PDA

View Full Version : Refs fixed the game in support of Packers stock sale



chuckedafter5yards
12-06-2011, 04:04 PM
The NFL clearly indicated that it wanted the Packers to win the game, get high ratings and sell lots of stupid never-to-accrue Packers stock this week.
The calls were BS, the game should be known as "The call on the field remains" game, did they just have a video chat with the Commisioner under that hood?

ny06
12-06-2011, 04:14 PM
After the Tim Donaghy incident in the NBA a few years back there is nothing that says referee's and officials can't be bought. </P>


Am I saying the ref's in the Packer vs Giants game were slighted with there decisions? I honestly don't know.I understand there human and they will make mistakes, they have to make a judgement call in a split second. But the thing that got me asking what the hell? Was when they reviewed plays and they still stood by there call. </P>


There is nothing we can do now, it's in the books as a loss. </P>

nygsb42champs
12-06-2011, 04:22 PM
I don't think it had to do with the stoack sales but I certainly think they blew at leat 2 calls. The Driver TD I will give them a break on.

egyptian420
12-06-2011, 04:26 PM
Like I said before, a lot of calls went against us that game and there were some terrible no calls as well that went against us. However, I don't think the NFL had a conspiracy to try and make us lose the game.

We've had calls that helped us earlier in the year as well....it's just horrible officiating all around. We need to move on from this and look forward to Dallas who I guarantee you we will beat no matter what Any ref does.

jhamburg
12-06-2011, 04:34 PM
The NFL clearly indicated that it wanted the Packers to win the game, get high ratings and sell lots of stupid never-to-accrue Packers stock this week.
The calls were BS, the game should be known as "The call on the field remains" game, did they just have a video chat with the Commisioner under that hood?

Eh, if it's fixed I don't think the NFL is the culprit, it just doesn't make sense. The NFL doesn't have enough to gain from certain teams winning to risk a multi-billion dollar business to whistleblowers. Organized crime influencing individual refs is always a possibility though.

Ruttiger711
12-06-2011, 04:40 PM
The NFL clearly indicated that it wanted the Packers to win the game, get high ratings and sell lots of stupid never-to-accrue Packers stock this week. The calls were BS, the game should be known as "The call on the field remains" game, did they just have a video chat with the Commisioner under that hood? Eh, if it's fixed I don't think the NFL is the culprit, it just doesn't make sense. The NFL doesn't have enough to gain from certain teams winning to risk a multi-billion dollar business to whistleblowers. Organized crime influencing individual refs is always a possibility though.</P>


</P>


If anything i think the refs are guilty of being enamored with the Green Bay success like most of the fans whichis enough to skewtheir perspective inGB's favor. They're only human in a job where they shouldnt be. </P>

WR4Life
12-06-2011, 04:47 PM
The NFL clearly indicated that it wanted the Packers to win the game, get high ratings and sell lots of stupid never-to-accrue Packers stock this week.
The calls were BS, the game should be known as "The call on the field remains" game, did they just have a video chat with the Commisioner under that hood?

Eh, if it's fixed I don't think the NFL is the culprit, it just doesn't make sense. The NFL doesn't have enough to gain from certain teams winning to risk a multi-billion dollar business to whistleblowers. Organized crime influencing individual refs is always a possibility though.

In all seriousness, I think the challenge rule should work like this. You should be able to challenge as many times as you want until you get it wrong twice. I feel like having to get both right in order to get a third is a little unfair. For example, lets say a coach had to blow a challenge on a call early in the game that the refs obviously messed up. Then later on a play is challenged and not overturned. Because the coach had to blow a challenge early on on a call that was messed up, he no longer has the ability to challenge later on because he got the second one wrong.

WR4Life
12-06-2011, 04:50 PM
The NFL clearly indicated that it wanted the Packers to win the game, get high ratings and sell lots of stupid never-to-accrue Packers stock this week.
The calls were BS, the game should be known as "The call on the field remains" game, did they just have a video chat with the Commisioner under that hood?

Eh, if it's fixed I don't think the NFL is the culprit, it just doesn't make sense. The NFL doesn't have enough to gain from certain teams winning to risk a multi-billion dollar business to whistleblowers. Organized crime influencing individual refs is always a possibility though.

In all seriousness, I think the challenge rule should work like this. You should be able to challenge as many times as you want until you get it wrong twice. I feel like having to get both right in order to get a third is a little unfair. For example, lets say a coach had to blow a challenge on a call early in the game that the refs obviously messed up. Then later on a play is challenged and not overturned. Because the coach had to blow a challenge early on on a call that was messed up, he no longer has the ability to challenge later on because he got the second one wrong.

What the hell? Why did this post here. I was in a completely different thread.

chuckedafter5yards
01-15-2012, 08:41 PM
feel a sense of relief and justice served. thank you