kickoff debacle of the 2009 Super Bowl I got the impression that many sports books made their own ruling out of thin air. There can not be any doubt about a sports book deciding a bet based on which way they would make the most money.
Quote: WizardThere can not be any doubt about a sports book deciding a bet based on which way they would make the most money.
There was quite a bit of this type of speculation about this particular USC incident. It just so happens that USC is one of the most wagered on college teams most week, due in part to being such a big institution with a large alumni, and it's close proximity to Las Vegas. No doubt the 17-14 final, with Southern Cal NOT covering was a bigger winner for the books.
Quote: kewljNo doubt the 17-14 final, with Southern Cal NOT covering was a bigger winner for the books.
"A supervisor at the MGM Mirage sports book told the LA Times that his book needed USC to cover the 8.5 points, and said the disallowed touchdown “killed us,” as most of the action was on Utah."
Source: Pac-12 changes USC/Utah final score, sportsbooks forced to choose which score to use at NBC Sports.
A good sports book director will anticipate unbalanced demand out of fan loyalty and proximity to Vegas, and fade the line the other way to balance the action.
Quote: MoscaThing is, replays not only can't be used to call penalties, they also can't be used to determine possession. They can only be used to determine touchdown or no touchdown. Once the ref called simultaneous possession, it was over.
I didn't know that. If that is the case, I don't think the refs should be vilified as much as they are right now. Personally, I had to see the play close up and in slow motion to see that Seattle didn't maintain possession. From a distance in real time it would have been a tough call.
I do not know, are the replay officials in the booth, replacements as well?
There is more than enough blame to go around on the lockout of regular officials. I place most of the blame on the rules of and inconstancy of them from level to level. It seems to me that in most major sports, soccer, basketball, baseball that the rules are extremely consistent from level to level. Sure dimensions change from the age of 11 to professionals, but the rules and enforcement of them are basically the same. Baseball stadiums have "Ground Rules" at each stadium, such as the catwalks in The Trop where the Rays play baseball. BTW, a batted ball bouncing off fair ground and into the stands in not a a ground rule double, it is an automatic double. It also seems that "turning the ball over" in basketball and/or traveling have been totally ignored at the NBA level.
After watching the debacle that has been officiating the last 3 weeks, it does make it seem like the regular fellas did a helluva job.
You may say that my opinion is a stretch, but it is validated by looking at the Division 1 college officials. Their assignors are all current and former NFL officials, and they have been told that if they go work for the NFL they will be black balled.
Sorry for getting on my horse... I have officiated professional games in a different sport after grinding my way up the ladder so i kind of take some of this stuff personally.
Quote: WizardMay I ask for a source on that?
Nevada Gaming Regulation 22.125(1)(b): "No book shall agree to refund or rebate to a patron any portion or percentage of the full face value of an off-track pari-mutuel wager"
OOPS - that applies only to horse/greyhound racing, doesn't it? My mistake...
Quote: MoscaThing is, replays not only can't be used to call penalties, they also can't be used to determine possession. They can only be used to determine touchdown or no touchdown. Once the ref called simultaneous possession, it was over.
I would think that they could have reviewed and then said " after further review, the ruling on the field is reversed. the receiver did not control the ball through the catch and was actually laughably far from having control of the ball in the endzone. there is no touchdown on the play."
The majority of my anger is directed at the league for not addressing this and getting the labor situation resolved. If Goodell really wants to have any credibility as a the caretaker for the league, he need to look in the mirror and realize who is letting the league down.
Quote: slytherThe story that isn't being told is that the league wants to add 2 referee crews which would be used for training and to bench the 'regulars' for poor performance as needed. The union wants to protect their gold nugget and not allow that to happen. That's the real sticking point. They've got their nugget and they don't want to share with newer/younger guys. They don't want to foster the development of new officials. That's pretty sad for any official to do
Wait......you can't possibly be suggesting that a union is creating an artificial limitation on a new pool of employees from rising to their potential because they might challenge a few underperforming veterans for a their job? Say it ain't so!
Next your gonna say that those new guys could become as good as the veterans and also might be willing to work for less.......c'mon that is crazy talk!
Quote: rdw4potusI would think that they could have reviewed and then said " after further review, the ruling on the field is reversed. the receiver did not control the ball through the catch and was actually laughably far from having control of the ball in the endzone. there is no touchdown on the play."
LOL, that might have worked.
Wiz, once you've seen true simultaneous possession, there is no way that you would have mistaken that play for the real thing.
From the NFL rulebook Article 3, Item 5:
Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.
And that is what happened. Jennings caught the ball, THEN Tate got his hands on it. And as the refs looked down at the players, Jennings had full control of the ball, clutched to his chest, and Tate actually had his hands on the ball by possessing Jennings from behind.
That to me makes no sense as possesion surely is important to whether or not that was a touchdown. For me, (after 3 replays) it seemed to me that Golden Tate only had one hand on the ball when they all hit the ground, therefor could not have it under control, which to me means he cant be in possession, minimum should have been incomplete pass, no touchdown.
As M D Jennings had control of the ball when he landed I would call it an interception. Which would still be a no touchdown call.
Golden Tate did not get both hands on the ball until after they all landed.
I say no touchdown. And change the rules so you can determine possession from replays.
Not that I am a bitter packers fan.
Quote: CroupierNot that I am a bitter packers fan.
Well, I'm a luke-warm Seahawks fan and I still think the game was terribly called. It wasn't just the last play, either. There were several other blown PI calls, missed facemasks and general lack of precision from the officiating crew. NFL just isn't fun anymore, worrying about whether (and when) the refs are going to screw it up. I'm going to stick with NCAAF until they fix things.
Or perhaps this is a nefarious plot by the owners and the officials to create an increased level of controversy and thus attention for their product? The owners can clearly settle the officials' dispute with a snap of the fingers; it's only $3.3M, which is a drop in the bucket. Are they letting this go on for purposes of riling up their fans? Does anyone know what the TV ratings have been?
Quote: MathExtremistAre they letting this go on for purposes of riling up their fans? Does anyone know what the TV ratings have been?
As an Englishman, Im used to bad refereeing. Football with the round ball is full of it.
Not taking anything away from the teams, but I personally think that the refs are the main reason for some of the crazy results this season.
Quote: sodawaterEventually, fans' outrage will turn to indifference as this inferior product is being served to them.
Perhaps.
But, to be objective: are more people watching on TV this year than last?
If so, WTF would the owners care?
It's all about the Benjamins.
Quote: sodawater
I heard on the radio that 70% of money bet in Vegas ATS was on Packers -3 -- obviously that one play flipped the outcome of not only the game, but the line. There was also talk of sports books declaring all bets on that game "no action." Is this possible to happen? I think that would be the right thing to do to avoid the appearance of profiting from this debacle.
It would actually be a very wrong thing for a sportsbook to do. First lets look at the basics of it. A sanctioned NFL Game was played, and called by sanctioned NFL Officials. If they are regulars or not does not matter, it was all official and everyone who either made a bet or took action knew who was officiating and that there was a possibility of a blown call affecting the game. For those that "did not know" too bad, it is public information.
So say the sportsbook calls "NO ACTION." This causes a very bad precedent. What happens next time there is a bad call? What about a season where a player was found to be doping? Any reason could be given to call "NO ACTION" again.
Bottom line is grown adults made bets, the outcome happened. End of story there.
IIRC, there was discussion here on WoV way, way, way back about a bet on a season of college hoops and after the fact the "winner" was found to have violated scholarship rules. My position was that the players were known, accept the outcome. I stand the same here, bad calls happen, accept the outcome.
When he was asked about how he felt taking action himself on games that were fixed, he said " For all I know, they could
have been fixed the way I was betting "
P.S. I had Seattle LOL
Quote: MathExtremistOr perhaps this is a nefarious plot by the owners and the officials to create an increased level of controversy and thus attention for their product? The owners can clearly settle the officials' dispute with a snap of the fingers; it's only $3.3M, which is a drop in the bucket. Are they letting this go on for purposes of riling up their fans? Does anyone know what the TV ratings have been?
It is always easy to call $3,300,000 of someone else's money 'a drop in the bucket'.
edited to add: There is likely more going on in the lockout than we are aware of. Also, as bad as the officiating is, I don't think it has much of an effect on the ratings or interest in the games.
Quote: bigfoot66It is always easy to call $3,300,000 of someone else's money 'a drop in the bucket'.
It's not somebody else's money. It the chumps that buy season ticket's money.
Quote: bigfoot66It is always easy to call $3,300,000 of someone else's money 'a drop in the bucket'.
True, but this is a cost of doing business and at just over $100K per team is barely the cost of one practice squad player. I equate it to walking down the street, bending over to pick up a quarter, and thus missing a guy handing out $5 bills.
Or maybe turning off your sign to save $5 in eletricity but the public thinks you are closed.
In most labor disputes there is a sort of "hidden issue" that is what is really behind things. This issue may not even be hidden very much. In 1959 and the USW it was crew size in mills being reduced because of new technology. In 1997 it was the Teamsters not wanting UPS to leave the Teamster Pension Fund and self-manage. part of last years NFL Lockout was the 18 game season. Strikes cost both sides a fortune, so said "hidden issue" is usually very, very important.
There has to be some reason this will now chew up almost 1/4 of the season. The NFL acts like it wants cream of the crop officials, nfl.com stating (last I looked) you need 20 years at Division I to even be considered. Something is behind it all.
'Quote: sodawaterNFL annual revenue is approx. $9.5 billion. $3.3 million is 0.03474% of that. If that's not a drop in the bucket, what is?
By the way, 0.03474% of $50,000 is $17.
I think the integrity of the entire product itself is worth 0.03474 percent of revenue, don't you?
I am agnostic on the issue, I don't pretend to know or care enough about either side's position. Frankly, I am enjoying the spectacle.
You should not compare the $3.3 million to the total revenue, you need to compare it to the profits because that is where the it counts. The NFL is a very expensive operation to run and that $3 million come right out of the bottom line. Regardless, If you own a team that $100,000 is still comming out of your pocket. I don't care how much money you have, $100,000 represents a lot of value.
Stick with NCAAF, ME.Quote: MathExtremist
Or perhaps this is a nefarious plot by the owners and the officials to create an increased level of controversy and thus attention for their product? The owners can clearly settle the officials' dispute with a snap of the fingers; it's only $3.3M, which is a drop in the bucket. Are they letting this go on for purposes of riling up their fans? Does anyone know what the TV ratings have been?
The NFL is scripted. Just like the NBA.
They (NFL) have competition.
Lingerie Football League commissioner mocks NFL for its low officiating standards
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl---lingerie-football-league-commissioner-mocks-nfl-for-its-low-officiating-standards.html
Quote: bigfoot66'Quote: sodawaterNFL annual revenue is approx. $9.5 billion. $3.3 million is 0.03474% of that. If that's not a drop in the bucket, what is?
By the way, 0.03474% of $50,000 is $17.
I think the integrity of the entire product itself is worth 0.03474 percent of revenue, don't you?
I am agnostic on the issue, I don't pretend to know or care enough about either side's position. Frankly, I am enjoying the spectacle.
You should not compare the $3.3 million to the total revenue, you need to compare it to the profits because that is where the it counts. The NFL is a very expensive operation to run and that $3 million come right out of the bottom line. Regardless, If you own a team that $100,000 is still comming out of your pocket. I don't care how much money you have, $100,000 represents a lot of value.
I don't know what kind of accounting you're talking about, but when I had an accounting class I learned that you deduct costs from revenue, and then you get the profit. You don't deduct costs from profit.
Regardless, even with your backwards accounting procedures, the NFL profit is about a billion dollars per year. And that doesn't even take into account the ever-growing value of the individual franchisees,. $3 million is still a drop in the bucket -- especially when it secure the integrity of the only product you sell.
Quote: CroupierFrom my (limited) understanding ie what I heard on the TV, the offensive interference call is almost never given on the final play of a game, replays cant be used to determine possession, only to rule touchdown or no touchdown. In cases of simultaneous possesion it always goes to the attacking team.
That to me makes no sense as possesion surely is important to whether or not that was a touchdown. For me, (after 3 replays) it seemed to me that Golden Tate only had one hand on the ball when they all hit the ground, therefor could not have it under control, which to me means he cant be in possession, minimum should have been incomplete pass, no touchdown.
As M D Jennings had control of the ball when he landed I would call it an interception. Which would still be a no touchdown call.
Golden Tate did not get both hands on the ball until after they all landed.
I say no touchdown. And change the rules so you can determine possession from replays.
Not that I am a bitter packers fan.
You don't need to have two hands on the ball to have possession. To have possession on a catch you must maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground. I've watched it a few times now. I'd need the reverse angle to be sure, but Jennings maintains possession all the way down. Tate does not. No TD.
The NFL should hire decently skilled referees. They have to do it for players, and clearly the refs they have now are not suitable for the job. Thus they can hire from the Union (which can be seen as nothing more than a company that supplies qualified referees) or not. If there's a monopoly situation, then the alternative is for someone to set up a company (Union) in competition. But sometimes, there's only one source of supply.
While I don't know much about the issues regarding this strike either, in general I support an owner's right to replace striking workers as much as I support the right to strike in the first place. At the risk of getting off topic, I loved it when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Union members should understand their collective bargaining power only goes so far, and if they push it too hard then they will all be out of a job. In this particular case, I am not taking a stand for now. I'll just say that the NFL has a tough decision to make after last week.
I also wonder if betting the overs is a good play, given the lack of control on the field, unless everybody else is already thinking the same thing and driving up the line. Here are the average points per game by season. Note how this season has a full three points more per game than last season.
| Season | Average |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 41.09 |
| 2001 | 40.54 |
| 2002 | 43.72 |
| 2003 | 41.79 |
| 2004 | 43.15 |
| 2005 | 41.15 |
| 2006 | 41.51 |
| 2007 | 43.39 |
| 2008 | 43.98 |
| 2009 | 43.16 |
| 2010 | 44.28 |
| 2011 | 44.49 |
| 2012 | 47.65 |
Quote: sodawaterQuote: bigfoot66'Quote: sodawaterNFL annual revenue is approx. $9.5 billion. $3.3 million is 0.03474% of that. If that's not a drop in the bucket, what is?
By the way, 0.03474% of $50,000 is $17.
I think the integrity of the entire product itself is worth 0.03474 percent of revenue, don't you?
I am agnostic on the issue, I don't pretend to know or care enough about either side's position. Frankly, I am enjoying the spectacle.
You should not compare the $3.3 million to the total revenue, you need to compare it to the profits because that is where the it counts. The NFL is a very expensive operation to run and that $3 million come right out of the bottom line. Regardless, If you own a team that $100,000 is still comming out of your pocket. I don't care how much money you have, $100,000 represents a lot of value.
I don't know what kind of accounting you're talking about, but when I had an accounting class I learned that you deduct costs from revenue, and then you get the profit. You don't deduct costs from profit.
Regardless, even with your backwards accounting procedures, the NFL profit is about a billion dollars per year. And that doesn't even take into account the ever-growing value of the individual franchisees,. $3 million is still a drop in the bucket -- especially when it secure the integrity of the only product you sell.
I am making a very simple point that you should be able to understand. The goal of a business is to profit. If I am profiting $10 million a year and my costs increase $3 million ceteris paribus I have lost 30% of my profit. It does not matter if the total revenue is $12 million, $100 million, or $10 billion. Consider that the airline industry has always had very large revenues too and yet airlines are traditionally a bad investment because the profits are not so good. Would you prefer to own a business with huge revenues and tiny profits or a business with smaller revenues that generated larger profits?
