Omg!!!!!

[SiteWolf]

Huge can of distasteful worms to reverse a game's outcome IMO. The league does that, and there are coaches from other games telling them they have to review their game to determine whether blown calls effected the outcome....and there have been, they just weren't on the last play of a nationally televised game.

Seattle outplayed the Packers in that game. Ending up with a win is only a tough pill to swallow for a Packers fan..the rest of us just don't want it to happen to our team.

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Huge can of distasteful worms to reverse a game's outcome IMO. The league does that, and there are coaches from other games telling them they have to review their game to determine whether blown calls effected the outcome....and there have been, they just weren't on the last play of a nationally televised game.

In the case on Monday night...

I think the NFL officials had ample time to get it right and chose not too... heck, there was a lengthy delay to get the teams back on the field to kick a meaningless extra point with no time remaining.

I don't think games should be reviewed after they are "final" other than for learning purposes.

I think there should be some sort of "chain of command" when it comes to a situation like this... in the NHL all their reviews are done from a building in Toronto. I would think the NFL could implement something where they literally have 2 review crews ... one of which is in New York with league officials. If the on-site replay crew does not properly address a particular issue, the offsite review crew could interject and communicate with the crew on the field the proper ruling.

The problem we have, is trying to fix something that is already an incorrect call...now, they are trying to fix 2 incorrect decisions and are they ever going to be able to do that?

And again, I think to some degree the NFL likes the controversy. I've seen that viewership is up 8% from last year on their Sunday Night Games, which was already the most watched show on TV. Owners and the league may seem just as angry as you about the replacement refs, but they are the ones laughing all the way to the bank.

[yon Beast]

...jumping in late (fishing season)

What no-one has done that I can see....is be thankful the season started on time!!

I am.

I think they served the purpose they were intended...which was to derail an ill-timed strike and start season on time.

I'm not sure who I'm mad at in hockey...pretty sure I wouldn't be alone.

[TheWinman]

Maybe i'm changing my mind about the real refs. Lol. Only saying maybe because these refs had no preseason so i cam sort of see some bad calls.

[SayOw]

In the games I watched, it was difficult for me to notice a difference between these union refs and the replacement refs...but of course the union refs aren't under the microscope like the replacement...

The union refs didn't have a controversial, game ending play to create any uproar, but if you ask me, there were plenty of noticeable errors in several of the games I viewed yesterday.

I'm also interested in hearing who ESPN blames tonight for a 3+ hour football game...it sure as heck isn't ESPN and their 30th commercial break of the quarter.

[TheWinman]

From what I'm hearing is that the flow of the game was much better with the union refs. I only saw the end of the GB/NO game and part of last night's game so that was not enough for me to make a conclusion. You still must factor in that the union refs had no preseason games under their belt, this was there first game since the end of last year, there is no way they are going to be on the top of their game. I do think this week and only this week only the union refs were/are under a microscope.

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by TheWinman

You still must factor in that the union refs had no preseason games under their belt, this was there first game since the end of last year, there is no way they are going to be on the top of their game.

No, I don't think I need to factor in that the union ref's had no preseason...the replacement refs had ZERO experience going into the season. The union refs have YEARS and YEARS of experience. I find it difficult to believe a 15 year NFL referee needs a "few games under their belt" to figure out how to officiate again. The union refs are the same ones they always have been...more than willing to throw their flag to determine the outcome of the game...something the replacement refs were more reluctant to do, imo. Good? Better? Worse? Purely subjective call.

The union refs screw up every week, just like the replacement refs...to say they are better than the replacement is still just a subjective call.

If you want to say that the union refs screwed up and made the incorrect call faster than the replacement refs and that improved the flow of the game, I'll give you that...

[TheWinman]

Game speed!!!! That is all I can say and why you need at least one game preseason under your belt. Replacement refs had four games of preseason experience and had been college refs and or refs in other leagues, so they do have some experience.

Never disagreed that union refs don't make mistakes but it was painfully obvious that the replacement refs made more and had a hard time with some basic rules.