Skip to main content

NFL replacement refs blow the Monday night game

While, in light of me fighting a cold, I knew I should have gone to bed early last night, but for some reason, I had a gut feeling that the end of the Monday night football game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks was going to be one to remember. As seems to be typical, my gut was right. 

Like many others, I have been rather critical of the replacement refs, but it didn't truly feel as if the referees had genuinely cost a team a game. There were a couple of games they potentially could have decided, but there wasn't that one game yet which stood out from the rest and provided such an uproar from players, fans, coaches and the media alike, that it basically demanded the league work something out with the regular officials. After Monday night's game, there can't be any questioning that potential consequence anymore, for the officials blew the game for the Green Bay Packers.

It should be noted that I'm not a fan of either Green Bay or Seattle. Actually, with Seattle being the home underdog, along with me being a fan of their energetic coach Pete Carrol and 5'10'' quarterback Russell Wilson, I was pulling for the Seahawks to win the game. In any case, the Packers should have come out victorious. 

I'll even leave the other missed calls alone. The one people will remember took place on the last play of the game. Down 12-7, Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson heaved a 24-yard pass into the end zone. Receiver Golden Tate shoved a defender (Sam Shields) in the back, committing offensive pass interference for one. Then it appeared as if Green Bay's J.D. Jennings had his hands firmly on the ball and pulled it into his chest before Tate grabbed a hold of it, trying to persuade the officials that the two had equal possession of the ball, which would have resulted in a touchdown. In any case, one official indicated that it was indeed a touchdown while another appeared to be ready to call it an interception and touchback. Since the call on the field was that of a touchdown, upon further review, the play stood. While I'll hesitantly stand by the refs in saying that the call would "stand" regardless of what it was on the field, they should have conversed with one another and made certain to get the call right on the field and that didn't happen. The Packers are now 1-2, looking up at both Chicago and Minnesota who are a game ahead of them in the NFC North, when they should be even with those two squads and up a game on Detroit, whom they're now tied with.

In light of this awful call, I've decided to fill out an application to become an NFL replacement ref. The application must have been updated just recently, as it states in order to get the job, I'll be required to showcase the following: 1) Look good in a Foot Locker uniform, 2) Be able to see (not necessarily read) adequately out of one eye, 3) Know what a football looks like, 5) Be able to correctly count to four and 6) Be able to run a 35.50 40-yard dash.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"