"The Fumble"

[adambr2]

One thing I notice. People ***** about refs when their team loses a close game, or one they think they should have easily won.

Almost every team's fans think that their team generally has the calls go against them. If you visit other team's board's, a lot of them feel that we are the darlings of the NFL and generally get the calls.

 

[Raptorman]

It certainly would have been a positive one for the Packers if we had scored 2 more TDs on those two plays! What, do you think the Kyle Orton suddenly would have become Peyton Manning if we had scored or something?


And it simply boggles the mind that other people think bad officiating doesn't affect games. No matter how bad it is, some people mistakenly think it's the noble road to pretend it didn't make a difference.

You can't take two missed passes at different times of the game and say they if they would have scored the Packers would have won. If they had scored the first one, the second pass might not have ever happened. And had he scored, maybe the kickoff is returned for a TD. You just don't know.

And I never said bad officiating doesn't affect games. But bad officiating affects both teams. Not always equally, but it affects both teams. I have never heard a fan complain about officiating when their team beats someone by 21+ points. But lose by 1, and it hits the fan. I challenge you to go to any thread on this forum were the Packers won by a good margin and find more than one complaint about the officiating in that game. And I have never heard, "Bad calls gave us the game."

 

[TJV]

And it simply boggles the mind that other people think bad officiating doesn't affect games. No matter how bad it is, some people mistakenly think it's the noble road to pretend it didn't make a difference.

No one posted bad officiating doesn't affect games. No one posted it's noble to pretend anything. We all agree - even you - the main reason the Packers lost was the Packers. But instead of giving the Bills D the respect they have earned all season long, you continue to whine about the officials. It reflects badly on you and to a small degree on Packers fans.

 

[GoPGo]

You can't take two missed passes at different times of the game and say they if they would have scored the Packers would have won.

You can certainly say it increases the chances dramatically.

And I never said bad officiating doesn't affect games. But bad officiating affects both teams. Not always equally, but it affects both teams.

And in this game it certainly didn't. Explain to me how Erik Pears goes out of his way to come to OUR sideline to start a fight and then Barrington gets the penalty.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Explain to me how Erik Pears goes out of his way to come to OUR sideline to start a fight and then Barrington gets the penalty.

Barrington took a cheap shot on Fred Jackson after the play was whistled dead (there was no video of it during the broadcast but you can watch it if you have access to coaches film) and Pears stood up for his teammate. Correct call.

 

[JBlood]

And again, none of us has any idea if Nelson would have actually scored on the play and if he did not, if it would have even led to a scoring drive.

adam--I'll take Nelson's speed over the safety, but at the very least we're past mid-field with the completion. If we're forced to punt from there, we've changed field position from inside our 10 to inside their 10. Who knows what then happens? It was a huge drop in a day of drops; but if you believe in the law of averages, that's it for the season.

 

[JBlood]

As far as NFL officiating goes it's fair to say it is equally bad on all teams. Part of that is the fact there's only 1 game per week, as opposed to 5 in MLB, which gives umpires much more time in actual game situations. Another is the fact that 22 players moving on every play sets up many more things to watch than in baseball, which makes football a more complex game to officiate than any other sport. It's all the more reason that NFL refs should be full time NFL employees during the season. How much better could games be with full time referees spending their weeks in an NFL office, working on the game, reviewing calls, plays, and studying rules and situations; instead of in their "real" job. The NFL is supposed to be a profession. The refs should be part of it full time, not just on Sundays.

 

[GoPGo]

Barrington took a cheap shot on Fred Jackson after the play was whistled dead (there was no video of it during the broadcast but you can watch it if you have access to coaches film) and Pears stood up for his teammate. Correct call.

It's never the correct call when someone comes to pick a fight with you and you're the one who gets the flag. BTW, where's the video you speak of?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's never the correct call when someone comes to pick a fight with you and you're the one who gets the flag. BTW, where's the video you speak of?

With every single post about the officiating in Buffalo it becomes more and more evident that you're a sore loser and neither can't give credit to a very good opponent nor blame the Packers for any of their shortcomings.

 

[GoPGo]

With every single post about the officiating in Buffalo it becomes more and more evident that you're a sore loser and neither can't give credit to a very good opponent nor blame the Packers for any of their shortcomings.

You haven't been following too closely then. I already said the #1 reason we lost was because Rodgers and his receivers never got off the bus. What irritates me is when people who have this bizarre idea that NFL officials are above reproach and no matter how poorly they do their jobs it has not real effect on the game think they're better than those of us who choose not to turn a blind eye to it.

Bottom line is Packers remain the better team and probably 70% of the time they win that game. Unfortunately, it was a 30% day.

 

[TJV]

What irritates me is when people who have this bizarre idea that NFL officials are above reproach and no matter how poorly they do their jobs it has not real effect on the game think they're better than those of us who choose not to turn a blind eye to it.

Raising this straw man over and over again doesn't mitigate your whining about the officiating or your refusing to give the Bills D the credit it is due.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Bills needed and wanted this game more than we did. They were desperately fighting for a post season berth. For me, it's just one of those bumps in the road, on the road that I expected we'd run into. It's the norm in the NFL.

 

[sschind]

Yep, really tough.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_20?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=100watt incandescent light bulbs&sprefix=100watt incandescent,aps,292

Yeah, I'd say having to order a 100 watt light bulb from amazon.com is tough. If I need a 100 watt light bulb I'd prefer to be able to go to Home Depot (or Wal Mart or Menards or Wallgreens or the gas station across the street) and buy it and not have to order it and wait for it to be delivered.

 

[OldSchool101]

People who would prefer not to use Chinese made compact florescent bulbs that could eventually contaminate landfills and groundwater with mercury.

or Chinese made anything..

 

[PackisbackEric]

This has been a rule for a while. I've seen the same call numerous times. The refs made the right call, we got beat by a great Buffalo defense today.

Then the Bills get beat by...............the Raiders?????? So unpredictable this league is.

 

[longtimefan]

Then the Bills get beat by...............the Raiders?????? So unpredictable this league is.

Losing the next week after an emotional high from the previous week does happen...

 

[PackisbackEric]

Losing the next week after an emotional high from the previous week does happen...

That's for sure, unfortunately I have a good friend that's a Raiders fan and he gave me a little grief about why the Pack couldn't beat the Bills like the lowly Raiders did, all in good fun of course. He is a Raiders fan and has to take any shot he can get.

 

[OldSchool101]

Some would take the approach.. "If you don't like the call.. then don't fumble" IMO.. that's attitude is clearly a "cop-out" because it does not define the philosophy of the person and it unequivocally implies a "perfectionists" stance. Although I understand this "perfectionists" approach all too well..I disagree with that rule.. Football, like life, is filled with imperfections and their accompanying behaviors. We shouldn't be penalized for imperfections.. but rather allowed as competitors to overcome our imperfections and either be praised if we do.. or suffer the consequences if we don't. (this is one of the founding principles of athletics and competition, its the David and Goliath of history lessons)
Here, in this example, the league is taking the choice out of the play and awarding a consequence to a play before it is finished in the name of "fairness". Ironically it is anti-competitive in arguably one of the most competitive sports in the world.
By the way, If you disagree with this concept of competitiveness, ironically you disagree with the instincts of football in itself and what these players are taught.. and have been for generations..to follow through with EVERY play until the whistle blows (See Eddie Lacy)

With that being said.. Ironically I respect the call.. the call was spot on to the rule.. impressively, that shows that ref was in tune.. in a game where the referees arguably were allowing physicality that was beyond normal parameters on simple calls, then a referee makes one of the best calls I've ever seen.. without even flinching..
and that prayer he did with his hands in the air.. inspiring.. j/k!
That doesn't mean we have to agree with the rule, in fact these are entirely different concepts..
Let us not punish the players because of a past players misconduct and past poor officiating. Lets allow the athletes to compete to overcome the fumble the same way as we do at the 50 yard line. Now, if Lacy doesn't make the goal line? Then there's no argument here, clear and concise, we suffer the consequences.
And... if the Offense "kicks" the ball, (from what I hear this same play happened in the past and resulted in a QB admittedly kicking it forward and eventually getting kicked again and eventually a score and win) Then have a rule that can be applied on that case appropriately.

 

[Poppa San]

Some would take the approach.. "If you don't like the call.. then don't fumble" IMO.. that's attitude is clearly a "cop-out" because it does not define the philosophy of the person and it unequivocally implies a "perfectionists" stance. Although I understand this "perfectionists" approach all too well..I disagree with that rule.. Football, like life, is filled with imperfections and their accompanying behaviors. We shouldn't be penalized for imperfections.. but rather allowed as competitors to overcome our imperfections and either be praised if we do.. or suffer the consequences if we don't. (this is one of the founding principles of athletics and competition, its the David and Goliath of history lessons)
Here, in this example, the league is taking the choice out of the play and awarding a consequence to a play before it is finished in the name of "fairness". Ironically it is anti-competitive in arguably one of the most competitive sports in the world.
By the way, If you disagree with this concept of competitiveness, ironically you disagree with the instincts of football in itself and what these players are taught.. and have been for generations..to follow through with EVERY play until the whistle blows (See Eddie Lacy)

With that being said.. Ironically I respect the call.. the call was spot on to the rule.. impressively, that shows that ref was in tune.. in a game where the referees arguably were allowing physicality that was beyond normal parameters on simple calls, then a referee makes one of the best calls I've ever seen.. without even flinching..
and that prayer he did with his hands in the air.. inspiring.. j/k!
That doesn't mean we have to agree with the rule, in fact these are entirely different concepts..
Let us not punish the players because of a past players misconduct and past poor officiating. Lets allow the athletes to compete to overcome the fumble the same way as we do at the 50 yard line. Now, if Lacy doesn't make the goal line? Then there's no argument here, clear and concise, we suffer the consequences.
And... if the Offense "kicks" the ball, (from what I hear this same play happened in the past and resulted in a QB admittedly kicking it forward and eventually getting kicked again and eventually a score and win) Then have a rule that can be applied on that case appropriately.

Well stated. Another problem with this rule is that it is only applicable after the two minute warning, not before. They change the rules during the game. It's like if MLB shrunk the strike zone in the 9th inning.

 

[TJV]

Some would take the approach.. "If you don't like the call.. then don't fumble" IMO.. that's attitude is clearly a "cop-out" because it does not define the philosophy of the person and it unequivocally implies a "perfectionists" stance. Although I understand this "perfectionists" approach all too well..I disagree with that rule.. Football, like life, is filled with imperfections and their accompanying behaviors.

Not fumbling hardly equals perfection. In fact fumbling is one of the, if not the worst things a player with the ball can do. Not fumbling is the minimum reasonable expectation we should have of a player with the ball.

We shouldn't be penalized for imperfections.. but rather allowed as competitors to overcome our imperfections and either be praised if we do.. or suffer the consequences if we don't. (this is one of the founding principles of athletics and competition, its the David and Goliath of history lessons)

Here, in this example, the league is taking the choice out of the play and awarding a consequence to a play before it is finished in the name of "fairness". Ironically it is anti-competitive in arguably one of the most competitive sports in the world.

The rule in question does allow the fumbler to ‘overcome his imperfection’. If Rodgers had located the ball and picked it up he could have thrown it to a receiver or thrown it away – as long as it wasn’t ruled grounding, ‘no harm no foul’. The rule is an attempt to reward competitiveness. It corrects the situation in which the D has succeeded in its ‘competiveness’ to the point the ball carrier’s only option is to purposefully fumble the ball forward in the hope one of his teammates can advance it – or purposely fumble it again. But this discussion in the context of this play is moot since even without the rule, Lacy didn’t get out of the EZ so the result would have been the same.

… a referee makes one of the best calls I've ever seen.. without even flinching..

Unlike many calls that require judgment on the part of officials, all this call required was knowledge of the playbook: It was obvious the fumbler Rodgers was not the one advancing the ball.

 

[OldSchool101]

Not fumbling hardly equals perfection. In fact fumbling is one of the, if not the worst things a player with the ball can do. Not fumbling is the minimum reasonable expectation we should have of a player with the ball. .

I guess our expectations get broken quite often then don't they.. lol
I guess its a matter of opinion here..
I don't like the rule because it is "babysitting" and because of the story of the precedent on how the rule became effective years ago

 

[Sky King]

“Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.” -- John Heisman

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

So let's say the Packers were on the 15 yard line and Rodgers fumbled the ball about the 5 and a Buffalo player tried to jump on the ball but it squirted out of his hands and went into the end zone. The Packers wouldn't have been responsible for it going into the end zone, yet only Rodgers would be able to recover and get it out of the end zone. I think the rule should be changed so anyone on the fumbling team can at least advance it to the spot of the fumble.