I wasn't sure if I should start another thread or put this here or in one of the other post-game threads. So please feel to move it wherever you want, Kevin.
My thoughts (these are in no particular order, just typed as they are occurring to me:
1. No, I don't think the commissioner should change the outcome of a game. This is not the first time a questionable or bad official's call has caused a loss or a win that was not deserved. It won't be the last. This will simply become the Packer's equivalent of the instant replay game. (I know, you're going to say this one was worse than that and Ditka was a whiner. I agree completely, but that's not the point. The officials have and will occasionally screw up, even on the last play of the game sometimes, and instant replay isn't going to ever change that.)
2. I don't care about precedent. I'm a big fan of the old legal distinction between "law" and "equity" and I believe these kind of "wrongs" are the sort that ought to be decided on a case by case basis without any precedental value like the old equity courts used to work.
3. But even equity can't always govern. In our pursuit and expectation of perfect justice, we only give rise to more injustice. Not all wrongs can be righted. That's life sometimes. Sometimes it sucks, and sometimes you just have to deal with unfair consequences of its suckitude.
4. I'm less bothered by the end of the game touchdown call than I am by two calls that eventually made it possible. First, the Packers got hosed by the bogus roughing-the-passer penalty on Walden -- McMillian made a fantastic play and Walden did exactly what you want him to be doing. Second, the Packers got hosed by the interference call on Shields. Without that completion, the drive would have ended and the Packers would never have had to be pinned inside their five. If you want game changing calls, those two, either alone or together, had even less justification than the touchdown call.
5. And, yes, I mean that. The touchdown/interception call was by no means 100% obvious as the ESPN clowns made it [remember, they are still clowns; just because they agree with us on one call doesn't make them any less awful as commentators. Same with Florio and Peter King and the rest]. Do I think it was an INT. Yes. But slow motion makes what might have been a fraction of a second of longer possession look like a lot longer. Add in the weird shadows mixed in with camera angles, and pieces of bodies tangled every which way, and there's a lot of potential for "optical illusions" about control.
6. Given this, I think it is false certitude that makes us believe the "regular refs" would have done any better. In the hands of a Triplett or a Hochuli, you don't think there would have been a substantial chance of (i) listening to the wrong official in one of *their* interminable conferences and thus making the wrong call "on the field"; and (ii) you don't think there would have been a substantial chance of the dreaded "no indisputable evidence" affirmation of that wrong call. I'm sorry, I just don't have that kind of confidence. If Karma is going to screw you, it's going to screw you.
7. Before we buy into the "this should be the tipping point" argument, let us not forget that one of the major barriers to agreement to date (at least if the reporters are to be believed) is that the owners want to build in such things as benchings of refs for bad games, etc....and that it is the "old officials" who are refusing to give. I don't think the NFL should give on this part of their demands; and if the old refs continue to take this "we're the only ones who can do it," well, the rest of us should deal with it. Even if it means we get hosed out of a game. In the long term, the owner's position, at least on these "quality control" issues, is the correct one. If the refs give in on these issues, then, and only then, is it just about money; and then, and only then, does the refs position become the more persuasive one. IMO.
8. Unfortunately, the NFL has put itself into a position where it has to put up with incompetents as it identifies the ones among the "new officials" who might actually be NFL quality. Some of these replacements *are* absolutely out of their league, but not all of them. IMO, what the NFL should have done, and should still do, is say to all the replacements, "Look, each game is part of your probationary period. Screw the pooch once, we might keep you on. Do so twice, and we're going to replace you.
The rest of the game:
9. First half looked awful. It's performance like this that leads me to think you Bulaga and Lang fans overrate them.
10. First half play-calling was awful. 21 runs and 4 passes or some such? That's not even enough run calls to count as "run just enough to keep them honest."
11. And, please, please, Mike, I don't care how creative you are, running more than half of the runs you do call in a game is not going to work as a long term approach. Sure, the finesse/surprise will occasionally work, but you're in the shotgun far, far, too much.
12. And where the fuck are the damn screens? And I don't mean bubble screens to Cobb. The screens that say "gotcha" to the DEs.
13. What kind of OL gets ripped for 8 sacks from a team that is rushing just 4 players? ARGH!
14. And, Dom, will you please please please stop that 3 man rush. Maybe if you had Henry Jordan and Deacon Jones to go along with Clay, you might get within 5 feet of the QB, but with our "vaunted" pass rich? Give me an effing break.
15. Oh, and what's with not calling a time out in the first half, when you might have been able to get the ball back and in position for a FG with one or two sideline passes? Yes, I know your OL was completely sucking up to this point. But you could have at least given it a shot telling Aaron Rodgers to toss the ball into the sideline as soon as there was any sniff of a rush. (And who knows, maybe Carroll would have had a Dom fart and called a three man rush.)
16. Another drop by Finley.
17. Did Driver get more than that one play? Should have caught the TD of course, but it wasn't really a "good receiver always make that catch" throw, so I'd not blame it all on him. And boy, did he come close to converting that missed semi-difficult catch into a totally spectacular catch with his second effort. I realize he's number five receiver now, so he's not going to get the reps he used to, but it seems like he got virtually none.
18. Oh yes, and the cheap shot on Jennings that the refs missed, or the one on #51? Those teed me off, though both Packer players deserved flags, too.
19. James Jones had a pretty good game. Jennings was uneven, but he showed again why he is the #1. Nelson looked like he couldn't separate from good bump-and-run coverage. Finley -- he looks less and less worth worrying about keeping every game to me. And, again, where was Driver?
20. And, no, I don't have a problem with the kind of mugging the Seahawks were doing in the first ten years. IMO, that is what DBs should be allowed to do. One of the nice things about the replacement refs that I"ve seen is that they're less willing to give every benefit to the passing game. (Apart from that bogus call on Shields, of course.)
21. Benson looked good. Wonder what he might have done with more than 3 carries in the first half?
22. I was fearing the NO game because NO was coming in 0-3. But now with the "we was screwed" motivation, I expect total domination by GB next week.
23. Overall: Bad officiating in the last half of the fourth quarter (Seattle's last two possessions) leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, especially given that it really did change the eventual outcome of the game. But I guess I'm not as bothered as much as most by it since, based on the worthless first half performance by the offense and in MM/AR's play calling, the team didn't come close to putting four quarters of winning-team-quality play.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)