This is why it bothers me - some things are tough to judge, but a false start is very much a black and white call. If coach saw it from the sidelines while watching the play as a whole, it is inexcusable that an official (whose job is specifically to watch for this) could miss it.

It is pretty obvious that the ref crews are encouraged to make calls to keep games close - although I don't see that as the deal so much in yesterday's game.

Regardless of the above - Mike chose the wrong time to speak up about that. Getting angry on the mic doesn't usually do you any favors, and also might influence the officials more if they hear it.

Musccy normally I do agree with you, even on this issue😁: ref suckyness typically goes both ways; but what is happening today, it is CREATING A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE TO PACKERS.

Everyday GB tries to elevate a player's awareness of the rules and to play within them, so the team can play penalty free; or do things to induce the other team to commit a penalty, like hard counts. So this should give GB an advantage over players coached to be hooligans like Harbaugh's 49ers or Seattle, right?

Let's take the Illegal contact; Seattle coaches DBs to hold/make illegal contact almost every play, because they wont call it every time; and once you get a IC/hold call against you, on the next play its okay to pull the WR's shorts down and shove your fist and make that WR your hand-puppet, because for sure they'll be no call. Now, who should have the advantage: the well-coached team on not being penalized or those wilfully committing penalties? Shamefully, no bullshittingly, it is the thugs that get the competitive advantage. If a CB makes illegal contact 12 plays in a row, then 12 flags should be thrown whether it's a star like Sherman or a nobody like Gunter. See the league is thinking of viewership: if an IC call is made every play, viewership will decline. But, here's what those dumba$$es dont get: if ya throw 3 flags in a row, and every other time they commit IC, they'll stop committing IC penalties. So if they throw flags for every penalty, they'll stop and you get the same # of flags, the same viewership, but the NFL maintains its integrity.

This is my problem w/ the refs, their suckness is a disadvantage to the teams, GB being one, that spend time every day in practice on penalties and an advantage that those that encourage penalties; it is not a 50-50 goes both ways deal.

The teams that have been trying to stay within the rules on "rub" plays have been b!tching over teams that are running "pick" plays and creating a competitive disadvantage. Now supposedly that is becoming point of emphasis.

I think that was you Musccy that thought Bryant made the catch, right? I think a catch is perfectly defined. A player going to the ground after "catching" the ball has to maintain possession through the process. The ball can hit the ground as long as the player is not using the ground to secure the ball and as long as the ball is secure and does not move in the hands or arms when it hits the ground. There is no disagreement here. There's just refs getting it WRONG!

Now processing the reality might create disagreement. If Bryant took 2 steps and Lunged for the Goal line after making the "catch;" then it was a catch and a fumble, which he recovered and ball is at .5 yard line. If he didn't take 2 steps, then the "catch" became an incomplete pass when the ball shifted in his arm when it hit the ground.

Personally I've seen Bryant lunge and take steps several times; an the aforementioned action dont look like anything I've seen him do before. The ball never extended beyond his helmut, he simply stuck his arms out so his head didn't hit the ground first and his left and right foot just happened to touch the ground in succession after the ball was secure in his hands as his momentum was taking him to the ground.

I understand what you're saying Barfarn, and to be honest, I don't focus on after 5 contact of the GB DBs vs. any other team to be able to say that Seattle or San Fran get away with IC more often than GB does. That said, I'm also of the opinion that the league is too biased towards offense and should be more lenient with contact. I also can't say that I watch that closely to see if AR's shoulders or head bob at all during his hard counts. I find it hard to believe he's not dancing on the fine line of that rule a number of times. It goes back to my point - do I get the sense that the Packers are being jobbed by the refs? I understand what you're saying, I just don't see it enough to agree.

As far as the catch, yes, I feel Bryant had a catch. Common sense has been regulated out of the rules. On James Jones' 65 y TD last week, he lost control of the ball when he contacted the ground just like Dez did. The main difference was that James took more (OK, a LOT more) steps before that point. If you establish control, get in 2 steps - voila - to me that's a catch, in fact at one point that was the rule. It's what the refs said with Golden Tate's TD on Sunday. Then you have Cavlin Johnson in (2010??) have two steps, a football move, hip on the ground but his isn't a TD vs. the Bears? That's what I mean - if Dez and Calvin's are incompletions while Tate's is a TD, then we have no clue what a frickin' catch is!

I'm all for coaches and players calling out officials whatever team it is, ours or theirs. I would also say, McCarthy did not get angry into a microphone or anything like that. He was calm and rational sounding. And the call he referred to was shown right after as definitely missed by the officials.

In spite of all that, though, this was not the time to say anything. A lot of shit has taken place in a lot of games in a lot of sports, but recently, as somebody said, at least as many bad calls have been going for us as against us.

---

I dont think the Johnson catch is relevant anymore. Tate caught and controlled the ball took 2 steps crossing the GL and just as his foot came down for 3rd step [well inside EZ] the ball was pulled out. The instant he took 2 steps w/ control and crossed the GL it was a TD. Bryant didn't take 2 steps, those were not steps, it was a function of his momentum, he was falling to the ground the entire way from his control of ball 'til the ground caused the ball to move in his grasp.

And to address something Tex said as well, I dont think more calls are going against GB [except for teams ahead do get less calls and more often than not that's us], though it feels like it sometimes. Our attentiveness to the rules should give us an advantage; it's like GB is Shields running a 40 and other teams are like Howard Green running the 40 and the refs remove all their legs. Yea, our legs were removed equally, but we were alot faster and now we're not.

When I rewatch a game, i watch every route run, I watch every DB's coverage, not just where the ball goes. I keep empirical stats when evaluating players; but I dont keep track of how many times we get held/IC or picks v. the opposition. I'd bet money we get held and picked ALOT more; but I wouldn't bet alot because, I dont get as mad when we hold as when we get held, or when we pick as to when we get picked. At the end of the day if it gets seared in my mind when we get picked or held, but it rolls off my back like like h2o off a duck's when we foul; my impression could be extremely biased.

When talking about Bryant and the manner in which he got 2 feet down, I don't see why it matters if it was a step under his control or a function of momentum. 2 feet and clear possession should mean a catch, IMO...it's what they granted to Tate. Bryant had clear control of the ball in his left hand while extending for the goal line. Letter of the law, it was ruled was correct. Common sense? I say heck no!

As far as penalties I certainly don't pay close enough attention to make a quantitative statement. It's like what you said and how we're all likely looking at it, it's that gut sense and reaction. I don't see a massive inequality but I also can't sit here and definitively say you're wrong and I'm right.

I've seen several sources refer to Tate as having taken three steps between initially getting his hands on the ball and losing it (so this is not directed at you barfarn) but I would call that exceedingly generous. Tate jumped before he caught the ball and his feet don't land simultaneously, and he loses the ball before completing his next step.

He has the ball for at most a second from the point it first touches his hands to when he loses it. From my understanding, ignoring the going to the ground piece, a receiver must control the ball for enough time after getting both feet down to establish being a runner (and thus have possession). So from the time he lands on his second foot from the jump to losing the ball is maybe just over half a second? Is that enough time establish yourself as a runner (be ready to avoid or ward off a tackler)? Maybe, but I'd say it's debatable and an overturn requires indisputable evidence.

That said, I think the above is moot. How is he not going to the ground when he ends up flat on his back? In a Bears vs. Packers game in 2009, we had a Greg Jennings non-catch in which Greg caught the ball as he was finishing one step, had Tillman jump on his back, completes another step, and on the third step has the ball punched out by Tillman before they go to ground. The NFL ruled it incomplete as Jennings was said to be going to ground. If two and a half steps and then falling is going to ground, I don't know how Tate isn't.

The bottom line is it's a poorly structured rule. Any rule that calls Dez Bryant's play a drop and Tate's a catch when Dez controlled the ball probably two to three times as long is a shit rule.

---

I'll be surprised if McCarthy doesn't get a fine for his comments. I thought they were Busch League to be honest.

---

In fairness, Mike has held it back in some pretty remarkable situations. The Fail Mary for example. And the pie hole-opening of Wilson and Carroll afterwards.

I remember when Mike Sherman went off on Sapp after that cheap shot on Cliffy. That was more inappropriate than what Mike McCarthy did here. Still, it would behoove him to shut it. No use turning the zebras against us, when Aaron's trying to milk the free plays.

---

Agreed. I'm not going to lambaste MM for this (or if I initially did, I retract my lambasting). Generally he's been tactful in these situations, this was just an uncharacteristic lapse, albeit a short one.