I believe your right about the tv cameras but they can go frame by frame i remember hearing and use 2 replays at the same time to make a decision.

---

So there frame by frame is better than our frame by frame after the fact? :lol:

Jedi mind tricks work not.. 😉

---

Well i don't have a player that will go frame by frame with zoom 😛

Come to the Dark side my son 😛

---

It this case.. Fox played the best angle.. showing Jennings established control with 3 steps.. then went out of bounce and lost the handle upon impact with the ground..

Why does on need zoom and frame by frame in this case?

We all got a great look at it.. it is just down to interpertation.. in which the ref figured control wasn't established.. which is the error I believe there is.. he ruled no control.. which brought the control aspect through out the catch... which is the mistake in my book.

Piss on the Dark side I will..

---

Eight pages on this, wow. I like it when we get screwed on a call and still win. Then you get to use it later in life. Think of it as a savings account of Packers getting screwed calls. I still don't think we've gone into the black from the mid 90's Cowboys games though.

---

The last two seasons have been pretty absurd for the Packers. In 2008, it felt like every week they were reviewing a play on NFL Network and Pereira (sp?) was like, "Yeah, that's our bad."

---

In the 90's.. I thought the NFL was rigged some of the calls were so skewed in the Boys direction.. sometimes you wonder.. Spygate, calls here or there in game.. but for the better part of two years I questioned the NFL's integrity.

---

The games are still rigged i believe. Why o the refs have earbuds in their ear but when they goto look at replays they have to put on a headset?

The earbuds are for the big wigs in Vegas telling them who is suppose to win and by how much lol

---

Ironman, I like how you point out the contact bit. My argument really had nothing to do with whether the Oakland receiver was contacted or not but the fact that he was falling as he caught it (whether that had been due to diving for a ball or being tackled is irrelevant.

Now, I am not surprised an NFL spokesman came out and said they got the call right. Unless the call is so egregiously erroneous that there is just no bloody way to spin the rules to make it the correct interpretation, the NFL says their refs got it right. I have major issues with this interpretation of "going to ground."

1.) It presupposes any contact between a defender and a receiver results in the receiver going to the ground. That is the only way to make their claim that the determining factor is when Tillman touched Jennings correct. That is simply not true, otherwise none of us would have ever heard of a broken tackle.

2.) Even if a receiver eventually goes to ground, this ruling assumes that a receiver once contacted can't maintain control and continue running before going to ground. Again this is not true.

Under this interpretation, you could have a first down on your own one yard line and throw the ball to a receiver in the flat. He could have a defender jump on his back the instant he catches the ball. The receiver could stumble and fight 100 yards down field, fall into the end zone, and lose the ball when he hits the ground. Under the interpretation of the rule, as they state it in the Jennings case, that receiver is going to the ground for the entire length of the football field and that pass would be incomplete.

---

So they considered Jennings going to the ground because of the contact from Tillman prior to the second foot coming down. So in theory, if a defender contacts the receiver before the second foot is down, the receiver could keep him on his back for 20 yards, then lose the ball, and it would be an incomplete pass. I doubt a ref would ever call it that way. Obviously this rule is imperfect.

---