2025-2026 NFL Season Thread

[AlexG]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Get back to me when its your team being robbed because of a bad ref.

Joking aside I hate to say it but the Packers got screwed! The ref who signaled INT clearly had the better view of the 2. Jennings had the ball to his chest and Tates arms we're underneath it. I wouldn't be suprised the Real Refs came back in 2 weeks.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by MaCruz

I didn't watch the 2nd half of the game, but woke up to headlines this morning. Holy cow!

If you thought Sundays game was chaotic this takes the cake.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Another_Dude

The real refs will be back by Sunday. This was the straw.

Nope even if they sign its been said Week 4 is replacement refs, i believe they have them locked through week 5 as of now.

Originally Posted by sycro

No they won't. It's a quick judgement call that they made as a TD. After that, there was nothing that could be done about it.

People keep wanting to act on plays like this one that the old referees were perfect, but they weren't. That's the reason they're locked out. They don't want to be reviewed and potentially fired if they blow calls, and the league wants to be able to hold them accountable. At least right now we have refs that the league can hold accountable, because they can replace them as they see fit.

It was a BAD judgement call that's the problem. The mistake these replacement Refs make is that they don't confirm with one another before making calls.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

a real ref would've reversed that call....no way Tate came down w/it.

watch the replay.

Unfortunately once you have 2 signals there was nothing that could have been done. Replays can show TD or not but they cannot be used to show possession that call must clearly be done on the field.

Originally Posted by Navster

Lmao is this a joke... Jennings had both hands on the ball tucked on his chest and Tate barely had one hand on the ball, wow

The guy that was in front needs better glasses he should have been able to see Jennings had that ball before Tate got a hand on it. Tates hands didn't hit until after they were on the ground.

Originally Posted by sycro

You CAN'T reverse that call. They can review whether there was a catch, but they cannot determine which player made the catch.

Correct possession cannot be determined by replay.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

all scoring plays are reviewed this year. that call could've and should've been reversed.

they reversed the TD that jennings had saying he stepped out @ the 1....so yes, you can reverse a scoring play.

Out of bounds is A LOT different then determining possession, as I stated before that call must be made on the field by the ref. Unfortunately the side and back judge did not confirm what was to happen, so the touchdown call which went up first overrides the stop the clock call from the back judge. What the refs needed to do was confirm before giving a signal, that way they could discuss the possession issue.

The NFL is in serious trouble now as the replacements have yes cost the team a game. Will be an interesting week for sure.

For the Record yes I did see Jennings had the ball and Tate did interfere it was clear as day. That Side judge that blew everything made a major mistake first by not flagging Tate, Second by calling TD before confirming.

[ApolloOne]

Originally Posted by supersix4

And nobody expects any ref to get get it 100% right.

Agreed. Nobody's perfect. But these replacements—who, generally aren't as skilled as the regulars—are being treated like substitute teachers. I just hate to see scapegoating and piling on.

Did they get the call wrong? Yes.

Does the league need to get the regular refs back? Yes.

Should the Packers have knocked the ball down instead of catching it? Should they have done more to score in the first 59 minutes? Also yes.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by ApolloOne

Should the Packers have knocked the ball down instead of catching it? Should they have done more to score in the first 59 minutes? Also yes.

This right here is all that matters, 1 call does not determine a game, the Packers ran how many plays and looked like crap. The first half Rodgers was sacked 8 times, threw 21 passes to 4 runs. The Packers play calling was atrocious , and the Offensive line looked like shit.Did the Refs pile it on sure, but the Pack did not plan correctly for Seattle and THATS why they lost the game. Well said man.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by ApolloOne

Agreed. Nobody's perfect. But these replacements—who, generally aren't as skilled as the regulars—are being treated like substitute teachers.

Cuz they are lol look I don't blame them for sucking they just aren't worthy of being at this level. It's like if I go upto a homeless man and say I'll give you a million bucks if you can accurately describe Quantitative investing, or if an nfl team throws me or you out and says run with mike wallace it may not be we're dumb or don't care we're just physically or mentally incapable of doing the task. Just like these refs.

I blame the nfl you've got a 9 billion dollar industry and can't cough up 16 million.

Originally Posted by ApolloOne

Does the league need to get the regular refs back? Yes.

Should the Packers have knocked the ball down instead of catching it? Should they have done more to score in the first 59 minutes? Also yes.

This kind of what if or should have could have logic is meaningless as it can be applied to many situations where it still remains irrelevant. If I rob a bank and a cop wrestles with me for my gun and he gets shot and dies, I can say he shouldn't have gone for his gun or he could have dodged the bullet. Either way no jury would buy that.

[Terjyn]

Seriously, why are there things that can't be reviewed?

Ok, don't allow the coaches to throw a red flag for everything, but why can't the officials themselves overturn absolutely anything?

I've never understood that.

[ApolloOne]

Originally Posted by supersix4

This kind of what if or should have could have logic is meaningless as it can be applied to many situations where it still remains irrelevant.

What a team does to avoid a situation where one bad call can upset the applecart is very relevant. To single out one and only one cause of an outcome, when there are many, is disingenuous.

If I rob a bank and a cop wrestles with me for my gun and he gets shot and dies, I can say he shouldn't have gone for his gun or he could have dodged the bullet. Either way no jury would buy that.

Comparing a football game to felony murder?
I do understand your point, though. But the gun situation is a single moment, rather than a three-hour long sequence of decisions in a football game, so I respectfully submit that the comparison is not apt.

[bhampton]

I didn't watch the game either but the play popped up on yahoo news and that looked like an interception to me.

I can't imagine the frustration for real fans or players or coaches.... NFL is pretty well fubar this year.

-Brian

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by ApolloOne

Should they have done more to score in the first 59 minutes? Also yes.

It's irrelevant that they struggled during the game. The bottom line is that the Packers made the play to win the game but instead got screwed.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Hatter

It's irrelevant that they struggled during the game. The bottom line is that the Packers made the play to win the game but instead got screwed.

It's far from irrelevant, as fans of the sport we have a right to complain about the officiating. As a team the Packers do not because they played horribly for 59 minutes and had plenty of opportunities to win the game or change there gameplan to prevent it all coming down to 1 play. Its similar to the Lions omg they went 0-16 but lets ignore the 5 years of bad management that preceded it, or in Sundays case lets ignore the fact that for 72 minutes before they fumbled the snap in OT they played bad football and didn't take chances and ran the ball 32 times.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by R3P0

It's far from irrelevant, as fans of the sport we have a right to complain about the officiating. As a team the Packers do not because they played horribly for 59 minutes and had plenty of opportunities to win the game or change there gameplan to prevent it all coming down to 1 play. Its similar to the Lions omg they went 0-16 but lets ignore the 5 years of bad management that preceded it, or in Sundays case lets ignore the fact that for 72 minutes before they fumbled the snap in OT they played bad football and didn't take chances and ran the ball 32 times.

Sorry but that's a weak argument. Games don't always go according to plan. Packers got screwed and have every right to be upset.

They made the final play to secure an ugly win but had it taken away. End of story.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Hatter

Sorry but that's a weak argument. Games don't always go according to plan. Packers got screwed and have every right to be upset.

They made the final play to secure an ugly win but had it taken away. End of story.

Its not a weak argument there is 60 minutes to win a game and not every call will go your way. Its the truth, it sucks but it is. For the record yes I do think GB got screwed but I also think they had opportunities to win and relying on 1 call or 1 play when they couldn't get down inside the 20 because the O line couldn't protect the QB or they refused to throw screen passes is an issue. At that point because they refused to adapt to the pass rush or do what they adequately needed to do to protect the QB the argument of they got screwed by the refs becomes a moot point, especially considering the refs were equally as piss poor to Seattle.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by ApolloOne

But the gun situation is a single moment, rather than a three-hour long sequence of decisions in a football game, so I respectfully submit that the comparison is not apt.

Wasnt aware there was a time limit on a crime And should there be a driver outside that's conspiracy which could imply a crime was planned for days months or years

Originally Posted by R3P0

Its not a weak argument there is 60 minutes to win a game and not every call will go your way. Its the truth, it sucks but it is. For the record yes I do think GB got screwed but I also think they had opportunities to win and relying on 1 call or 1 play when they couldn't get down inside the 20 because the O line couldn't protect the QB or they refused to throw screen passes is an issue. At that point because they refused to adapt to the pass rush or do what they adequately needed to do to protect the QB the argument of they got screwed by the refs becomes a moot point, especially considering the refs were equally as piss poor to Seattle.

So if you win 2 or 3 quarters and totally blow the 4th you still deserve the win they should let you ref so games are shortened due to them being called in the 2nd or 3rd quarter. I think randy edsall would agree with you after having a 27 point lead in the 3rd quarter and losing to nc state.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by supersix4

Wasnt aware there was a time limit on a crime And should there be a driver outside that's conspiracy which could imply a crime was planned for days months or years

Except now your adding aspects to the crime so it fits your argument. Your initial argument was fine IE deciding to rob a bank or ATM on a whim, gun going off and killing a cop. Implied or not you would be guilty of at least manslaughter due to your actions directly causing the death of another.

Originally Posted by supersix4

So if you win 2 or 3 quarters and totally blow the 4th you still deserve the win they should let you ref so games are shortened due to them being called in the 2nd or 3rd quarter.

Not really sure where your going with this as I am saying GB had ample opportunity to win that's the same thing as Dominating 3 Quarters and falling apart, the point is they (GB) would have screwed up by allowing the team they are playing to get back into it.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by R3P0

Except now your adding aspects to the crime so it fits your argument. Your initial argument was fine IE deciding to rob a bank or ATM on a whim, gun going off and killing a cop. Implied or not you would be guilty of at least manslaughter due to your actions directly causing the death of another.

I never said whim or atm if anything it was vague but goods try

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I never said whim or atm if anything it was vague but goods try

It was vague so based on the conversation being that the refs screwed up in the moment it can be implied that you meant all aspects of your fictional crime to be as close to the situation as possible. Now your just nitpicking here lol.

[ChadFL]

Well I dozed off early last night and just saw the MNF game ending this morning. It didn't even look close. Jennings had the ball. But if anyone thinks this will accelerate the return of the real refs you'd probably be mistaken. Goodell is dug in and doesn't care since he (correctly) knows that no matter how bad officiating is we'll keep tuning in every game.

[hakstone]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Well I dozed off early last night and just saw the MNF game ending this morning. It didn't even look close. Jennings had the ball. But if anyone thinks this will accelerate the return of the real refs you'd probably be mistaken. Goodell is dug in and doesn't care since he (correctly) knows that no matter how bad officiating is we'll keep tuning in every game.

The only way this ends is when players start getting hurt.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by hakstone

The only way this ends is when players start getting hurt.

That almost happened in the dallas game the damn ref threw his hat onto the field right in front of ogletree and he slipped on it