These refs have got to go

[Riverboat Ron]

Giving into unions is why this country sucks and you want the NFL to give into a union that couldn't do their jobs well enough to begin with and had pet teams (steelers always getting a yard extra on the spot)

Still willing to watch the entire season with them.

So you're cool with Julio Jones getting laid out and having to go to the hospital like Heyward-Bey and no flag being thrown? The Steelers v. Raiders game was a fiasco when considering how the NFL has been obsessed about player safety and it's pretty clear these refs have lesser abilities to judge.

[Matthias]

If I was the owner of a team, I sure as hell wouldn't want my coach to make that decision for me. If I want to suddenly boycott (even for one game that was already lost) the ref's ruling to send a message to Roger Goodell and the NFL, I sure as hell would want to be the one making that call. I don't think it would have been smart for McCarthy to make that decision himself. He did a good job keeping his cool.

What the Packer's owner is going to do to McCarthy? If he fired him, he would have another job within seconds. You have to stand for what's right, and not going back out there would have been the right thing to do if your McCarthy.

[BBQ&Beer]

Giving into unions is why this country sucks and you want the NFL to give into a union that couldn't do their jobs well enough to begin with and had pet teams (steelers always getting a yard extra on the spot)

Still willing to watch the entire season with them.

So the fact that the non union refs are doing a much worse job than the union refs is an example of why unions are bad?

[cammycamjooce]

packers fans

[Marguide]

Tate still reached in while Jennings was still in the air. You can't "complete" an interception while still in the air, the same way a receiver can't complete a pass before making it to the ground.

I'll bet tomorrow, the vast majority of football analysts agree with me that GB got jobbed.

[BIGH2001]

Jesus megdeth are you just trying to be a contrarian or are you really that stupid?

[megadeth078]

I'll bet tomorrow, the vast majority of football analysts agree with me that GB got jobbed.

I can analyze football too. I don't care. GB getting jobbed is a more interesting story anyhow. They're automatically going to go down that route. They don't care about being right.

Jesus megdeth are you just trying to be a contrarian or are you really that stupid?

Not sure how I upset you. You could always disagree and say why. That would be cool.

[JCNurse]

I saw that coming

---Ray Charles

[SgtJoo]

A catch is not completed until the player is down and maintains possession. That is true. And yes, the rule is the tie on simultaneous possession goes to the receiver. But in this case there was no tie. The defender had the ball intercepted and kept possession all the way to the ground. He had both his hands on it. Only after it was intercepted did Tate reach in and also get his two hands on the remaining parts of the ball.

At least, that is how I would have ruled in my unprofessional capacity.

Yep.

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

[pantherclaw]

If both players have their hands on the ball, regardless of who has "more" of a possession, doesn't the ball automatically go to the receiver? I thought that was the rule so that there would never be any doubt or a judgement call on this. Am I making this stuff up? I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere.

not only that, but what ISN'T being mentioned, the player must go to the ground with control of the ball. The defensive back didn't have solo possession going to the ground. Rule reads, the catch goes to the offense. Period.

This is why the defensive back just should have batted the ball away.

[SgtJoo]

not only that, but what ISN'T being mentioned, the player must go to the ground with control of the ball. The defensive back didn't have solo possession going to the ground. Rule reads, the catch goes to the offense. Period.

This is why the defensive back just should have batted the ball away.

Not true. If the defender establishes control of the ball first and the receiver gets it back, it's not considered simultaneous possession. It's an interception.

[YoungPanthers89]

[BBQ&Beer]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5

"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both 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,"

[Matthias]