I watched last nights game and followed along on Twitter with much amusement. There’s seriously nothing funnier in the sports community than watching Twitter blow up after a questionable call. Unfortunately, less than twelve hours later, and it feels to me like very few people have really thought this through rationally or objectively, and instead are just insisting that we need to get these refs out of our sacred game, so we can get back to…yelling at the regular refs for blowing calls.

Here are some of my (somewhat disorganized) thoughts on the current situation with the referees:

  • First, an aside–Andy and I often debate the merits of our local sports talk radio options. I generally prefer the local morning guys, despite being sophomoric (at best) and juvenile in their humor, while Andy prefers the nationally syndicated guys that can probably barely find Minnesota on the map. But this morning I was going back and forth, and I just have to say this–Cris Carter alone makes Mike & Mike virtually unlistenable for me. At least with Mike & Mike, one of the two will accidentally stumble onto an accurate, thought out position on an issue. Carter just thinks that yelling louder makes his stance on any issue more legitimate. He actually claimed that he is a bigger football fan compared to Greenberg this morning—which may be true to a point (Carter may like the game of football more), but in context (the fan’s take on the ref situation and what they can do about it) was laughable. Of course, trying to paint an ESPN Radio host as an equivalent to an average fan is laughable as well, but the point is, Carter played the game professionally, and is a broadcaster today–he doesn’t pay a significant percentage of hard earned money to go to games, or passionately follow a singular team the way a real NFL fan does.
  • One good point that was made on Mike & Mike—kind of—it does still take two sides have a labor stoppage. Yes, the refs are locked out, not striking. But how many fans have actually read what the issues at hand are, and still think the refs are 100% in the right? They want to keep their full, sizable (I believe) pensions, for a part time job. Understandable that they want to keep them, but given how few people still have pensions today for full time careers, could be argued that the refs are being greedy as well. Seems to me the league also wants to make some refs full time, and add new referees to the system for rotating out some—which I think is a good move, especially given that some of the refs appear to be of age that they should be considering moving to Florida and wearing white pants year round.
  • Speaking of the age of the refs…realizing that they have been doing some informal studying while locked out, do you think they’ll be 100% up to game speed the day after they settle?
  • I don’t see how last night’s bad call is somehow a greater threat to the integrity of the game than any previous bad call, or even the regular refs making bad calls that impact the winner/loser of the game—think back to the tuck rule, the Calvin Johnson non-catch, the time Ed Hochuli screwed up that cost San Diego their game against Denver in 2008, the clearly missed offensive pass interference on Drew Pearson’s Hail Mary catch, and I’m sure there are others I don’t have at the top of my head. Often the real refs may have made these calls right, but a lot of fans still feel that they were robbed in those cases as well.
  • I understand and agree that one of the biggest problems with their performance is that they at times appear to lose control of the game. This, however, can be placed just as squarely on the players and coaches, for knowingly pushing the boundaries and trying to get away with as much as they can. I can’t fault the refs too much for understanding their role as replacements—they’re trying not to screw up too bad, and the players and coaches are all over them and pushing the envelope. If the league is going to hold their ground, they need to start fining and suspending players and coaches for their actions on the field, and fining them significantly for their criticisms off the field. They seem to be lax on that, given the situation, which is the worst thing the league can do.
  • Carter was also SHOUTING this morning about players not being as safe with the replacement refs. Cited Zygi Hood getting hurt on a chop block, and the refs (paraphrased) “not getting the call right with Brandon Browner last night on Greg Jennings, penalizing second offender.” Players get hurt with the regular refs. Chop blocks happen with the regular refs. Sometimes chop blocks don’t get called by the regular refs. Throwing a flag after the play isn’t going to unhurt Zygi Hood after a chop block. Again, it’s the players who are deciding to try to push the rules by possibly performing more chop blocks with the replacement refs, to see if they can get away with it. Regarding the Browner/Jennings situation, they did in fact penalize both players–the correct call. Yes, they appeared to have missed the first takedown by Browner, which was cheap, but is something the regular refs may very well have missed as well (Browner has a reputation as being cheap, so he very may well have still taken the shot with the regular refs there). Jennings then went after Browner, and Browner took Jennings down in more of a defensive move—this is what appeared to get Browner the first flag. Jennings didn’t appear to be penalized until he came up swinging after that take down. The refs managed this situation just as well as many regular officiating crews would have, not a doubt in my mind. You can argue that the first take down deserved an ejection, but unless there had been previous action between the two, I would have been a little surprised if the regular refs ejected him for that, if they did see it.
  • Yes, the replacement refs have probably had some pretty egregious calls (and probably more than the regular refs), but I remember hearing over the years calls that made no sense to me from the regular refs. Amazingly, these refs are under more scrutiny than the regular refs ever faced, from the fans, the coaches, and the players. It’s almost like a backup quarterback situation–things aren’t going great, so we want the backup qb that is on the sidelines (in this case, the regular refs). But once the backup qb is in, are things really much better?

Specific to last night:

  • Where the catch happened, neither ref probably had a great view. Not to say they were out of position, either—it happened in the back corner where it was probably tough to see.
  • Given the angle, the ref on the side (who signaled the TD) probably had a better view than the one from the back (that signaled to stop the clock…never did signal a touchback, that I saw). Given the point above, when he got a good view, he undoubtedly saw Tate’s arm on the ball, hence the simultaneous possession ruling. And given that he probably had the better view, taking his TD call over the back judge was probably right.
  • The rule on simultaneous says it is NOT a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. OK, so what exactly is “gaining control?” Is it two feet on the ground with the ball in hands? Because by the time Jennings gets his feet down, it looks to me like Tate has his hand up on the ball, which could be interpreted as both having simultaneous possession/control, since Jennings may not have established control with his feet.
  • The only way to overturn the call is if there is indisputable evidence to overturn the play. I saw no replay in which it was 100% indisputable that Tate didn’t have some claim to possession. Aaron Rodgers apparently said in his postgame interview that the replay showed that Tate took his arm off the ball. I never saw that. Maybe he’s got special Packers replays, though.
  • Yes, it was offensive pass interference. But that is almost always ignored/missed by the regular refs as well.
  • As much as I wouldn’t have called it, there still could be an argument made that there was roughing the passer on the play as well. There are some calls by regular refs that have been worse.
  • Given all of this, there is at least a reasonable chance that, right or wrong, the regular refs could have ended up making the EXACT SAME

I’m not trying to say the Packers don’t have some right to feel upset, nor that these replacement refs are on par with the regular refs. I just wanted to look at it more objectively than most appear to be after last night, and point out that there is at least a decent chance that even the regular refs would have made the same call as the replacement refs at the end of the game last night.

Now, back to the countdown for how long until I find an article today talking about the refs from last nights receiving death threats from area code 920…