Boycott the Saints Game !!!

A good game? Or 60 minutes of frustration, blown calls, make up calls? All they care about is money. They showed that today when the nfl backed up the foot locker rejects.

Count me out. This dispute should be solved as a result of BOTH sides bridging the gap, not just one. You can gripe about the NFL being greedy all you want, but so is the NFLRA.

Someone else is going to end up taking your seat, so I don't think its going to really matter. The NFL didn't care that they caused the worst single call in NFL History. They won't care if you don't show up to a game

You're right. If the NFLRA really cared about the "integrity of the game" as they claim, then they'd be willing to negotiate. But their refusal to offer any concessions proves all they really care about is more money. But what do you expect from a bunch of lawyers?

That is true. Why take it out on the team when it's the refs that are messing up.

You could look at it that way or you could look at it as the NFL, multi-billion dollar company, refusing to concede. The rumor is that the NFL and NFLRA are arguing over $47M over 7 years. A billion dollar industry is hageling over $7/M a year. That's SAD.

Apparently, you're too young to remember the Jerry Rice Fumble game.

Then there was the Calvin Johnson call that cost the Lions a game.

There was the obviously fumble by Cutler that Ed Hoculi inexplicably called dead.

There was the Tuck Rule Game, which Woodson said was worse.

And then there's the REAL worst call... Bottlegate.

Forget rumors. How about some facts instead? There is also the fact that the officials refuse to work full-time and they refuse to allow performance evaluations that have any meaning. They also say a 401(k) with 25% contribution from the NFL isn't enough. Instead they demand a full pension for a PART-TIME job! They also refuse to allow 2 backup crews. And we're talking about wealthy lawyers here. No sympathy from me. There is plenty of room for both sides to make concessions and both should, NOT just one side. Until the NFLRA are ready to NEGOTIATE, let them sit.

By your logic, if Walmart's cashiers all demanded to be paid $50/hr. then they should do it.

You have to figure that real in your face violence courtesy of Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Brees will really get people talking!

It's like we are becoming the NBA at times here lately.And last nights game was of course the most brutal display of stupidity but this is stuff is happening in all games all the time since the season started.

And what about gambling? Are these refs gambling?

And are the refs scared of home crowds?

Last night was pretty bad but imagine how much worse it can get.We could have some things happen in the playoffs that made the Tuck Rule look like patty cake.

I don't see how you made that inference, but I'm not getting into with you again because it's useless.

I'm just saying pay the refs so that crap like last night doesn't happen again. Both sides need to come to some agreement soon.

They're already the highest paid officials in the world. That said, the "Both sides.." part is on target. Not one side or the other... BOTH.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...nflra-negotiations-what-do-the-real-refs-want

I am a saints fan and someone started this petition. Get everyone you know to sign it also contact other teams fan forums. it is time to take a stand. I am still upset about last night and what happened to you guys.http://www.petitiononline.com/RemoveRG/petition.html

Shareholders are part of the owners....

If you digest the play in sections ITS A TOUCHDOWN. Forget the pass interference that is PI plain and simple. But to say these refs blew the call is wrong.

This play went as follows Seattle's QB passes in the endzone. Yes Tate comits PI but I believe the refs are concentrating on the ball up in the air. Greenbay's Jennings makes a great leap and gets both hands cleanly on the ball. At the same time Golden Tate is also in the Air and manages to get one hand on the ball. To this the rule reads as follow.

A player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch listed here.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

When Tate is in the air he only has one hand on the ball. He lands with both feet at the same time and imediatedly grabs the ball with his free hand. At this time Tate has possesion of the ball with both hands on the ball and both feet inbounds. Tate then pulls the ball down towards him and this causes Jennings who is still airborne to be pulled forward and lands on one foot only. So in reality Tate is the first player to get possesion of the ball. Not until Tate is on his back does Jennings knee finally comes down and he now is also in possesion acoording to the rules. At this time both guys clearly have both hands on the ball and have both feet or another part of the body besides the hands come down in bounds (Jennings). At this point is when the simultaneous catch happens and the following rule applies.


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. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

So as I explained it the ref did an excellent job interpreting the rule as it reads. What I don't understand is how the NFL cannot see this and basically save them the embarressment they have been going through.

I'm not sure I agree with that. One of the main sticking points of the NFLRA is about the way that the owners want to restructure their retirement into a 401k that would effectively amount to worse retirement package. Also, the argument of the refs is that the NFL has been pulling down record profits, so why shouldn't they get a raise? That's greed, but it's reasonable greed. It's not like they're asking for a salary comparable to any NFL player.

And it was the owners who locked them out, the refs did not go on strike.

Dufass-- the ref was not from the lingerie league, that guy has not set foot on the field. But he as almost as stupid as you. Your argument is predicated on the fact that control is only established by touching the ground with both feet. If that were the case why would they have made three conditions a)control, b)land and c)maintain

o.k. gang,
The nfl isn't going to fess up. And they aren't going to pony up either. So it's up to the fans. I for one am not going to not watch the games. Just the opposite. I'll watch and record the advertisers who pay to put this joke of a game on the air. Look for the list of those to boycott right here next week. -- If you pay to advertise on the packers games, you have been warned.

The only reason this is a touchdown (which I do agree) is the chimps in the zebra outfits got the call wrong.