toldailytopic: Should the NFL overturn last night's Packers vs. Seahawks game and awa

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 25th, 2012 09:44 AM

toldailytopic: Should the NFL overturn last night's Packers vs. Seahawks game and award the victory to Green Bay?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[WizardofOz]

I am a huge Packer fan, but no. The call was wrong but the league should not (can not) reverse the call.

They had their chance to get it right and blew it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No. The NFL was unable to reach agreement with its refs so they hired replacement refs. Those refs made the call and it should stand. If they don't want more fiascoes such as this then maybe they should consider settling with the refs.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

...maybe they should consider settling with the refs.

They ARE trying to settle with the refs. Apparently the refs refuse to budge on transitioning from their ridiculously generous pension plan to a more reasonable 401K plan.

Don't blame the NFL on this one. This is another example of union thuggery.

 

[CabinetMaker]

They ARE trying to settle with the refs. Apparently the refs refuse to budge on transitioning from their ridiculously generous pension plan to a more reasonable 401K plan.

Don't blame the NFL on this one. This is another example of union thuggery.

Unions have reached a point where they do far more harm to this nation and their members than should be allowed. They need to be broken. I think the NFL should just terminate the contract and fire the refs and go with the ones they have right now. These new refs will learn and their calls will get better as they gain experience. If the old refs want their old jobs back they will just have to reapply.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Unions have reached a point where they do far more harm to this nation and their members than should be allowed. They need to be broken. I think the NFL should just terminate the contract and fire the refs and go with the ones they have right now. These new refs will learn and their calls will get better as they gain experience. If the old refs want their old jobs back they will just have to reapply.

POTD :first:

 

[kmoney]

No they shouldn't overturn the call. I would be afraid that would begin a precedent and I'm not sure where that would go.

 

[Granite]

No they shouldn't overturn the call. I would be afraid that would begin a precedent and I'm not sure where that would go.

Agreed. They made the wrong call but they're stuck with it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No they shouldn't overturn the call. I would be afraid that would begin a precedent and I'm not sure where that would go.

Agreed. They made the wrong call but they're stuck with it.

I have a question....

They said the review in the booth could not overturn the call on the field. Okay, I get that. However, there were TWO calls on the field, one ref called a touchdown and the other called a interception. Why couldn't they side with the interception call instead of the touchdown call?

 

[kmoney]

Unions have reached a point where they do far more harm to this nation and their members than should be allowed. They need to be broken. I think the NFL should just terminate the contract and fire the refs and go with the ones they have right now. These new refs will learn and their calls will get better as they gain experience. If the old refs want their old jobs back they will just have to reapply.

I think that is a bad idea. It can take a long time to become an accurate and efficient ref. It doesn't seem like these guys are on the verge of having everything down. It wouldn't be good to keep this level of performance going on. It could cost injuries, more lost games. These refs are getting bullied and it appears as though the home crowds are influencing the calls too. The sides just need to come to an agreement.

Honestly, I think I'd rather have Goodell cancel all games until the real refs are back instead of your plan.

 

[kmoney]

I have a question....

They said the review in the booth could not overturn the call on the field. Okay, I get that. However, there were TWO calls on the field, one ref called a touchdown and the other called a interception. Why couldn't they side with the interception call instead of the touchdown call?

Good question. :idunno:

 

[Granite]

I have a question....

They said the review in the booth could not overturn the call on the field. Okay, I get that. However, there were TWO calls on the field, one ref called a touchdown and the other called a interception. Why couldn't they side with the interception call instead of the touchdown call?

I want to say that the ref who initially signalled a pick changed his mind and eventually signalled a TD (I half-watched the highlights this morning) so maybe he decided he'd made a mistaken initial call and stood by his ruling of a touchdown.

 

[drbrumley]

I have a question....

They said the review in the booth could not overturn the call on the field. Okay, I get that.

Me too.

However, there were TWO calls on the field, one ref called a touchdown and the other called a interception.

Not officially. The ruling on the field was a catch, and touchdown. The other refs call was meaningless. And by looking at it, it didn't even look like the back judge didnt even call a pick. He just threw his arms up to stop play.

Why couldn't they side with the interception call instead of the touchdown call?

Like Mike Trico said, the ruling on the field determines why it is going to the booth. The ruling, a catch and touchdown.

On a side note, I think it is proper call. Either call was the right call since it was both players control the ball AS their feet hit the ground. And we all know ties go the offense.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not officially. The ruling on the field was a catch, and touchdown. The other refs call was meaningless. And by looking at it, it didn't even look like called a pick. He just threw his arms up to stop play.

I thought the black ref was calling "touchback" which was the appropriate call.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

On a side note, I think it is proper call. Either call was the right call since it was both players control the ball AS their feet hit the ground. And we all know ties go the offense.

Yikes. I didn't see it that way at all. I didn't see the offensive player have any control of the ball. The Seahawk player was merely touching the ball with his hand. The Green Bay Player actually caught the ball and brought it into his chest.

 

[drbrumley]

I thought the black ref was calling "touchback" which was the appropriate call.

In order for it be a be a touchback, a signal must be given that a change of possession took place. :idunno:

 

[Granite]

Yikes. I didn't see it that way at all. I didn't see the offensive player have any control of the ball. The Seahawk player was merely touching the ball with his hand. The Green Bay Player actually caught the ball and brought it into his chest.

Let alone the fact that the refs missed Tate's offensive pass interference. The Packer got to the ball first (barely) and Tate didn't maintain possession on his way to the ground. Horrible, horrible, complete botch of a call.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In order for it be a be a touchback, a signal must be given that a change of possession took place. :idunno:

True, but still the black ref's call was closer to accurate than the other guy who looked like he thought the black ref was gonna call touchdown so he just threw up his arms (he had no clue).

 

[drbrumley]

Let alone the fact that the refs missed Tate's offensive pass interference. The Packer got to the ball first (barely) and Tate didn't maintain possession on his way to the ground. Horrible, horrible, complete botch of a call.

No, the ball NEVER hit the ground. And the ball never got out of bounds. Someone had to make the catch. (See below in response to Knight)

Yikes. I didn't see it that way at all. I didn't see the offensive player have any control of the ball. The Seahawk player was merely touching the ball with his hand. The Green Bay Player actually caught the ball and brought it into his chest.

Tate didn't have possession while he was in the air. Jennings didn't have possession while he is in the air. Where was the ball as the feet (being down by contact) hit the ground. Both players had both hands on the ball as thier feet hit. It was the proper call. Just my opinion. If this was played in Green Bay, the call probably would have went the other way and I would say the same thing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Let alone the fact that the refs missed Tate's offensive pass interference.

Yeah, that was blatant but I've never seen that call made on a hail Mary pass so that one didn't surprise me that much.