I'm getting tired of hearing about the replacement refs all the time. If ESPN and the rest of the sports media wouldn't have made such a big deal about them from the beginning, this story wouldn't be nearly what it is today. If you go back to the beginning of the season, all the commentators talked about was the officials. Even when they weren't making mistakes, the commentators just felt the need to throw in that these were not the regular refs. I remember one game that I had recorded. I was forwarding through the game and only watching the plays, not listening to the commentators. I didn't even remember that replacement refs were being used until I heard one commentator during the 3rd quarter state that was the case. He had no reason to do so. There was no call in question at the moment. He just felt the need to remind everyone. The truth is, these refs have been under an exponentially higher level of scrutiny than the regulars ever are.
As far as making bad calls goes, this happens all the time with the regulars, too. What about the Tuck Rule game? That was with the regular refs. Not only did it cost the Raiders a win, it took away a chance to go to the Super Bowl. It happens in all sports. Do you remember Armando Galarraga's perfect game? Well, you might know the game I'm referring to, but there is no official "perfect game" for Galarraga. The first base umpire clearly blew the call at first base and therefore blew the bid for a perfect game. Teams have been given extra timeouts, extra downs, had pass interference calls missed, etc for years. Do the replacements make mistakes? Yes. Do they make more than the regulars? Probably. Is every call they make scrutinized like never before? Definitely.
How bout the call from this past Monday night? Was it really that bad of a call? Or, is it just being blown way out of proportion because we can blame it on the "horrible" replacement refs? Both players went up for the ball and when they came down, each had two hands on the ball. The referee ran over to the players, looked, saw that each had possession and by rule, gave the catch to the offense. In live action, this is what the ref saw, and what called what he saw by the rule. A regular referee could have very easily made the exact same call. I know they had the opportunity to review the play, but I've heard both that simultaneous possession is and also that it is not reviewable. So, I don't know that overturning that call was even an option. I know there was a missed offensive pass interference call as well. But, even the former official who was in the ESPN booth immediately after the game, said that offensive pass interference is never called on those types of plays. According to what this former "regular" official, of whom ESPN thinks so highly of to include him as part of their broadcast, not only was the missed pass interference a normal occurrence, but he seemed to think the determination of possession was appropriate. Immediately after he down played the call, the other ESPN personalities started making comments disagreeing with him. Why would you bring on a former official to clear up the rules if you aren't going to accept his expertise?
No one is talking about defensive pass interference call that probably wasn't defensive pass interference on Green Bay's last drive. This was a 3rd down play. The call let to a 1st down for GB and they eventually drove down the field and scored the go-ahead touchdown because of this call. If they would've won the game, everyone could have said they only won because of a bad call that led to a touchdown.
I have an idea Green Bay. If you want to win, how bout starting by keeping your quarterback from getting sacked 8 times. You are supposed to be this amazing offense. You gained 184 yards passing. You gained 84 yards rushing. That's not a very good offensive output. You were penalized for over 120 yards. You were given a gift that allowed you to take the lead in the 4th quarter. You received the ball with under 2 minutes left. You fumbled and lost yards on that possession rather than running out the clock. You gave the ball back to Seattle with 46 seconds left and no timeouts. I learned when I was a little kid that you don't blame the refs. Step-up and take some responsibility for a horrible offensive game and screwing up being able to end the game like a championship caliber team should be able to do.
The regular refs already make around $9,000/game and many have other full-time jobs. They don't want their pension plans replaced by a 401k (which is what other NFL employees get), and they don't want to be "benched" for under performing. If anything, doesn't this situation show us that poor performing referees should be replaced? Let the refs sit-out. The effect of the replacement referees is much more in our minds than anything else. We can thank sports writers and commentators for that.
As far as making bad calls goes, this happens all the time with the regulars, too. What about the Tuck Rule game? That was with the regular refs. Not only did it cost the Raiders a win, it took away a chance to go to the Super Bowl. It happens in all sports. Do you remember Armando Galarraga's perfect game? Well, you might know the game I'm referring to, but there is no official "perfect game" for Galarraga. The first base umpire clearly blew the call at first base and therefore blew the bid for a perfect game. Teams have been given extra timeouts, extra downs, had pass interference calls missed, etc for years. Do the replacements make mistakes? Yes. Do they make more than the regulars? Probably. Is every call they make scrutinized like never before? Definitely.
How bout the call from this past Monday night? Was it really that bad of a call? Or, is it just being blown way out of proportion because we can blame it on the "horrible" replacement refs? Both players went up for the ball and when they came down, each had two hands on the ball. The referee ran over to the players, looked, saw that each had possession and by rule, gave the catch to the offense. In live action, this is what the ref saw, and what called what he saw by the rule. A regular referee could have very easily made the exact same call. I know they had the opportunity to review the play, but I've heard both that simultaneous possession is and also that it is not reviewable. So, I don't know that overturning that call was even an option. I know there was a missed offensive pass interference call as well. But, even the former official who was in the ESPN booth immediately after the game, said that offensive pass interference is never called on those types of plays. According to what this former "regular" official, of whom ESPN thinks so highly of to include him as part of their broadcast, not only was the missed pass interference a normal occurrence, but he seemed to think the determination of possession was appropriate. Immediately after he down played the call, the other ESPN personalities started making comments disagreeing with him. Why would you bring on a former official to clear up the rules if you aren't going to accept his expertise?
No one is talking about defensive pass interference call that probably wasn't defensive pass interference on Green Bay's last drive. This was a 3rd down play. The call let to a 1st down for GB and they eventually drove down the field and scored the go-ahead touchdown because of this call. If they would've won the game, everyone could have said they only won because of a bad call that led to a touchdown.
I have an idea Green Bay. If you want to win, how bout starting by keeping your quarterback from getting sacked 8 times. You are supposed to be this amazing offense. You gained 184 yards passing. You gained 84 yards rushing. That's not a very good offensive output. You were penalized for over 120 yards. You were given a gift that allowed you to take the lead in the 4th quarter. You received the ball with under 2 minutes left. You fumbled and lost yards on that possession rather than running out the clock. You gave the ball back to Seattle with 46 seconds left and no timeouts. I learned when I was a little kid that you don't blame the refs. Step-up and take some responsibility for a horrible offensive game and screwing up being able to end the game like a championship caliber team should be able to do.
The regular refs already make around $9,000/game and many have other full-time jobs. They don't want their pension plans replaced by a 401k (which is what other NFL employees get), and they don't want to be "benched" for under performing. If anything, doesn't this situation show us that poor performing referees should be replaced? Let the refs sit-out. The effect of the replacement referees is much more in our minds than anything else. We can thank sports writers and commentators for that.
