PDA

View Full Version : More proof of terrible officitating...



hawaiianvike21
11-16-2004, 10:03 PM
http://www.provencehome.org/refsuck/walt_coleman.htm

THis could explain it all. I really hate to be complaing about a loss many days after the game but something stuck in my mind that i must show everyone this including pack fans.

Yep hes the same ref that screwed us over OFFICIALLY in that 2002 game in which 9 blown calls were against the vikings and later the nfl had to apologize.


Looks like we'll be getting another apology letter sometime soon.

VikingsTw
11-16-2004, 10:08 PM
Put a green jersey on his ass!

That 2002 game was the worst afficiated game i had ever seen in my life.

vikings_fan66
11-16-2004, 10:11 PM
Wow has he ever blown a lot of big games

CT Viking Man
11-16-2004, 10:18 PM
If this guy is that bad he should be covering the Carolina - San Fran game rather than the Vikes - GB game. I don't know when the officiating crew for a game is announced but I'll cringe everytime this ref is on board (for the other team) during a Vikes game.

hawaiianvike21
11-17-2004, 03:01 AM
Thats just the way the nfl works. They got to go screw something up like this and kiss more ass to media darlings like farve and manning for example-help them win since they were doing so shitty. Dont forget about the skins game too. Refs helped them out big time on that as well once portis scored, its help the packers time. Neglect td.

XTAP59
11-17-2004, 09:09 AM
"hawaiianvike21" wrote:

http://www.provencehome.org/refsuck/walt_coleman.htm

THis could explain it all. I really hate to be complaing about a loss many days after the game but something stuck in my mind that i must show everyone this including pack fans.

Yep hes the same ref that screwed us over OFFICIALLY in that 2002 game in which 9 blown calls were against the vikings and later the nfl had to apologize.


Looks like we'll be getting another apology letter sometime soon.

And again, just adding fuel to the fire that officials are human, and are biased towards teams, as is this ref is to Green Bay. He controls the game and he can determine the outcome if he so chooses.

And it looks like he chose......poorly.....

LOTGK

snowinapril
11-17-2004, 09:53 AM
This guy should be taken out to the wood shed.

He should be beaten like a rented mule.

Toadys tar is a lot stickier than the tar of old. we should bring back the TAR and Feather method of humiliation.

If he was Tarred and Feathered it would be easier to spot him on the field.

cheesefree
11-17-2004, 10:05 AM
I thought the NFL was going to get fulltime quality refs and pay them a decent wage instead of using part time hacks like this guy. With all the billions they get in TV contracts they could certainly afford decent (and consistant) officiating.

Caine
11-17-2004, 10:07 AM
AS much as I hated that call, I don't think Coleman was even at the game.

I was, and the hot sheet lists the Officials as follows:

Referee - Ron Winter
Umpire - Jeff Rice
Head Linesman - Tony Veteri

Those were the big three, and no Coleman.

Caine

johnnyb22
11-17-2004, 10:38 AM
The refs are defintely biased. Think about it, what if you were ref and in a game with the team that you liked since you were little. They are also going against their rival. Of course you are going to call it your team's way.
And the worst call against the franchise ever has to be the 1975 Chamionship game against Dallas. Drew Pearson pushed off on Nate wright, caught a TD pass and won the game. The replay clearly showed Drew Pearson pushed off. And here is the kicker, they called pass interference on Nate Wright. That ref was either a Dallas fan or was paid off. That was the absolute worst call ever against the Vikes. It prevented them from going to a Super bowl and maybe winning one!!

PhxFan
11-17-2004, 10:44 AM
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/tweetz/scared.gif Go figure...I can't believe this guy is still working http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/ups/sicdeth/headscratch.gif

snowinapril
11-17-2004, 10:53 AM
"Caine" wrote:

AS much as I hated that call, I don't think Coleman was even at the game.

I was, and the hot sheet lists the Officials as follows:

Referee - Ron Winter
Umpire - Jeff Rice
Head Linesman - Tony Veteri

Those were the big three, and no Coleman.

Caine

I think you are right, I remember the name Winters, not Coleman.

We can still tar and feather both of them though, .......right???

ItalianStallion
11-17-2004, 11:18 AM
lol, I can'nt believe the NFL employs officials like this. IF you think some NFL officials are bad you should come up and watch a CFL game. THey are horrible AND there is no instant replay :)

dan3ski
11-17-2004, 11:33 AM
Good point as officiating in the NFL as a whole this year has been bad. You might be on the right track here. Officials are not supposed to be biased but it might be the answer as to why so many blown calls this year.

snowinapril
11-17-2004, 11:40 AM
Maybe it would be better without REPLAY.

I was able to just dismiss it as a bad call, a lot easier when there was no REPLAY. Now with replay, you expect them to get it right and they still don't. Might as well go back to the dark ages before technology because it still isn't getting called right.

Go back so we don't have to dwell on the call for days and days.

No really though, they could make it a better system.

The emphasis is on time and not on getting the call right. "We don't want to make the games too long."

Well, do you want the right team to win or don't you?

If the answer is yes, then F*ck the time, get it right.

loudog
11-17-2004, 12:02 PM
If I remember correctly, they used to use the replays all the time back in the 80's right? I was pretty young at the time, and didn't know what the hell was going on. But they stopped using replays (for the officiating) because they argued that the games were taking too long. However, even after they got rid of the replays for calls, the games were not going any quicker than they were when replays did have a role in the officials' calls. Instead of brining instant replay back, they wait numerous years, and come up with a system that allows coaches to throw a flag on certain calls to challenge. Teams still get screwed because not only do the officials want to believe that they were initally right, but also the coaches are very limited in what types of calls actually can be challenged on top of only being allowed two (3 at most) per game. Why can't a coach challenge an incomplete pass if he feels that his reciever did make a catch, when his opponent's coach can challenge that a receiver did not make a catch when was ruled a completion? The current system sucks.

PhxFan
11-17-2004, 12:54 PM
"loudog" wrote:

Why can't a coach challenge an incomplete pass if he feels that his reciever did make a catch, when his opponent's coach can challenge that a receiver did not make a catch when was ruled a completion? The current system sucks.
I agree with this...I would also think, if the refs are un-sure about a call, or the possibility of a game-changing turnover, they would want to be right...instead of guessing!

shockzilla
11-17-2004, 01:34 PM
My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.

Caine
11-17-2004, 01:57 PM
It should be that any play that deals with possession should be automatically reviewed. This whole business of "last man with the ball" is BS. Especially when we see that it didn't work for us on either of the fumbles Green Bay (cough)"recovered"(cough).

Had the Refs taken a look at the replay it would have been OBVIOUS that Minnesota had possession, and that they were down by contact. Instead, they waited an ungodly long time, then started digging into the pile.

How Green Bay came away with that call is STILL a mystery to me.

I hope the boys use this as motivation to completely ruin the Packer's Christmas.

Caine

loudog
11-17-2004, 02:20 PM
My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.


Am I wrong, or was this the way it used to be? Any questionable play was reviewed in the booth, right? Am I just crazy?

LosAngelis
11-17-2004, 06:30 PM
"loudog" wrote:


My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.


Am I wrong, or was this the way it used to be? Any questionable play was reviewed in the booth, right? Am I just crazy?

Yes, there were no coach's challenges. The replay booth would radio down and say they wanted to review a play, much like it is in the last two minues of a game today.

Caine
11-19-2004, 08:14 AM
"LosAngelis" wrote:

"loudog" wrote:


My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.


Am I wrong, or was this the way it used to be? Any questionable play was reviewed in the booth, right? Am I just crazy?

Yes, there were no coach's challenges. The replay booth would radio down and say they wanted to review a play, much like it is in the last two minues of a game today.

Yup. And once they added Coach's Challanges, they exempted a whole bunch of stuff from review - stuff that usually are the things we get up in arms about anyway.

Since you only get 2 challanges per half (3 if you hit the first two), why not make it ALL reviewable. Why discriminate? It makes no sense to restrict something designed to get the game "Right".

Further, I think you should be able to "Challange until you're wrong twice". After all, these things were put in because the Officials can't get it right...right? So, are we to assume that if they blow 2-3 calls in a half that they'll suddenly get the rest of the calls correct? Not freakin' likely.

Screw the networks. They want games packaged into convenient spots so they can sell commercial space. I want games called better - with the obvious blown calls eliminated so that it's a better measure of how good the teams are, not how bad the Officials are.

At some point, it has to stop being about the money, and start being about the game.

Caine

XTAP59
11-19-2004, 09:25 AM
"Caine" wrote:

"LosAngelis" wrote:

"loudog" wrote:


My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.


Am I wrong, or was this the way it used to be? Any questionable play was reviewed in the booth, right? Am I just crazy?

Yes, there were no coach's challenges. The replay booth would radio down and say they wanted to review a play, much like it is in the last two minues of a game today.

Yup. And once they added Coach's Challanges, they exempted a whole bunch of stuff from review - stuff that usually are the things we get up in arms about anyway.

Since you only get 2 challanges per half (3 if you hit the first two), why not make it ALL reviewable. Why discriminate? It makes no sense to restrict something designed to get the game "Right".

Further, I think you should be able to "Challange until you're wrong twice". After all, these things were put in because the Officials can't get it right...right? So, are we to assume that if they blow 2-3 calls in a half that they'll suddenly get the rest of the calls correct? Not freakin' likely.

Screw the networks. They want games packaged into convenient spots so they can sell commercial space. I want games called better - with the obvious blown calls eliminated so that it's a better measure of how good the teams are, not how bad the Officials are.

At some point, it has to stop being about the money, and start being about the game.

Caine

You would think the networks would like longer games for us fans are going to watch, no matter if the game is 3 hours long or 3 and a half hours long. Longer games, more commercials, more revenue.

Caine
11-19-2004, 11:52 AM
"XTAP59" wrote:

"Caine" wrote:

"LosAngelis" wrote:

"loudog" wrote:


My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.


Am I wrong, or was this the way it used to be? Any questionable play was reviewed in the booth, right? Am I just crazy?

Yes, there were no coach's challenges. The replay booth would radio down and say they wanted to review a play, much like it is in the last two minues of a game today.

Yup. And once they added Coach's Challanges, they exempted a whole bunch of stuff from review - stuff that usually are the things we get up in arms about anyway.

Since you only get 2 challanges per half (3 if you hit the first two), why not make it ALL reviewable. Why discriminate? It makes no sense to restrict something designed to get the game "Right".

Further, I think you should be able to "Challange until you're wrong twice". After all, these things were put in because the Officials can't get it right...right? So, are we to assume that if they blow 2-3 calls in a half that they'll suddenly get the rest of the calls correct? Not freakin' likely.

Screw the networks. They want games packaged into convenient spots so they can sell commercial space. I want games called better - with the obvious blown calls eliminated so that it's a better measure of how good the teams are, not how bad the Officials are.

At some point, it has to stop being about the money, and start being about the game.

Caine

You would think the networks would like longer games for us fans are going to watch, no matter if the game is 3 hours long or 3 and a half hours long. Longer games, more commercials, more revenue.

Actually, the opposite is true. They want them condensed as much as possible. Remember when half-time took @ 30 minutes? The Networks chopped that down.

They want a prepackaged product. They want it to fit into an easily scheduled time slot. If it goes over, then they have to chop another show, and juggle the commercials in that slot.

Bottom line is that the networks toss huge $$$ at the NFL, so the NFL strokes the networks (How many TV timeouts have you seen ice momentum?).

Again, it should be about the GAME, not the MONEY. But the networks don't care about the game.

Caine

LosAngelis
11-19-2004, 12:00 PM
Also, the review booth would only use one standard camera angle to review the replay. They couldn't use the television cameras...just a press box camera that was supposed to cover the whole field.'

I'm waiting for FOX to introduce the "under the field" cam, so we can actually SEE what's going on under the piles.

TheAnimal93
11-19-2004, 06:11 PM
i watched this program i think it was on nfl network or espn and there is favre asking the refs to go fishing with him in the offseason and telling the refs how much he likes them and he makes good calls. then telling the coach how you have to butter these guys up. my question, does duante like to fish?
and no wonder the refs are favorable to the fudge, favre pays them off with fishing trips and fudge.

XTAP59
11-19-2004, 06:29 PM
"Caine" wrote:

"XTAP59" wrote:

"Caine" wrote:

"LosAngelis" wrote:

"loudog" wrote:


My thoughts are, if you are going to have replay, make any play reviewable, not just some but not others, especially if it's going to affect the outcome of the game.


Am I wrong, or was this the way it used to be? Any questionable play was reviewed in the booth, right? Am I just crazy?

Yes, there were no coach's challenges. The replay booth would radio down and say they wanted to review a play, much like it is in the last two minues of a game today.

Yup. And once they added Coach's Challanges, they exempted a whole bunch of stuff from review - stuff that usually are the things we get up in arms about anyway.

Since you only get 2 challanges per half (3 if you hit the first two), why not make it ALL reviewable. Why discriminate? It makes no sense to restrict something designed to get the game "Right".

Further, I think you should be able to "Challange until you're wrong twice". After all, these things were put in because the Officials can't get it right...right? So, are we to assume that if they blow 2-3 calls in a half that they'll suddenly get the rest of the calls correct? Not freakin' likely.

Screw the networks. They want games packaged into convenient spots so they can sell commercial space. I want games called better - with the obvious blown calls eliminated so that it's a better measure of how good the teams are, not how bad the Officials are.

At some point, it has to stop being about the money, and start being about the game.

Caine

You would think the networks would like longer games for us fans are going to watch, no matter if the game is 3 hours long or 3 and a half hours long. Longer games, more commercials, more revenue.

Actually, the opposite is true. They want them condensed as much as possible. Remember when half-time took @ 30 minutes? The Networks chopped that down.

They want a prepackaged product. They want it to fit into an easily scheduled time slot. If it goes over, then they have to chop another show, and juggle the commercials in that slot.

Bottom line is that the networks toss huge $$$ at the NFL, so the NFL strokes the networks (How many TV timeouts have you seen ice momentum?).

Again, it should be about the GAME, not the MONEY. But the networks don't care about the game.

Caine

I always felt that the NFL shortened halftime due to loss of viewers. Some would try to get the grass cut, change channels for 30 minutes or so to watch something else while the band and festivities took place. Nowadays, half time is an overdose of football facts and updates. Even during the games, the screen has updates of the other games going on all to keep you comfy in front of the tube.

And that is why the superbowl is longer than regular games. More commercials, more money, more revenue.

XTAP59
11-19-2004, 06:34 PM
"vikes can do" wrote:

i watched this program i think it was on nfl network or espn and there is favre asking the refs to go fishing with him in the offseason and telling the refs how much he likes them and he makes good calls. then telling the coach how you have to butter these guys up. my question, does duante like to fish?
and no wonder the refs are favorable to the fudge, favre pays them off with fishing trips and fudge.

Alas, I fear it goes deeper than just Favre and some fishing. the NFL is a business, and are in business to make a boatload of money. The better product on the field, the more viewers, the more money. Why aren't the Bengals on MNF so often? I believe once in 12 years. Not because they stink, (They do) but because the TV revenue will be lower. I am suggesting that maybe the REFS are subliminally coerced into determining the outcome of several select games that the NFL wants to win.

And subliminal messages work you know, without you even knowing about it.

And no, this is not from a paranoid mind.

LOTGK

mvikes84
11-19-2004, 09:25 PM
I remember that play well johnnyb22. Drew Pearson shoved Nate Wright down to the ground and then caught the ball and ran into the endzone. When they called the interference on Wright I was absolutely shellschocked. I still get irate when I see the replay of that. No doubt the refs heart was with the Cowboys that day or his wallet was.