Green Bay gets the shaft.....but something may be rotten......Are bookies running NFL?

2seaoat wrote:Sorry, I have raised some real concerns with how volatile picks have been this fall. We are talking about a couple of million dollars for professional referees, and they cannot get it done......it is a smokescreen. I think the NFL is quickly losing credibility on the front end.....but what is really going on in the back end? The Black Sox scandal involved a lot of money in 1918, but the money in 2012 is huge.

Joanimaroni wrote: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow. What a fiasco.

Tate stated in a locker-room interview that... Jennings had possession of the ball first.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow. What a fiasco.

Tate stated in a locker-room interview that... Jennings had possession of the ball first.

The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow. What a fiasco.

Tate stated in a locker-room interview that... Jennings had possession of the ball first.

The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

I didn't say they did. Jennings had possession...the refs made two different calls at the same time..... one official near the play ruled a touchdown and the other touchback.

salinsky wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Sorry, I have raised some real concerns with how volatile picks have been this fall. We are talking about a couple of million dollars for professional referees, and they cannot get it done......it is a smokescreen. I think the NFL is quickly losing credibility on the front end.....but what is really going on in the back end? The Black Sox scandal involved a lot of money in 1918, but the money in 2012 is huge.

You're over thinking this one. This is union busting plain and simple.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow. What a fiasco.

Tate stated in a locker-room interview that... Jennings had possession of the ball first.

The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

I didn't say they did. call a simultaneous possesionJennings had possession...the refs made two different calls at the same time..... one official near the play ruled a touchdown and the other touchback.

According to your original post you did unless I am missing something.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow. What a fiasco.

Tate stated in a locker-room interview that... Jennings had possession of the ball first.

The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

I didn't say they did. Jennings had possession...the refs made two different calls at the same time..... one official near the play ruled a touchdown and the other touchback.

According to your original post you did unless I am missing something.

For the sake of argument, the other ref did not call it a touchback. A touchback is indicated with one arm extended with an up and down movement.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow. What a fiasco.

Tate stated in a locker-room interview that... Jennings had possession of the ball first.

The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

I didn't say they did. Jennings had possession...the refs made two different calls at the same time..... one official near the play ruled a touchdown and the other touchback.

According to your original post you did unless I am missing something.

For the sake of argument, the other ref did not call it a touchback. A touchback is indicated with one arm extended with an up and down movement.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Do you enjoy nit-picking my posts? It's getting old and annoying.


Sal was posting the ruling by officials was being called a simultaneous catch...I responded with....It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. I'm terribly sorry you miss so much shit.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Do you enjoy nit-picking my posts? It's getting old and annoying.


Sal was posting the ruling by officials was being called a simultaneous catch...I responded with....It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. I'm terribly sorry you miss so much shit.

No what you said was there were 2 refs standing within elbow of each other that called simultaneous possession.

You know maybe you should gain a little bit of a sense of humor. Is it menopause doing that to you?

And if you knew as much about football as you think you do you would know that the signal that the second referee gave was not a signal for a touchback.

And I and extremely sorry that you have gotten to a point in your life where you can longer take a joke. That is pathetic.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Do you enjoy nit-picking my posts? It's getting old and annoying.


Sal was posting the ruling by officials was being called a simultaneous catch...I responded with....It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. I'm terribly sorry you miss so much shit.

No what you said was there were 2 refs standing within elbow of each other that called simultaneous possession.

You know maybe you should gain a little bit of a sense of humor. Is it menopause doing that to you?

And if you knew as much about football as you think you do you would know that the signal that the second referee gave was not a signal for a touchback.

And I and extremely sorry that you have gotten to a point in your life where you can longer take a joke. That is pathetic.

No, I did not say the refs called a simultaneous possession.

I said, "There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow."

Simultaneous means occurring at the same time.

As for a sense of humor...I have one but nothing you posted was funny....and you can only laugh off or ignore so many nit-picking comments. After awhile it gets old.

I never said I was an authority on football but I do enjoy watching college and professional football. As for the touchback signal....every news channel, sports channel, and internet news commentary that I have seen or read has referenced the refs signal as a touch-back. Take it up with the hundreds probably thousands of people that have said the same thing.

No hormone problems here....just tired of your need to point out, clarify, or just irritate the hell out of me on a regular basis. You did the same thing to me on the PNJ when several of us were discussing various games.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

salinsky wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
The refs did not call a simultaneous possession, they looked at each other, one signaled a TD while the other signaled interception. All of this hullabaloo should have been a moot point in the first place because everyone in TV land saw the obvious offensive pass interference against Tate when he shoved the Packer defender to the ground.

To beat a dead horse just a little more thoroughly, is there an actual signal for simultaneous catch? I believe the signal for a simultaneous catch in the end zone is

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:The NFL has decided to use these officials this weekend!

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Do you enjoy nit-picking my posts? It's getting old and annoying.


Sal was posting the ruling by officials was being called a simultaneous catch...I responded with....It is not a simultaneous catch if a player (Jennings) gains control first and an opponent (Tate) subsequently gains joint control. I'm terribly sorry you miss so much shit.

No what you said was there were 2 refs standing within elbow of each other that called simultaneous possession.

You know maybe you should gain a little bit of a sense of humor. Is it menopause doing that to you?

And if you knew as much about football as you think you do you would know that the signal that the second referee gave was not a signal for a touchback.

And I and extremely sorry that you have gotten to a point in your life where you can longer take a joke. That is pathetic.

No, I did not say the refs called a simultaneous possession.

I said, "There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow."

Simultaneous means occurring at the same time.

As for a sense of humor...I have one but nothing you posted was funny....and you can only laugh off or ignore so many nit-picking comments. After awhile it gets old.

I never said I was an authority on football but I do enjoy watching college and professional football. As for the touchback signal....every news channel, sports channel, and internet news commentary that I have seen or read has referenced the refs signal as a touch-back. Take it up with the hundreds probably thousands of people that have said the same thing.

No hormone problems here....just tired of your need to point out, clarify, or just irritate the hell out of me on a regular basis. You did the same thing to me on the PNJ when several of us were discussing various games.

Well if you call it nit-picking, then by all means please do so. However it will not get me to stop, it is in my nature and nothing you can say or do will change that. If you don't like it then you have to option of reading my posts or not. You see it as nit-picking, I see it as stating an opinion. But as I said, if you don't like it, too damn bad.

Joanimaroni wrote:

LOL, you were not stating an opinion. You completely misread and miss quoted my post.....so I imagine your nature is a lack of reading skills and comprehension. Now it all makes sense.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

LOL, you were not stating an opinion. You completely misread and miss quoted my post.....so I imagine your nature is a lack of reading skills and comprehension. Now it all makes sense.

What is there about, and I quote from your post, "There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow." unquote. Anyway you spin it in plain English it says that two different simultaneous calls were made by two different referees.

And that was I said in my first post to you, that no simultaneous possession call was made. You cannot call something that does not exist, simultaneous possession in the end zone is either a TD or a touchback, but then if it is a touchback then it would not be simultaneous possession would it?

Maybe it is you that needs to learn to write where people can understand as I am not the first to misunderstand or misquote you. That being said, I'm done with this silly argument with you. You are not worth my time and effort

salinsky wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

LOL, you were not stating an opinion. You completely misread and miss quoted my post.....so I imagine your nature is a lack of reading skills and comprehension. Now it all makes sense.

What is there about, and I quote from your post, "There were two different simultaneous calls on the play by two replacement refs standing elbow to elbow." unquote. Anyway you spin it in plain English it says that two different simultaneous calls were made by two different referees.

And that was I said in my first post to you, that no simultaneous possession call was made. You cannot call something that does not exist, simultaneous possession in the end zone is either a TD or a touchback, but then if it is a touchback then it would not be simultaneous possession would it?

Maybe it is you that needs to learn to write where people can understand as I am not the first to misunderstand or misquote you. That being said, I'm done with this silly argument with you. You are not worth my time and effort

I think that what she meant was that two different calls were made simultaneously - one official signaled touchdown and the other touchback.

2seaoat wrote:The last play would never have happened if there was not a completely blown roughing the passer personal foul at Seattle's 20 yard line. It was the worse call of the night. I have no doubt that some people are dirty. Sorry, this has never been about a couple million dollars.....my guess there are hundreds of millions being made on people who own some of these refs.