shnuskis
11-17-2004, 12:13 AM
Hey, Timberpuppy :) , just wanted to bring the discussion to the football forum and consalodate the conversation, rather than chase it all over the place.
Now which is it. Are the refs threatened or payed off? You have made both charges and it seems to me if there is an organized method of rigging games, they would stick to one method. Is there any proof beyond the fact that you perceive calls going in GB's favor at home?
I understand being emotional about the call at the end of the game. The replay, which I didn't get to see til Monday night, clearly showed Ross recovering the ball first. But even Ross admits he lost the ball to someone else by the time the refs unpiled them. Since instant replay can't be used to determine posession of a fumble, it seems to be more of a tough call gone against your team.
Your case for Sunday's game would be stronger if the Packer's challenge had gone in there favor on a 4th and 1 on the spot of the ball. The ballcarrier, Luchey, had clearly crossed the first down with everything but his feet and shins. Now unless he is carrying the ball with his feet, and clearly he wasn't, it should have been a first down and the play reversed.
Regarding your friends experience at the Seahawks game last year, that happens to be a game where it seemed every questionable call went against the Packers. Combined with the fact that it was an emotional game against an old coach and qb, I don't doubt that some fans were yelling indecent and unfriendly things at the refs. That just proves disproves your point though. If the fans weren't happy because calls were going against their team, where is the conspiracy?
If the Packers pay off the refs at home as you say, why stop there. Why not pay them off everywhere? I can take you back to 1998 playoff game to prove they don't get all the calls. 8 million people saw Jerry Rice fumble in the 4th qtr. Too bad all the officials missed it.
Now which is it. Are the refs threatened or payed off? You have made both charges and it seems to me if there is an organized method of rigging games, they would stick to one method. Is there any proof beyond the fact that you perceive calls going in GB's favor at home?
I understand being emotional about the call at the end of the game. The replay, which I didn't get to see til Monday night, clearly showed Ross recovering the ball first. But even Ross admits he lost the ball to someone else by the time the refs unpiled them. Since instant replay can't be used to determine posession of a fumble, it seems to be more of a tough call gone against your team.
Your case for Sunday's game would be stronger if the Packer's challenge had gone in there favor on a 4th and 1 on the spot of the ball. The ballcarrier, Luchey, had clearly crossed the first down with everything but his feet and shins. Now unless he is carrying the ball with his feet, and clearly he wasn't, it should have been a first down and the play reversed.
Regarding your friends experience at the Seahawks game last year, that happens to be a game where it seemed every questionable call went against the Packers. Combined with the fact that it was an emotional game against an old coach and qb, I don't doubt that some fans were yelling indecent and unfriendly things at the refs. That just proves disproves your point though. If the fans weren't happy because calls were going against their team, where is the conspiracy?
If the Packers pay off the refs at home as you say, why stop there. Why not pay them off everywhere? I can take you back to 1998 playoff game to prove they don't get all the calls. 8 million people saw Jerry Rice fumble in the 4th qtr. Too bad all the officials missed it.