Well yesterday I can't argue that fact. The refs making Detroit use 2 challenges on calls that were obviously wrong. The fumble to me should of been called down but because you really couldn't see the ball come out it sure looked like he was down. And that td was plain as day a catch that they called incomplete.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 

Well yesterday I can't argue that fact. The refs making Detroit use 2 challenges on calls that were obviously wrong. The fumble to me should of been called down but because you really couldn't see the ball come out it sure looked like he was down. And that td was plain as day a catch that they called incomplete.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 

This is a minor gripe, more wistful than anything, but it would have been cool if some of Flynn's stats had gone to Rodgers. He had the chance for a truly historical season, but it was cut short by being pulled out of a total of 7 quarters this year. Allowing Flynn to shine yesterday was no doubt great for Flynn's career and will net him a ton of cash, but the fact remains he won't be on the Packers' roster next year and Rodgers will. I fail to see what the Packers really gained by showcasing Flynn in this way.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

I have a problem with how they have been doing the going to the ground in the process of a catch rule lately.

The game before this one, Finley caught a ball with his knee on the ground. He was hit and knocked to the ground, where he lost the ball. My understanding is that he was down by contact before he hit the ground. They called it an incompletion. Which I believe is a wrong interpretation but at least consistent with the Johnson catch last year.

This week I saw 2 they ruled the other way.

The lions receiver caught the ball, got two feet down and before making a "football related move" was taken to the ground where the ball was jarred lose and the defender wrested the ball away. They called him down by contact when the contact with the ground obviously cause the ball to become dislodged and therefor a free ball. Since the ball itself didn't hit the ground.

The other was the Johnson catch on the sideline. Johnson got both feet down and stepped out of bounds going to the ground where he bobbled it. He was already out of bounds when he regained control of the ball and should have been called out.

I have watched many game where a WR gets both feet in, takes 2 steps out of bounds and then goes down losing control of the ball being called incomplete. Why the difference with Johnson? Why the difference in them middle of the field?

I am not complaining about the fact we got screwed on a call or that the officials blew it. I am complaining about the fact that the replay failed to be called consistently. The League backed up the failure on the Johnson call against the Bears last year. My guess is they will back up contradictory calls this time.

This is horrible inconsistency by the officiating. They need fix that rule.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

You'd rather risk Flynn getting hurt in a meaningless game when he's going to get a shot for another team anyway? In that case, why not start Harrell and ensure Flynn's safety?

The argument goes both ways.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

Of the 4 catches I mentioned. I see only one that the rule should apply to. The one were we took the ball away, which of course they blew the replay call on it. It was called correctly on the field. The Finley call and the Johnson TD calls were blown interpretations of the rule. The only one they actually got right in my opinion was the Johnson call on the sideline, which was inconsistent with the leagues explanation of why they call it the way they do.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister