I am in favor of full time officials.

---

If full time officials would make for competent officials, I'm all for it.

True, the main point, do whatever needs to be done to have competent officiating. I'm for THAT.

---

I have been screaming for full time officials for years, I have also said I think they do a damn good job, if the NFL refuses to hire full time officials, then they should do away with instant replay.

The officials get the calls right 99% of the time, that is seeing the game in REAL TIME, don't second guess them, yesterdays call would have been wrong, but even after replay, THEY GOT THE CALL WRONG, rule interpetation is a flawed system, since it is obvious some refs interpret the rules differently than others.

Jennings catches the ball, has control gets 3 steps in play, even if it is 2 steps, there was no contact by the defensive player until Jennings was heading out of the end zone, as soon as his second foot hit the ground, the play should have been dead, over TD.

That is my interpretation of the rule, am I wrong?, I guess this time I am, but next week there will probably be a similar play in another game which will be called a TD.

Either hire full time officials, or do away with instant replay, and let the officials call the games as they did for 50 years before I.R.

---

I wonder if had anything to do with how McCarthey challenged. If he challenge that Jennings maintained possession, well, then he's a moron. But if his challenge had to do with it being a catch and touchdown prior to contact, then the call should have been overturned. We all know how articulate an longwinded Mike is.

---

it was a touch down even the announcers felt it was,not that that matters but replay clearly showed it was t.d.

So if the NFL hires full-time officials and they still make mistakes, what are you going to blame it on then?

---

this.

So how is it the right call? The rule has been described here in detail. He caught the ball, had two feet down, and wasnt' even going down until after he was going out of the endzone.

I think the easiest way to make this less confusing is forget about the out of bounds component because he was obviously in bounds. If a WR catches a ball running across the endzone, takes two steps with the ball, and then is hit, it's a TD every time. So what's the difference?

---

You argue that he had two feet down. Fine. But was there any visual evidence that the ball was moving in his hands as he came down (i.e., did the laces rotate)?

---