quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

The refs hand another one to the Pukers. What a bunch of crap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

Those who think that the Packers systematically benefit from calls per NFL policy, please explain exactly how you think this goes down. Memos? Meetings? Secret hand signals? How exactly does this get communicated to the officials? How do they ensure that not a single ref squeals to the press or lets it slip during the course of a game?

Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please?

Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.

Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo, you've never had a meal?

Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.

Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?

Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.

Kaffee: No more questions.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

Bohumm, it must have been a little too obvious last night, as ESPN did a segment this afternoon on how the refs helped the Packers win. [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

I embrace 'tin-foil-hat land', as many seem closed off to the idea of other possibilities, or something not in the realm of 'normal' discussion.

A possible 'sway' to insure a Packer win, that seemed ok with the Lions covering the spread, hard to say. Keep the home team happy, the Packers bring a lot of fans to other stadiums, they're great for the NFL, they almost filled half of Texas stadium last week.

Maybe there have been other 'sways' going on, but the teams the refs helped, didn't need as much help as the Packers minus Adams needed, so those 'sways' were less noticeable.

I am not sure why the ref bias, it just seemed like it was there. I would lean towards the Packers having more likeable players, the Lions might have some real jerks on the team that turned off sone officials, and it really just takes ONE jerk to accomplish that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I don't think it's fair to ask someone to explain the ins and outs of how something happens as a way to definitely prove it didn't happen. I can't explain the ins and outs of how my TV works and yet night after night there it is with bright lights that create moving images and sounds and what have you.

The Bears fans say it's Green Bay. The Vikings fans say it's Green Bay. The Lions fans say it's Green Bay. Green Bay fans retort with 'there were a couple of games in the last ten years where we got screwed too'. There's something to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I don't think it's fair to ask someone to explain the ins and outs of how something happens as a way to definitely prove it didn't happen. I can't explain the ins and outs of how my TV works and yet night after night there it is with bright lights that create moving images and sounds and what have you.

The Bears fans say it's Green Bay. The Vikings fans say it's Green Bay. The Lions fans say it's Green Bay. Green Bay fans retort with 'there were a couple of games in the last ten years where we got screwed too'. There's something to it.

But do you really think the refs get instructions to favor the Packers? That's the only way it works, and it strains credulity that it persists over decades with no one finding out.

BTW, the entire NFC East says the same thing about the Cowboys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

It's probably similar to the weird baseball truism that some pitchers get strike calls that others don't. If you're a grizzled veteran with a lengthy and winning career - the umps give you strike calls that the rookies don't get. Nevermind that it wasn't actually a strike - you get that call and everyone kind of knowingly nods that it is just something you do for the aces.

Probably the same thing in football. Unwritten, but generally agreed upon, that some favored quarterbacks or teams just get those calls. And when the refs do it, they don't think about what they are stealing from another team that has been playing their hearts out only to lose because a ref thought it's the right thing to do to show favoritism to the aces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

It's probably similar to the weird baseball truism that some pitchers get strike calls that others don't. If you're a grizzled veteran with a lengthy and winning career - the umps give you strike calls that the rookies don't get. Nevermind that it wasn't actually a strike - you get that call and everyone kind of knowingly nods that it is just something you do for the aces.

Probably the same thing in football. Unwritten, but generally agreed upon, that some favored quarterbacks or teams just get those calls. And when the refs do it, they don't think about what they are stealing from another team that has been playing their hearts out only to lose because a ref thought it's the right thing to do to show favoritism to the aces.

I agree that some players benefit from calls because of their history and that the home team gets calls because of the psychological impact of the crowd on the refs, but this is different than an explicit conspiracy to help some teams win over time. If true, it's the WWE (which the NFL verges more toward with each passing day, so maybe I'm undercutting my own argument here).

If this conspiracy is true, it has to be conveyed somehow. How do you think it happens? "Unwritten, but generally agreed upon" does not explain how this has happened across decades, different generations of refs, different personnel in the league office, etc. The parameters of the conspiracy have to be conveyed somehow for it to exist at all and then be perpetuated over time; how do we think this happens logistically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

Ref stands next to the QB all day ….
Who's going to get the calls?
Rogers or Stafford?
Rogers or Cousins?
Rogers or Daniels?
Pretty simple to me. There's intimidation going on. Totally my opinion, but that's what I see. I don't think they meet and intend to steer things one way, I think they are intimidated into it.
By reputation, repetition, and environment. Its human nature for ref crews to want to get out of places unscathed. easiest way to do that is to cater to the momentum and the atmosphere.
And they've crossed over now to where its expected. So good luck ever changing it.
Teams need to coach differently going into GB. The Lions stupidly expected a fair shake. You can't treat it the same.
You better have a bigger lead. you can't settle for FGs. You can't expect field position will keep your lead. Teams go in there and play right into their hands by playing it safe.
The most enjoyable Viking games there only happened when we went in and took no prisoners early.
There's no "hanging on" there. You go in, you punch them in the mouth and you don't let up until the game ends.

Great observation Lynn
Other sports the same way
Strike zones in Boston and NY are totally controlled by the atmosphere, imo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I remember playing the Packers in Minneapolis when we had Shainco in 2010. There was a play where a Packer receiver clearly did NOT make a catch in the endzone but they gave them the TD anyway. Later there was a catch in the endzone by Shainco that clearly WAS a catch but they ruled it not a catch even after review. It was the difference in the game which in turn led to the difference in the Packers making the playoffs or not. They won the Super Bowl that year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I remember playing the Packers in Minneapolis when we had Shainco in 2010. There was a play where a Packer receiver clearly did NOT make a catch in the endzone but they gave them the TD anyway. Later there was a catch in the endzone by Shainco that clearly WAS a catch but they ruled it not a catch even after review. It was the difference in the game which in turn led to the difference in the Packers making the playoffs or not. They won the Super Bowl that year.

I remember that too. If it's a conspiracy and not bad officiating, how does it play out?

Also, what about last year when a Cousins interception at the end of the game was called back because of an extremely borderline roughing call? Did that ref not get the memo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I remember playing the Packers in Minneapolis when we had Shainco in 2010. There was a play where a Packer receiver clearly did NOT make a catch in the endzone but they gave them the TD anyway. Later there was a catch in the endzone by Shainco that clearly WAS a catch but they ruled it not a catch even after review. It was the difference in the game which in turn led to the difference in the Packers making the playoffs or not. They won the Super Bowl that year.

I remember that too. If it's a conspiracy and not bad officiating, how does it play out?

Also, what about last year when a Cousins interception at the end of the game was called back because of an extremely borderline roughing call? Did that ref not get the memo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I remember playing the Packers in Minneapolis when we had Shainco in 2010. There was a play where a Packer receiver clearly did NOT make a catch in the endzone but they gave them the TD anyway. Later there was a catch in the endzone by Shainco that clearly WAS a catch but they ruled it not a catch even after review. It was the difference in the game which in turn led to the difference in the Packers making the playoffs or not. They won the Super Bowl that year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

Another thing that has always bothered me is the occurrence of game-changing plays by the rules that screwed the Vikings big-time, and resulted in rules changes for the next season.

3 off the top of my head:

The game against Arizona, last game of the regular season, last play of the game, Zona's receiver catches a hail maryish pass as he is going OOBs in the endzone, there's contact with the Vikes defender, refs rule the receiver got pushed OOBs, so it's a TD, Pukers into the playoffs, Vikings out. That off-season NFL removes the "push out" subjectiveness from receivers getting down in bounds.

The NFC championship game 2009, bogus PI on Ben Leber in OT puts NO in FG position to win the game. That off-season NFL changes OT rules so a FG on the initial drive does not win it, and the other team gets a possession.

Game at Lameblow, Pukers TE catches a pass in the EZ called a TD, replay shows he was clearly bobbling the ball all through falling OOBs, but no challenge from Vikes probably due to insufficient video availability, Vikes lose 28-24. That off-season the NFL changes the rules so that all scoring plays will be officially reviewed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

FOX Sports rules analyst Mike Pereira has proposed a sky judge.

“Not a replay official,” he told me in the wake of the Nikell Robey-Coleman fiasco in the NFC Championship game, “an eighth official, part of the crew, travels with the crew … and give him the ability to be on site in an enclosed booth with a technician, to look at the play on television in real time and correct obvious mistakes that are big plays and involve player safety and pass interference, and be able to correct some of this stuff. … He’s able to, in 15 seconds’ time, correct a mistake. I think that’s what needs to be done, quite frankly, to win back the confidence to a degree. It’ll look a little strange, but it won’t happen more than probably two or three times a game. It’s kind of a fail-safe to me.”