1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Officials tried and failed to give game to Cowboys

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by GoPGo, Dec 15, 2013.

  1. GoPGo
    Offline

    GoPGo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    980
    Ratings:
    +454 / 77 / -13
    Packer Fan Since:
    1972
    Between numerous uncalled holds in the first half, particularly against Daniels, the encroachment that was an obvious false start, the Tramon INT that was overturned on very shaky visual evidence and the OBVIOUS Tramon INT that was called incomplete, this crew undoubtedly favored Dallas in the most blatant ways. Without that timeout they probably would have ignored the buzz from upstairs and said it was too late to review the play.

    Absolutely disgusting officiating.
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. yooperpackfan
    Offline

    yooperpackfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Upper Michigan
    Ratings:
    +200 / 7 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1956
    I ordinarily don't have a thing about officiating deciding games but in this case I do believe they tried to give it to Dallas.
  3. PackwillBEback
    Offline

    PackwillBEback Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    401
    Ratings:
    +31 / 1 / -0
    That was not an INT by Tramon. Ball moved and was touching ground too.
    And there is nothing the officials on the field can do about the late buzzing. They cannot hold up the game to wait for a non-automatic review. It wasn't called a turnover or a score on the field.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Zartan
    Offline

    Zartan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Ratings:
    +125 / 11 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    Also dont forget the No Calls that went our way also.
  5. GoPGo
    Offline

    GoPGo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    980
    Ratings:
    +454 / 77 / -13
    Packer Fan Since:
    1972
    Such as?
  6. GeeDogWarrior
    Offline

    GeeDogWarrior 0 - 0

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    Titletown, Mexico
    Ratings:
    +139 / 2 / -1
    I think Brad's hold on Witten - but aside from that ... the BS Call Teeter-Tatter was in favor of the 'Boys today.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. GoPGo
    Offline

    GoPGo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    980
    Ratings:
    +454 / 77 / -13
    Packer Fan Since:
    1972
    The standard is "indisputable visual evidence," not "maybe," not "probably". Indisputable. And it wasn't. I've seen calls like that upheld almost every week.

    The officials hurried the ball to the line. The clock wasn't running. Often on close calls like that they will take their time on the spot if the clock isn't running. But they hurried it. They tried to beat the buzz and forced us to call a timeout. And the INT was clear. The damn side judge knew it too and inexplicably called it incomplete.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Fazeman
    Offline

    Fazeman Setting The Pace

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Ratings:
    +20 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1967
    Also, the NFL needs to implement booth reviews for officials during the two minute warning.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,168
    Ratings:
    +757 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    They could try not calling a ball incomplete that, you know, never hit the ground. Especially when the side judge was staring right at it 10 feet away with a great angle on it. Then the buzz would be a moot point if they actually called it correctly on the field.

    Are you actually a Packer fan? That's two occasions you've defended the officials today. I mean I get that you don't like people complaining about officiating but today was about as blatant as you'll ever see. It was more than just the two plays.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,168
    Ratings:
    +757 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    I agree with you on both points, and I've called you out in the past for complaining about officials.

    There was not one single replay on Tramon's first INT that actually showed the ball contacting the ground, which is sort of necessary to call an incomplete pass. I'm sick of replay officials taking the game and putting it in their hands. If you can't tell for sure, 100%, it stands. Period. You don't get to make a decision, if it doesn't show something 100%, you leave it alone.

    And the side judge most certainly, and inexplicably, blew the call. It was not a difficult call. He was nearby and staring right at it. He never actually saw the ball hit the ground because again, it obviously never did.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Jordyruns
    Offline

    Jordyruns Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    Ratings:
    +158 / 7 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1997
    The only problem I had with the Tramon INT being overturned was that they called it an INT on the field and I did not think there was enough to overturn it. Just the same if they had called it incomplete I would have said there was not enough to overturn it and make it an INT.

    Oh well no use in crying over spilled milk after a victory.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,168
    Ratings:
    +757 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Yeah, if they had called incomplete on the field I would have no problem with it standing.

    Its supposed to be "indisputable evidence.". That was not there. I've DVRed it and looked at it plenty. You never actually see the ball contact the ground.

    Too many officials ignore the "indisputable evidence" and just go with "whatever I think."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Bensalama21
    Offline

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings:
    +585 / 13 / -0
    Exactly why we are accusing them of it... with the new replay rules, they should always call every touchdown or turnover good if it's too close to call because they will review it anyways.
  14. Bensalama21
    Offline

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings:
    +585 / 13 / -0
    You may be joking (or maybe not) but the NFL would be better off if they did this.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Fazeman
    Offline

    Fazeman Setting The Pace

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Ratings:
    +20 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1967
    I don't understand some of these rules, but a potential turnover should be automatically reviewed by the booth replay assistant who is part of the officiating team. Sometimes, this assistant doesn't see everything and has to make a quick judgment call before the next play. In this case, the onus is on the Packers to prove their argument by calling a timeout. What a waste!
  16. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,694
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    1st int it hit the ground.

    The nfl is going look into having people in a central location reviewing plays
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Fazeman
    Offline

    Fazeman Setting The Pace

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Ratings:
    +20 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1967
    Glass bottom football field?:)
    • Creative Creative x 1
  18. 7thFloorRA
    Offline

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,503
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +649 / 42 / -2
    It probably did but from the angles we saw you have to assume it hit the ground. I don't think there was concrete evidence to overturn but they just connected the dots from what they could see. It could have been called either way probably.
  19. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,168
    Ratings:
    +757 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Exactly. Please show me a picture or video, any, of the ball actually coming in contact with the ground and I'll change my opinion and say it was indisputable.
  20. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,694
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    I see the nose on the ground...Not sure how the rule states this..but I would say he didnt catch because the nose is clearly on the ground and no hands under it..

    In chat I too said that it can go either way..

    If this was Nelson it would be ruled an incomplete pass too
    Capture.JPG
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,694
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975

    LOL just posted a pic from my replay
  22. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,168
    Ratings:
    +757 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Thanks, that is the first picture I've seen that clearly shows the football touch the ground. I didn't see that on any of the replays, but I feel better about the call now. Still not really sure it was "indisputable", but that helps clear it up.
  23. Raptorman
    Offline

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    Vero Beach, FL
    Ratings:
    +713 / 20 / -11
    Disagree. They hurried up because the Cowboys were in a hurry up offense and it was under 2 minutes. The side judge probably thought it hit the ground.

    As to the poor officiating overall, I have to agree.
  24. Carl
    Offline

    Carl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    724
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +328 / 28 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994
    I have no idea how the official standing right next to Tramon on last pick thought it was incomplete. It wasn't even close. Looking at the game high highlights and the reaction of the Dallas sideline right next to the official, they knew it was pick.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Bensalama21
    Offline

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings:
    +585 / 13 / -0
    What makes me feel bad about the failed interception was that tramon didn't have to fall down on the ball. It was definitely an easier play to make than the interception he actually got.

Share This Page