PDA

View Full Version : League explains Leavy’s replay ruling



casper6633
01-17-2012, 03:44 AM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.

Spizi
01-17-2012, 03:50 AM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....*
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.


Regardless of what the bull**** call was, it shouldn't have been overruled on the field as packers ball. this means that the packers would have had to supply the burden of proof and since it was "indisputable" according to leavy the giants should have gotten possesion,

calzonesays
01-17-2012, 03:57 AM
League translation: We told Leavy/other refs to deliver us a Rodgers vs. Brady Superbowl

OneGiantLeap
01-17-2012, 04:00 AM
Are you ****ing kidding me? **** you Goodell, you POS.


Look at the comments gentlemen. After all the BS this team has faced we finally have an obvious occurrence of conspiracy to set certain profitable matchups for the NFL.

If they had simply admitted their error, we would have moved on. As it stands, I'm ****ing PO'd, and feel like something has to be done.

Gunakor
01-17-2012, 04:02 AM
Well I'm glad the league cleared that up for all of us.

/facepalm

They're still wrong. Everybody in America, from San Fransisco to Green Bay to New York, EVERYBODY knew that was a fumble. Everybody except Bill Leavy that is.

But I don't buy the argument that this was a deliberate attempt to do Green Bay any favors. Leavy's crew was terrible all season long regardless of who was playing. It's just a God awful crew that should have never been assigned to a playoff game to begin with. Hopefully next season they won't be assigned to any regular season games either. That way they won't be eligible for postseason work.

easterbeast
01-17-2012, 04:21 AM
clearly the nfl wanted a greenbay vs pats superbowl............even crooked refs could not help them.

Gav_devils#56
01-17-2012, 04:28 AM
Well I'm glad the league cleared that up for all of us.

/facepalm

They're still wrong. Everybody in America, from San Fransisco to Green Bay to New York, EVERYBODY knew that was a fumble. Everybody except Bill Leavy that is.

But I don't buy the argument that this was a deliberate attempt to do Green Bay any favors. Leavy's crew was terrible all season long regardless of who was playing. It's just a God awful crew that should have never been assigned to a playoff game to begin with. Hopefully next season they won't be assigned to any regular season games either. That way they won't be eligible for postseason work.

agree with this. clearly a bad call but i don't believe it's a conspiracy. more along the lines of the nfl trying to protect their refs, happens in other sports too. governing bodies never want to admit when their employees have made a mistake. seems to extend into government somewhat as well

calzonesays
01-17-2012, 04:51 AM
Are you ****ing kidding me? **** you Goodell, you POS.


Look at the comments gentlemen. After all the BS this team has faced we finally have an obvious occurrence of conspiracy to set certain profitable matchups for the NFL.

If they had simply admitted their error, we would have moved on. As it stands, I'm ****ing PO'd, and feel like something has to be done.


maybe the Fix will be on our side this weekend!!!!!! Giants/Pats rematch is probably the most profitable matchup left! Unless they go the Harbaugh Bowl route..-_-

Kidding. screw the refs..don't need their help.

NYCDBS
01-17-2012, 04:59 AM
clearly the nfl wanted a greenbay vs pats superbowl............even crooked refs could not help them.


Do you honestly think that the NFL a multi billion dollar corporation would try to fix games? Did you not see what congress did to baseball with the whole steroids fiasco? What do you think they would do to the NFL if a game fixing scandal by the league was uncovered? I'm sorry but I just can not beleive that the NFL would risk the demise of their entire business model just to get a favorable matchup in the Superbowl...

nyknstill!
01-17-2012, 05:24 AM
Dear Roger Goodell,

http://i42.tinypic.com/28iovuo.gif


THE CHAMPS ARE DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDD!

blueomaha
01-17-2012, 06:36 AM
If there was nothing wrong with the call, why would the league have to issue a statement or explanation??...STFU Goodell......

whakka
01-17-2012, 06:56 AM
the league would have better cred just banning the guy from any and all nfl events, rather than back him up. its a pr thing, someone somewhere thought they needed to show confidence in the officials, and basically call the fans a gang of blind idiots. talk about pr backfire. very unfortunate.

GCGiant
01-17-2012, 08:06 AM
It doesn't necessarily have to come from the NFL. The game was played in GB...a team owned by the fans...sorta.

Anyway, it coulda been the mayor, the governor, some rich eccentric billionaire who makes a living making cheese...

If the ref is smart he will not deposit the money in a bank account any time soon.

Gunakor
01-17-2012, 08:28 AM
It doesn't necessarily have to come from the NFL. The game was played in GB...a team owned by the fans...sorta.

Anyway, it coulda been the mayor, the governor, some rich eccentric billionaire who makes a living making cheese...

If the ref is smart he will not deposit the money in a bank account any time soon.

Really? You're going to implicate the fans in your conspiracy theory now? Really?? The Governor too, hell, it must be one of the Koch brothers unethical campaign contributions, right?

Leavy stunk it up. He's done so every week since August. There's no conspiracy, just an officiating crew that has proven week after week to be terrible at their jobs and shouldn't have been assigned the game in the first place.

jakegibbs
01-17-2012, 08:29 AM
clearly the nfl wanted a greenbay vs pats superbowl............even crooked refs could not help them.


Do you honestly think that the NFL a multi billion dollar corporation would try to fix games? Did you not see what congress did to baseball with the whole steroids fiasco? What do you think they would do to the NFL if a game fixing scandal by the league was uncovered? I'm sorry but I just can not beleive that the NFL would risk the demise of their entire business model just to get a favorable matchup in the Superbowl...

Yes I could believe corruption could occur when there is literly a millions of dollars involved. If you think not then you're the nieve one.

There were 2 other calls in that game that could have been crucial that no ones talking about.

Both times when Giants were clinging to a lead in second half. The hold on Snee which put the Giants back on the 10 yd line was one of the best blocks he's made all year. Result punt away GB gets excellent field position to tie game. Giants Hold

2nd time game close 2nd half early 4th 3rd & 3 Giant 27 hand off to DJ Ware who body crosses the 1st down marking. One side judge comes in & marks the ball back 1 1/2 yards forcing Giants to punt again.

Any of those 3 plays above could have turned the game in GB favor yes they were bouight off & now probaly wont get paid since the Giants prevailded anyway. Well thats one way to look at the conspiracy theory anyway.

NYCDBS
01-17-2012, 10:04 AM
clearly the nfl wanted a greenbay vs pats superbowl............even crooked refs could not help them.


Do you honestly think that the NFL a multi billion dollar corporation would try to fix games? Did you not see what congress did to baseball with the whole steroids fiasco? What do you think they would do to the NFL if a game fixing scandal by the league was uncovered? I'm sorry but I just can not beleive that the NFL would risk the demise of their entire business model just to get a favorable matchup in the Superbowl...

Yes I could believe corruption could occur when there is literly a millions of dollars involved. If you think not then you're the nieve one.

There were 2 other calls in that game that could have been crucial that no ones talking about.

Both times when Giants were clinging to a lead in second half. The hold on Snee which put the Giants back on the 10 yd line was one of the best blocks he's made all year. Result punt away GB gets excellent field position to tie game. Giants Hold

2nd time game close 2nd half early 4th 3rd & 3 Giant 27 hand off to DJ Ware who body crosses the 1st down marking. One side judge comes in & marks the ball back 1 1/2 yards forcing Giants to punt again.

Any of those 3 plays above could have turned the game in GB favor yes they were bouight off & now probaly wont get paid since the Giants prevailded anyway. Well thats one way to look at the conspiracy theory anyway.

Corruption by the League potentially jeopardizing their billion dollar cash COW for what a few million as you say??? You realize how ridiculous you sound. If you want to go ahead and theorize about individual refs and their own personal agendas fine but a league wide mandate to fix the outcome of games? Give me a break...

GCGiant
01-17-2012, 10:09 AM
clearly the nfl wanted a greenbay vs pats superbowl............even crooked refs could not help them.


Do you honestly think that the NFL a multi billion dollar corporation would try to fix games? Did you not see what congress did to baseball with the whole steroids fiasco? What do you think they would do to the NFL if a game fixing scandal by the league was uncovered? I'm sorry but I just can not beleive that the NFL would risk the demise of their entire business model just to get a favorable matchup in the Superbowl...

Yes I could believe corruption could occur when there is literly a millions of dollars involved. If you think not then you're the nieve one.

There were 2 other calls in that game that could have been crucial that no ones talking about.

Both times when Giants were clinging to a lead in second half. The hold on Snee which put the Giants back on the 10 yd line was one of the best blocks he's made all year. Result punt away GB gets excellent field position to tie game. Giants Hold

2nd time game close 2nd half early 4th 3rd & 3 Giant 27 hand off to DJ Ware who body crosses the 1st down marking. One side judge comes in & marks the ball back 1 1/2 yards forcing Giants to punt again.

Any of those 3 plays above could have turned the game in GB favor yes they were bouight off & now probaly wont get paid since the Giants prevailded anyway. Well thats one way to look at the conspiracy theory anyway.

Corruption by the League potentially jeopardizing their billion dollar cash COW for what a few million as you say??? You realize how ridiculous you sound. If you want to go ahead and theorize about individual refs and their own personal agendas fine but a league wide mandate to fix the outcome of games? Give me a break...

Do you think professional wrestling is rigged? Do people care? The refs have already been caught in the NBA. Why is it such a stretch to believe that an NFL ref could be bought. I can think of thousands of reasons why they might.

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 10:23 AM
League translation: We told Leavy/other refs to deliver us a Rodgers vs. Brady Superbowl
</P>


What interest would the league have in wanting any particular team in the SB? The SB is the most watched TV event every year, no matter who plays.</P>


These conspiracy theories are just silly. The bad officiating was the result ofbad officiating, not any conspiracy . . . . </P>

FLNYGFAN
01-17-2012, 10:35 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call.

That's where your conspiracy comes in.

miked1958
01-17-2012, 10:39 AM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.
</P>


WOW. REALLY... LOL. they would have been better saying nothing.</P>


Just like TC said in his interview. He was asked if he thought the NFL would explain that call. and he said i doubt we will hear anything on it.</P>

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 10:41 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </P>

FLNYGFAN
01-17-2012, 10:49 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>

The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth.

As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 10:58 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy? Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>

NYCDBS
01-17-2012, 10:59 AM
clearly the nfl wanted a greenbay vs pats superbowl............even crooked refs could not help them.


Do you honestly think that the NFL a multi billion dollar corporation would try to fix games? Did you not see what congress did to baseball with the whole steroids fiasco? What do you think they would do to the NFL if a game fixing scandal by the league was uncovered? I'm sorry but I just can not beleive that the NFL would risk the demise of their entire business model just to get a favorable matchup in the Superbowl...

Yes I could believe corruption could occur when there is literly a millions of dollars involved. If you think not then you're the nieve one.

There were 2 other calls in that game that could have been crucial that no ones talking about.

Both times when Giants were clinging to a lead in second half. The hold on Snee which put the Giants back on the 10 yd line was one of the best blocks he's made all year. Result punt away GB gets excellent field position to tie game. Giants Hold

2nd time game close 2nd half early 4th 3rd & 3 Giant 27 hand off to DJ Ware who body crosses the 1st down
marking. One side judge comes in & marks the ball back 1 1/2 yards forcing Giants to punt again.

Any of those 3 plays above could have turned the game in GB favor yes they were bouight off & now probaly wont get paid since the Giants prevailded anyway. Well thats one way to look at the conspiracy theory anyway.

Corruption by the League potentially jeopardizing their billion dollar cash COW for what a few million as you say??? You realize how ridiculous you sound. If you want to go ahead and theorize about individual refs and their own personal agendas fine but a league wide mandate to fix the outcome of games? Give me a break...

Do you think professional wrestling is rigged? Do people care? The refs have already been caught in the NBA. Why is it such a stretch to believe that an NFL ref could be bought. I can think of thousands of reasons why they might.

You should read my posts you did after all include them in your reply... I am not talking about the refs fixing games... My posts were in reply to the statement that the NFL wants certain outcomes and that they as an ORGANIZATION would fix games to attain those ends. The refs calling games certain ways is a different topic entirely. As far as professional wrestling is concerned those organizations do not market themselves the way major league sports do to the public. I think it is generally understood that professional wrestling is fixed its a drama. The NFL markets itself as a fair contest without a predetermined outcome... Fixing games by the league would undermine the fundamental nature of their business model thus making the comparison between the NFL and professional wrestling irrelevant. Ask yourself this why would the NFL avail itself of billions of dollars by risking a scandal of this magnitude? The fact remains that regardless of who ends up in the superbowl people in general are going to watch.

Kruunch
01-17-2012, 11:03 AM
League translation:* We told Leavy/other refs to deliver us a Rodgers vs. Brady Superbowl


+1

Leavygate.

Redeyejedi
01-17-2012, 11:04 AM
the league would have better cred just banning the guy from any and all nfl events, rather than back him up. its a pr thing, someone somewhere thought they needed to show confidence in the officials, and basically call the fans a gang of blind idiots. talk about pr backfire. very unfortunate.
The guy blew the Super Bowl why is he allowed to Ref any games that matter

FLNYGFAN
01-17-2012, 11:20 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy?* Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>

Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.

spair
01-17-2012, 11:26 AM
the league would have better cred just banning the guy from any and all nfl events, rather than back him up. its a pr thing, someone somewhere thought they needed to show confidence in the officials, and basically call the fans a gang of blind idiots. talk about pr backfire. very unfortunate.
The guy blew the Super Bowl why is he allowed to Ref any games that matter

The guy ought not be allowed to ref scrimmages let alone real and important games.. he has a record... a history of unadulterated atrocity following him. Rather then hide their shame and keep him in the house the NFL puts him out there for everyone to see and then make excuses for him.

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 11:26 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy? Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>


Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.</P>


How does any of that benefit the league though? Higher television ratings? The SB is already the highest rated tv show every year, no matter who plays, and the ratings would arguably be higher if a large market like the Giants made it to the SB instead of a small market team like the Packers. </P>

NYCDBS
01-17-2012, 11:28 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy?* Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>

Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.

So what only football fans care about that stuff. Football fans are going to watch the superbowl regardless... Won't you watch the superbowl if Tom Brady is playing Aaron Rodgers?

JMFP2
01-17-2012, 11:28 AM
Leavy is the worst type of referee.....he's not only wrong, but he's intrusive.</P>


I can give a pass to a referee that might miss some calls on both sides, if he lets both teams play.</P>


But Leavy jumped into a play that was called properly on the field, reversed it, and then stood by his bad decisioneven with photographic evidence.</P>


And then, to top it off, his crew goes on to make several more bad calls, and all of them lopsided against the Giants.</P>


The NFL needs to abandon its corporate buddy system.....these referees are all country club pals of the owners.....hire some ex-football players that understand the game and full-time them. Then, put in a replay system that is handled from the league office.</P>


There should be a guy "under the hood" at all time in a studio.</P>

NYCDBS
01-17-2012, 11:30 AM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy?* Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>

Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.

So what only football fans care about that stuff. Football fans are going to watch the superbowl regardless... Won't you watch the superbowl if Tom Brady is playing Aaron Rodgers? or not? The rest of the people that watch the superbowl could care less about the storylines they care more about the halftime show

nygsb42champs
01-17-2012, 11:51 AM
It is not a explanation it is a excuse.

jimsgints
01-17-2012, 02:04 PM
Leavy is the worst type of referee.....he's not only wrong, but he's intrusive.</p>


I can give a pass to a referee that might miss some calls on both sides, if he lets both teams play.</p>


But Leavy jumped into a play that was called properly on the field, reversed it, and then stood by his bad decisioneven with photographic evidence.</p>


And then, to top it off, his crew goes on to make several more bad calls, and all of them lopsided against the Giants.</p>


The NFL needs to abandon its corporate buddy system.....these referees are all country club pals of the owners.....hire some ex-football players that understand the game and full-time them. Then, put in a replay system that is handled from the league office.</p>


There should be a guy "under the hood" at all time in a studio.</p>

Right.
</p>

giantsforce
01-17-2012, 02:11 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy?* Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>Maybe they are not part of it but sure enough they go at great lengths to cover the **** ups!

giantsforce
01-17-2012, 02:12 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy?* Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>

Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.

So what only football fans care about that stuff. Football fans are going to watch the superbowl regardless... Won't you watch the superbowl if Tom Brady is playing Aaron Rodgers? or not? The rest of the people that watch the superbowl could care less about the storylines they care more about the halftime showI wouldn't mind another "wardrobe malfunction".

Giantz4Life
01-17-2012, 02:15 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</p>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </p>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</p>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy? Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</p>


Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.</p>


How does any of that benefit the league though? Higher television ratings? The SB is already the highest rated tv show every year, no matter who plays, and the ratings would arguably be higher if a large market like the Giants made it to the SB instead of a small market team like the Packers. </p>

I agree that the NFL conspiracy theory is a little far fetched, but I disagree on your point here simply because although the Packers are considered a "small market" team due to the size and population of their city they really are not a small market team. They are the most talked about team in the NFL since 2010 when they made the playoff/SB run, went on an amazing 15-1 run to end the season, and they have the most talked about/praised player in Rodgers over the last year. In addition, they also have probably the most bandwagon fans of any team in the NFL right now because of Rodgers being crowned best QB in the NFL. When I went to the Giants/Pack game in the beginning of December there were SWARMS of Green Bay fans at the game, almost an alarming amount to be honest.

Gianthunter
01-17-2012, 02:21 PM
The NFL will have to shoot for HarBowl now.

drumkilla23
01-17-2012, 02:24 PM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....*
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.


<p style="color: red;">"Rule XXX, Section 666, Article 0 of the NFL Rule Book, once a player's toe is on the ground..."</p> give me a break... such ticky-tack rules...

sharick88
01-17-2012, 02:27 PM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....*
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.

There really isn't an explanation for that epic fail. Stevie Wonder thought that play was a fumble. Anyways, it is what it is. Nothing ever happens to these guys when they mess up. Leavy still keeps his job. We still took the packers to the woodshed

Voldamort
01-17-2012, 02:29 PM
Move on Leavy was wrong, let's go beat the 9ers this week!

FLNYGFAN
01-17-2012, 02:44 PM
So what only football fans care about that stuff. Football fans are going to watch the superbowl regardless... Won't you watch the superbowl if Tom Brady is playing Aaron Rodgers?

If the Packers went on to win that game because of the bad call, then I wouldn't watch another game the rest of the season.

FLNYGFAN
01-17-2012, 02:48 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what?* </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy?* Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>


Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.</P>


How does any of that benefit the league though?* Higher television ratings?* The SB is already the highest rated tv show every year, no matter who plays, and the ratings would arguably be* higher if a large market like the Giants made it to the SB instead of a small market team like the Packers.* </P>

GB has a pretty darn good following, regardless of their market size.

If it doesn't matter who plays, then I am sure the league would love looking forward to Baltimore-San Francisco Super Bowl.

Again, my whole point was that if the call on the field wasn't reversed and if the referee can only look at the play under the hood for 60 seconds, then why did it take almost 5 minutes in real time to come to that decision?

JMGGIANTS
01-17-2012, 03:04 PM
Ail I know is this guy is an embarassment to his profession and shouldnt' ref another game. It was called a fumble on the field. Although I don't buy into conspiracy theories there is a remote possibility he had bet money on the game. Although a remote possibility there have been more surprising things in life.

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 03:38 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy? Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>


Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.</P>


How does any of that benefit the league though? Higher television ratings? The SB is already the highest rated tv show every year, no matter who plays, and the ratings would arguably be higher if a large market like the Giants made it to the SB instead of a small market team like the Packers. </P>


GB has a pretty darn good following, regardless of their market size. If it doesn't matter who plays, then I am sure the league would love looking forward to Baltimore-San Francisco Super Bowl. Again, my whole point was that if the call on the field wasn't reversed and if the referee can only look at the play under the hood for 60 seconds, then why did it take almost 5 minutes in real time to come to that decision?</P>


The league only would care who is in the SB if it affects their bottom line . . . and it doesn't. The league would not lose a single dime if they have a San Fran-Baltimore SB instead of a NE-GB SB.</P>


The ONLY reason you can think of for thereversaltaking so much time is that the NFL is part of a conspiracy to hand thegame to the Packers??? If there wassuch a conspiracy, why would the reversal have takenso long? Why wouldn't the refs have just thrown a flag for holding on Nicks' long TD catch?</P>


Are you starting to seehow silly this whole NFL conspiracy theory is?????</P>

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 03:40 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</P>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </P>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</P>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy? Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</P>


Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.</P>


How does any of that benefit the league though? Higher television ratings? The SB is already the highest rated tv show every year, no matter who plays, and the ratings would arguably be higher if a large market like the Giants made it to the SB instead of a small market team like the Packers. </P>




I agree that the NFL conspiracy theory is a little far fetched, but I disagree on your point here simply because although the Packers are considered a "small market" team due to the size and population of their city they really are not a small market team. They are the most talked about team in the NFL since 2010 when they made the playoff/SB run, went on an amazing 15-1 run to end the season, and they have the most talked about/praised player in Rodgers over the last year. In addition, they also have probably the most bandwagon fans of any team in the NFL right now because of Rodgers being crowned best QB in the NFL. When I went to the Giants/Pack game in the beginning of December there were SWARMS of Green Bay fans at the game, almost an alarming amount to be honest.
</P>


So what? Does that mean that the NFL would make more money if GB plays in the Super Bowl instead of the Giants? Absolutely not. Why then would the league conspire to fix a game when the end result would not put any more money in their pockets???</P>


</P>

WORLDCHAMPS
01-17-2012, 04:10 PM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.


what a bunch of horse****

mfraykor
01-17-2012, 04:10 PM
Longtime reader, first time writer... or something like that.
Just wanted to share the recent explanation that the league had to offer for Leavy's replay ruling.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

Turns out we are all blind and Leavy's eyes work better than the replay system....*
As first a football fan, than a Giants fan I can say that I am just disgusted by the explanation issued for this ruling.


Well.. IMO if the league has to put a statement out to EXPLAIN a call... that call was bogus to begin with.... should be that hard.

FLNYGFAN
01-17-2012, 04:31 PM
The ONLY reason you can think of for the*reversal*taking so much time is that the NFL is part of a conspiracy to hand the*game to the Packers???* If there was*such a conspiracy, why would the reversal have taken*so long?* Why wouldn't the refs have just thrown a flag for holding on Nicks' long TD catch?</P>


Are you starting to see*how silly this whole NFL conspiracy theory is?????***</P>

The call was not reversed. An official on the field overruled the call on the field, so Leavy went into the review with a call of Packers ball.

Since he has 60 seconds to view the play and since there was no change of possession and no clock changes based on his ruling, why did it take almost 5 minutes of real time?

It may be a "silly conspiracy theory", but you've yet to give an answer on why Leavy took so long to come back to the field on a call that was not reversed, and a call that cost the the Giants a timeout and could have impacted future challenges in the game.

Your question about holding on the Nicks TD has no basis for this.

THE_New_York_Giants
01-17-2012, 04:32 PM
Leavy is a piece of trash. I wish death upon him and his loved ones.

KathieLee'sPokies
01-17-2012, 04:53 PM
I have no idea if there was a deliberate attempt to benefit the Packers. But I do know that they became the most popular team in the NFL, by one poll:



http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7377467/dallas-cowboys-second-green-bay-packers-america-team-poll-landslide



</p><h2><font size="4">A new America: Poll picks Packers</font></h2>

<span class="page-actions">December 22, 2011, 2:47 PM ET</span></p>

It's a good thing for the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys) that the America's Team nickname isn't subject to a vote.</p>According to one recent poll, it wouldn't even be close for the Cowboys.


The Green Bay Packers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers)
were by far the most popular team with voters surveyed by Public Policy
Polling, according to results released Wednesday by the organization.
The Packers received 22 percent of the votes, twice as many as the
Cowboys. </p>


The next most popular teams were the Chicago Bears (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/chi/chicago-bears), New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants) and Pittsburgh Steelers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/pit/pittsburgh-steelers), who each received eight percent of the votes.</p>

The Cowboys might not be the America's most popular team, but they are clearly the most polarizing.</p>


The Cowboys easily topped the list of the Public Policy Polling voters'
least favorite teams. Dallas got 22 percent of the votes in that
category, twice as many as the Bears. The Packers (eight percent)
received the next most votes for least favorite.</p>


According to Public Policy Polling, it surveyed 700 American voters from
Dec. 16 to 18. The margin of error for the survey, according to the
organization, is plus or minus 3.7 percent. </p>

wolfie
01-17-2012, 05:12 PM
I know we're ALL mad about that call and let's not forget the "roughing the passer" calltoo, but just think how mad we would be if we had lost.

Giantz4Life
01-17-2012, 05:21 PM
If the referee has only 60 seconds to make the call upon reviewing the replay and the play was not overturned, then it shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make the call. That's where your conspiracy comes in.</p>


Conspiracy involving who and to accomplish what? </p>


The referee can continue to be on the headset while not under the replay equipment, so someone could have been in his ear from the booth. As far as what it accomplished, it gave GB a TD to tie the game, when the Giants could have gone up 10-14 points. You think the league doesn't know the Packers had a bad defense and Eli was carving them up?</p>


So you think that the NFL as a league was a part of this conspiracy? Please explain to me how the NFL benefits if GB goes to the NFC Championship instead of the Giants.</p>


Aaron Rodgers is the likely MVP of the league, so there is one benefit. You then couple that with the chance to play Tom Brady and you have the NFL use storyline for the 2 best QB's in the league playing for the Super Bowl.</p>


How does any of that benefit the league though? Higher television ratings? The SB is already the highest rated tv show every year, no matter who plays, and the ratings would arguably be higher if a large market like the Giants made it to the SB instead of a small market team like the Packers. </p>




I agree that the NFL conspiracy theory is a little far fetched, but I disagree on your point here simply because although the Packers are considered a "small market" team due to the size and population of their city they really are not a small market team. They are the most talked about team in the NFL since 2010 when they made the playoff/SB run, went on an amazing 15-1 run to end the season, and they have the most talked about/praised player in Rodgers over the last year. In addition, they also have probably the most bandwagon fans of any team in the NFL right now because of Rodgers being crowned best QB in the NFL. When I went to the Giants/Pack game in the beginning of December there were SWARMS of Green Bay fans at the game, almost an alarming amount to be honest.
</p>


So what? Does that mean that the NFL would make more money if GB plays in the Super Bowl instead of the Giants? Absolutely not. Why then would the league conspire to fix a game when the end result would not put any more money in their pockets???</p>


</p>

Easy partner. I never said the NFL is fixing games so chillax. I simply said I disagree with your statement that Green Bay is a small market team. They clearly are not.

GMENAGAIN
01-17-2012, 05:43 PM
The ONLY reason you can think of for thereversaltaking so much time is that the NFL is part of a conspiracy to hand thegame to the Packers??? If there wassuch a conspiracy, why would the reversal have takenso long? Why wouldn't the refs have just thrown a flag for holding on Nicks' long TD catch?


</P>


Are you starting to seehow silly this whole NFL conspiracy theory is?????</P>


The call was not reversed. An official on the field overruled the call on the field, so Leavy went into the review with a call of Packers ball. Since he has 60 seconds to view the play and since there was no change of possession and no clock changes based on his ruling, why did it take almost 5 minutes of real time? It may be a "silly conspiracy theory", but you've yet to give an answer on why Leavy took so long to come back to the field on a call that was not reversed, and a call that cost the the Giants a timeout and could have impacted future challenges in the game. Your question about holding on the Nicks TD has no basis for this.</P>


I don't need to give you an answer why . . . . all I know is that it wasn't because the NFL wanted the Packers to win.</P>


Time to let this go and think about thenext game . . . . . unless the NFL is conspiring right now to fix that game too . . . . dun, dun, duunnnnnnn . . . . are we really sure those guys are actual referees??? Maybe they are just "plants" put there by the NFL to make sure that their favorite team will get into the playoffs, even though it would not increase their revenues by one cent . . . Do you think that Coughlin is in on it??? He keeps losing his challenges . . . . maybe that's just to throw us off?</P>


</P>

NYCDBS
01-17-2012, 07:05 PM
The bottom line is football is a business its about dollars and cents... Fans always want to think that there is some giant (no pun intended) conspiracy at work every time a call doesn't go their way. The NFL would never fix a game of any sort there is just too much money at stake... If the leagues integrity came into question how long do you think it wouod take Direct Tv dish network fox nbc cbs amongst others to sue them into oblivion... I don't care how good the ratings would be for a packers patriots superbowl its not happening...

GCGiant
01-17-2012, 08:37 PM
If the leagues integrity came into question...

It is no longer "if"...and I think that is the reason that there is so much interest in this thread. Anybody who watched that game had to come away wondering wtf was going on.

SackingMyths
01-17-2012, 09:30 PM
For what it's worth, I've never had so many friends, who are fans of opposing teams, text me to tell me we are very clearly getting hosed (again). I'm talking Jets and Eagles fans, so it MUST be obvious.

Why is it that a guy goes under the hood, gets a great look at it and is the only one on the face of the planet-- including his own crew-- to see Jennings' calf hit the ground? Seems fishy after the Ballard non-TD, and I can't blame any fan for letting their imaginations run rampant with cynicism.

If the NFL doesn't want conspiracy theorists, they should do a better job policing their officiating crews.

Guys risk injury, and worse to get where they're at in the NFL and can get cut for a missed tackle. Yet these guys can cost an entire regime their jobs with a horrible call and their boss has their back.

And we're not talking a 50/50 proposition here. This one seems obvious to everyone but Bill Leavy.

rainierjef
01-17-2012, 09:58 PM
“Rule 15, Section 9 of the Rule Book (page 98) governs instant replay reviews and states: ‘All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the other covering official(s), prior to review. A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change." --- fine of thats the case leavy didn't have indisputable evidence to overule the call on the field but the call on the field was a fumble and return of whatever yards Kenny returned it for. </P>


SMFH you guys are pissed now!! but i've been pissed since the jets game and thats just with the giants for the league i've been pissed since week 3. **** these officials and this bull**** we are always on the bad end of calls and get no type of we'll yeah it was our fault sorry. i fully believe that the NFL not so much scripts but tips the scale to the team they want to match up in the big game, not so much in the regular season but its friggin apparent in the playoffs. look at the ravens vs texans game horrible officaiting as well.</P>


At this point fellas you just gotta ask yourself this... which one is more poriftable to the NFL rating wise?</P>


A Harbaurgh Super Bowl, </P>


Super Bowl 42 rematch, </P>


David(49er) vs Goliath(Pats) superbowl, </P>


Super Bowl XXXV rematch </P>


Smfh sad we have to look at it like this </P>

yoeddy
01-17-2012, 10:19 PM
The ONLY reason you can think of for the*reversal*taking so much time is that the NFL is part of a conspiracy to hand the*game to the Packers???* If there was*such a conspiracy, why would the reversal have taken*so long?* Why wouldn't the refs have just thrown a flag for holding on Nicks' long TD catch?</P>


Are you starting to see*how silly this whole NFL conspiracy theory is?????***</P>

The call was not reversed. An official on the field overruled the call on the field, so Leavy went into the review with a call of Packers ball.

Since he has 60 seconds to view the play and since there was no change of possession and no clock changes based on his ruling, why did it take almost 5 minutes of real time?

It may be a "silly conspiracy theory", but you've yet to give an answer on why Leavy took so long to come back to the field on a call that was not reversed, and a call that cost the the Giants a timeout and could have impacted future challenges in the game.

Your question about holding on the Nicks TD has no basis for this.

He took so long under the hood to determine how much time to put back on the clock and where to spot the ball.

The error was initially that someone overturned the call on the field from fumble to down-by-contact. The travesty was that the replay didn't right the overturn...

NYGRealityCheck
01-17-2012, 11:28 PM
lol bs explanation, the calf wasn't even down either. Also, when was the last time a player was called down by Calf?

wonder what they can cook up for the other miss/bad calls.

Rule 498 Section 32, If the player's last name is Ware and runs for a first down on 3rd and 1, the ball shall be spotted before the first down marker with 4th and Inches to go.

Rule 980 Section 45: if Eli Manning is playing Aaron Rodgers at Lambeau Field, all illegal hits to Eli Manning will be null and void. However, if Aaron Rodgers is tackled too hard, a blow to head penalty should be called.

Rule 5402 Section 523: Packer WRs are exempted from the "continuation of the play" excuse we gave to screw the Lions over last season at Chicago. If it even looks like a catch in the endzone, it is automatically a touchdown for the Packers.

pica01
01-18-2012, 01:12 AM
the ? the league needs to answer is what official saw down by contact,didn't blow the play dead and somehow convinced crew chief Leavy to change the call on the field even though he never blew his whistle.Unless it was Leavy himself.I would love to have heard that ref huddle when 30 million were in commercial.Bill,I know we called that a fumble but the guy was down.I should've blown it dead but i didn't.You should reverse the call.I ask the NFL.Which official saw it as down by contact?If it was Leavy they REALLY have a problem.If it wasn't then Leavy is an idiot and this entire controversy is being discussed from a false premise.