Officials tried and failed to give game to Cowboys

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
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.
 

PackwillBEback

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
464
Reaction score
27
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.
 

Zartan

Cans.wav
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
702
Also dont forget the No Calls that went our way also.
 
OP
OP
GoPGo

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
That was not an INT by Tramon. Ball moved and was touching ground too.

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.

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.

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.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
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.

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.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
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.

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.
 

Jordyruns

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
436
Reaction score
41
Location
Upstate NY
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.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
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.

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."
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
377
Location
Charlotte
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.
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.
 

Fazeman

Setting The Pace
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
175
Reaction score
17
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
You may be joking (or maybe not) but the NFL would be better off if they did this.

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!
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
1st int it hit the ground.

The nfl is going look into having people in a central location reviewing plays
 

7thFloorRA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
331
Location
Grafton, WI
1st int it hit the ground.

The nfl is going look into having people in a central location reviewing plays
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.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
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.

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.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
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.

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
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
LOL just posted a pic from my replay

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.
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
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.
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.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
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.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top