Lombardi: NFL admits call against Butler was wrong

[CapnCook]

We lost by an amount I now call "Dak's redzone interception", which yes, is 3.

That Packer possession ended in Heath's interception. The ensuing drive, Dallas scored a TD. That interception was barely a factor.

So why did Dean Blandino publicly defend the call so adamantly?

I smell Mara.

Check your shoes.

 

[Asklesko]

yep everyone knew it was crap, except the refs who called it.

 

[KJJ]

Anything that impedes your narrative that Garrett somehow lost us the game...anything that exposes how silly and absurd that is...you are intent to attack.

It was an absurd call. The wrong call. And it impacted the game hugely. You have an agenda that blinds you.

I never said Garrett lost us the game but he didn't have the team as prepared for the playoffs as he did in 2014 when we were riding a 4 game winning streak into the playoffs. The only thing that's being exposed is your ridiculous agenda that I'm pinning the loss on Garrett when I've pinned the loss on the defense.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I wanted him to do what he did in 2014 in a meaningless game against Washington and go out and play to win so we could have momentum entering the playoffs. He could have done the same thing by playing our starters a half but NO he had to follow a plan that failed miserably for us in 07. Garrett talked about wanting to maintain momentum, then turned around and cost us momentum by laying down like a bunch of dogs allowing Philly to end their season on a positive note and laugh at us. It was a dumb move and it didn't pay off.

It didn't pay off? We had everyone healthy....and we very well could've lost EVEN WITH the starters and then what? You guys would say he's stupid for playing starters in a meaningless game. This is unbelievable. So now we are mad Garrett sat the starters in a meaningless game.....

 

[KJJ]

Points off the board was huge. That was going to be sure 3 points. Probably even 7. Quit acting like momentum and instances like that aren't huge. We should not have had to be making that huge of a comeback to begin with if this is not called. Don't be obtuse.

We should have had 10 points on our 1st 2 drives, which would have been huge. Packers never had to deal with any penalties like this that derailed their drives. Or a clear takedown of Witten in the endzone that was not called. Would have placed the ball at the 2. That's more missed points.

No guarantee we would have scored any points on that drive. Our defense lost us the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yeah never seen them completely tackle someone and get away with it but ok........

Except he didn't completely tackle someone, so I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[knightrider94]

 

[KJJ]

If you can't see the difference that particular play had on that drive then okay. But the team lost by three points. The "ifs and buts" shouldnt be applied only one way. Dallas couldn't stop Green Bay at that point. And Green Bay couldn't stop Dallas as the game wore on. Three points would have been huge.

Not saying it didn't have an affect on the drive, it helped kill the drive but we overcame it and all the issues we had defensively in the first half to tie the game late but our D ended up folding.

 

[T-RO]

Coming back in the second half proves we overcame that call, it certainly didn't deflate us. When the game was on the line our defense did us in again.

Both defenses were incapable of stopping the other offense.

Until the last 40 seconds of the game:
Green Bay scored on 7 of 10 possessions.
Dallas scored on 7 of 10 possessions.

On their 11th possession GB scored winning FG.

I'd sure like to see what would have happened had the refs not stolen one of our possessions.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

The NFL seems to have stepped in it this time. First, Michael Lombardi is a football lifer -- has been a front office guy, worked for NFL Network, wrote for NFL.com, worked as an NFL analyst for Fox Sports, etc. It is unlikely he is lying when he says a couple of teams told him the league indicated the call was improper. I imagine Blandino is being honest in saying he hasn't told teams that. But Blandino isn't the only employee of the NFL. Second, the rule that keeps being bandied about says the officials "may call" a penalty in such a situation. That implies judgment. Logically and from the evidence that has emerged, the judgment revolves around whether the substitution was done with an intent to deceive the opposing team. It is pretty clear in this case that it wasn't.

The league doesn't have its story straight and is relying on the defense it has -- well there is a rule that covers the situation. But most everything else points to a conclusion that the call could have been made but probably shouldn't have been made. The fact that it was is magnified by the well-known proposition that the officials tend to let teams play when they've reached the playoffs. An obscure penalty requiring judgment is most unusual in the circumstance.

The fact the penalty was called doesn't demonstrate bias, but it probably points to the Packers having noticed substitution issues in the past and -- as teams will do -- asking the officials to watch for it. Unfortunately the officials seem to have been intent enough on watching that they bypassed a critical point -- there wasn't deception in replacing a WR with a WR, nor was such a move likely to have confused the defense.

The problem for the NFL is that two things likely have happened -- it has chosen to stand by its officials because the rule, technically, allowed them to make the call they did. But they seem also to have recognized that it was a poorly administered call and thus have informed teams not to expect to see it again in a similar circumstance. That would have been fine had a couple of teams not spoken to Lombardi, told him what the league said, and had he not then reported it on his Twitter account. Now they appear to be speaking from both sides of their mouth, and that almost certainly is the case.

It has been a very, very bad couple of weeks for the NFL. There is at least the perception of unfairness in a circumstance in which Zeke Elliott is being left out to dry for a couple of months while waiting to be cleared of dubious charges of having abused a woman, while at the same time Denver hires a new head coach who was accused of something similar and the 49ers interview a head coach candidate who was as well. Of course the circumstances are different, but it looks bad.

Given the Randy Gregory decision, whether fair or not, it also looks bad when the Packers have a player on the field who has been charged with possession and caught in deeply incriminating circumstances. That doesn't mean the two events are the same, but it doesn't look good.

Neither does it look good when the officials choose not to swallow the whistle on a late hold in one divisional title game and make the opposite decision in another game. Again, maybe they simply didn't see the hold on the Packers play. But it doesn't look good.

The NFL produces a product. We consume the product as long as we choose to do so. Perception of fairness is important to the league. This isn't a court of law; it is the court of public opinion. Perhaps the NFL can defend itself quite successfully in a court of law, but it is beginning to lose credibility in the court of public opinion. And it is incumbent upon the league, not the consumer, to change any negative perception. We are not required to consume the product. The NFL has an existential need to address lost credibility, regardless whether the league or the officials "got it right."

After 50-plus years of football -- playing, coaching, watching -- I have seen myriad poor calls. I have seen inexplicably bad calls. But I don't recall having lost confidence in the fairness of the competition -- until now, when my ability to suspend disbelief has been cracked if not entirely broken.

And please don't bore me with the hackneyed "You must play well enough to overcome bad calls." Of course you'd like to do that, but you can't always achieve that goal. Sometimes the timing or circumstance of poor calls can't be overcome. I'd rather look like George Clooney, but I don't.

And of course Dallas lost in large part because it doesn't have a great defense. But Green Bay doesn't either. What does any of that have to do with whether a poor call -- or a set of poor calls -- changed the outcome of a game? It is a false choice.

The NFL has benefited from the fact that most fans deeply prefer not to be seen as whiners or as grassy knoll conspiracy nuts. As a result, the morally superior position becomes "don't complain about the refs. Just play well enough to overcome them." But we are given another false choice, and quite frankly, we are sold a bill of goods.

Which is the crazier idea -- to wonder whether the officials have become biased for whatever reason or to blindly insist that a sport of which billions of dollars are gambled is immune to an officiating scandal? Such a scandal will almost certainly occur, as it has in other sports. When it does, it won't prove that all NFL games are rigged. But the fact that it almost certainly will occur proves once more that the NFL needs to take care that its games are perceived to be fair.

Recent events have challenged that requirement.

 

[TNCowboy]

Pretty obvious the NFL told the Cowboys this, didn't expect it to get out, and idiots like Signora and Blandino are covering the rear end of the pathetic officiating crew.

 

[Kevinicus]

Both defenses were incapable of stopping the other offense.

Until the last 40 seconds of the game:
Green Bay scored on 7 of 10 possessions.
Dallas scored on 7 of 10 possessions.

On their 11th possession GB scored winning FG.

I'd sure like to see what would have happened had the refs not stolen one of our possessions.

Nobody scored on 7 posessions.

Dallas scored on 6, GB on 6 (including the game winner). GB did have an extra posession, though.

 

[KJJ]

It didn't pay off? We had everyone healthy....and we very well could've lost EVEN WITH the starters and then what? You guys would say he's stupid for playing starters in a meaningless game. This is unbelievable. So now we are mad Garrett sat the starters in a meaningless game.....

We were healthy and it didn't pay off because we weren't playing as good as the Packers entering the game. Despite them not being healthy with their top receiver out and their top RB, they still won because they were the better team entering the playoffs. They had players falling like flies the past 2 games but they still won because winning playoffs games comes down to the teams that are peaking. Out best football of the season was between weeks 5-10.

 

[coogrfan]

Yeah I'm actually the guy who clarified that it happened in that Skins game. The replay doesn't show the huddle though.

No, but the official clearly described what happened.

"#82 came in as a substitute, came to the huddle, and then removed himself from the huddle."

 

[BlueStar22]

The funny thing is how people were reinventing the the hell a huddle is trying to support that bad call. "They don't exactly have to be in a circle for it to be considered a huddle." Since the *** when? Since when!!!!

 

[T-RO]

The NFL seems to have stepped in it this time. First, Michael Lombardi is a football lifer -- has been a front office guy, worked for NFL Network, wrote for NFL.com, worked as an NFL analyst for Fox Sports, etc. It is unlikely he is lying when he says a couple of teams told him the league indicated the call was improper. I imagine Blandino is being honest in saying he hasn't told teams that. But Blandino isn't the only employee of the NFL. Second, the rule that keeps being bandied about says the officials "may call" a penalty in such a situation. That implies judgment. Logically and from the evidence that has emerged, the judgment revolves around whether the substitution was done with an intent to deceive the opposing team. It is pretty clear in this case that it wasn't.

The league doesn't have its story straight and is relying on the defense it has -- well there is a rule that covers the situation. But most everything else points to a conclusion that the call could have been made but probably shouldn't have been made. The fact that it was is magnified by the well-known proposition that the officials tend to let teams play when they've reached the playoffs. An obscure penalty requiring judgment is most unusual in the circumstance.

The fact the penalty was called doesn't demonstrate bias, but it probably points to the Packers having noticed substitution issues in the past and -- as teams will do -- asking the officials to watch for it. Unfortunately the officials seem to have been intent enough on watching that they bypassed a critical point -- there wasn't deception in replacing a WR with a WR, nor was such a move likely to have confused the defense.

The problem for the NFL is that two things likely have happened -- it has chosen to stand by its officials because the rule, technically, allowed them to make the call they did. But they seem also to have recognized that it was a poorly administered call and thus have informed teams not to expect to see it again in a similar circumstance. That would have been fine had a couple of teams not spoken to Lombardi, told him what the league said, and had he not then reported it on his Twitter account. Now they appear to be speaking from both sides of their mouth, and that almost certainly is the case.

It has been a very, very bad couple of weeks for the NFL. There is at least the perception of unfairness in a circumstance in which Zeke Elliott is being left out to dry for a couple of months while waiting to be cleared of dubious charges of having abused a woman, while at the same time Denver hires a new head coach who was accused of something similar and the 49ers interview a head coach candidate who was as well. Of course the circumstances are different, but it looks bad.

Given the Randy Gregory decision, whether fair or not, it also looks bad when the Packers have a player on the field who has been charged with possession and caught in deeply incriminating circumstances. That doesn't mean the two events are the same, but it doesn't look good.

Neither does it look good when the officials choose not to swallow the whistle on a late hold in one divisional title game and make the opposite decision in another game. Again, maybe they simply didn't see the hold on the Packers play. But it doesn't look good.

The NFL produces a product. We consume the product as long as we choose to do so. Perception of fairness is important to the league. This isn't a court of law; it is the court of public opinion. Perhaps the NFL can defend itself quite successfully in a court of law, but it is beginning to lose credibility in the court of public opinion. And it is incumbent upon the league, not the consumer, to change any negative perception. We are not required to consume the product. The NFL has an existential need to address lost credibility, regardless whether the league or the officials "got it right."

After 50-plus years of football -- playing, coaching, watching -- I have seen myriad poor calls. I have seen inexplicably bad calls. But I don't recall having lost confidence in the fairness of the competition -- until now, when my ability to suspend disbelief has been cracked if not entirely broken.

And please don't bore me with the hackneyed "You must play well enough to overcome bad calls." Of course you'd like to do that, but you can't always achieve that goal. Sometimes the timing or circumstance of poor calls can't be overcome. I'd rather look like George Clooney, but I don't.

And of course Dallas lost in large part because it doesn't have a great defense. But Green Bay doesn't either. What does any of that have to do with whether a poor call -- or a set of poor calls -- changed the outcome of a game? It is a false choice.

The NFL has benefited from the fact that most fans deeply prefer not to be seen as whiners or as grassy knoll conspiracy nuts. As a result, the morally superior position becomes "don't complain about the refs. Just play well enough to overcome them." But we are given another false choice, and quite frankly, we are sold a bill of goods.

Which is the crazier idea -- to wonder whether the officials have become biased for whatever reason or to blindly insist that a sport of which billions of dollars are gambled is immune to an officiating scandal? Such a scandal will almost certainly occur, as it has in other sports. When it does, it won't prove that all NFL games are rigged. But the fact that it almost certainly will occur proves once more that the NFL needs to take care that its games are perceived to be fair.

Recent events have challenged that requirement.

Awesome post.

 

[Plumfool]

Not saying it didn't have an affect on the drive, it helped kill the drive but we overcame it and all the issues we had defensively in the first half to tie the game late but our D ended up folding.

They didn't overcome the loss of possession. They just kept playing. Those possible three points helps get the game to overtime imo.

 

[LandryFan]

The NFL seems to have stepped in it this time. First, Michael Lombardi is a football lifer -- has been a front office guy, worked for NFL Network, wrote for NFL.com, worked as an NFL analyst for Fox Sports, etc. It is unlikely he is lying when he says a couple of teams told him the league indicated the call was improper. I imagine Blandino is being honest in saying he hasn't told teams that. But Blandino isn't the only employee of the NFL. Second, the rule that keeps being bandied about says the officials "may call" a penalty in such a situation. That implies judgment. Logically and from the evidence that has emerged, the judgment revolves around whether the substitution was done with an intent to deceive the opposing team. It is pretty clear in this case that it wasn't.

The league doesn't have its story straight and is relying on the defense it has -- well there is a rule that covers the situation. But most everything else points to a conclusion that the call could have been made but probably shouldn't have been made. The fact that it was is magnified by the well-known proposition that the officials tend to let teams play when they've reached the playoffs. An obscure penalty requiring judgment is most unusual in the circumstance.

The fact the penalty was called doesn't demonstrate bias, but it probably points to the Packers having noticed substitution issues in the past and -- as teams will do -- asking the officials to watch for it. Unfortunately the officials seem to have been intent enough on watching that they bypassed a critical point -- there wasn't deception in replacing a WR with a WR, nor was such a move likely to have confused the defense.

The problem for the NFL is that two things likely have happened -- it has chosen to stand by its officials because the rule, technically, allowed them to make the call they did. But they seem also to have recognized that it was a poorly administered call and thus have informed teams not to expect to see it again in a similar circumstance. That would have been fine had a couple of teams not spoken to Lombardi, told him what the league said, and had he not then reported it on his Twitter account. Now they appear to be speaking from both sides of their mouth, and that almost certainly is the case.

It has been a very, very bad couple of weeks for the NFL. There is at least the perception of unfairness in a circumstance in which Zeke Elliott is being left out to dry for a couple of months while waiting to be cleared of dubious charges of having abused a woman, while at the same time Denver hires a new head coach who was accused of something similar and the 49ers interview a head coach candidate who was as well. Of course the circumstances are different, but it looks bad.

Given the Randy Gregory decision, whether fair or not, it also looks bad when the Packers have a player on the field who has been charged with possession and caught in deeply incriminating circumstances. That doesn't mean the two events are the same, but it doesn't look good.

Neither does it look good when the officials choose not to swallow the whistle on a late hold in one divisional title game and make the opposite decision in another game. Again, maybe they simply didn't see the hold on the Packers play. But it doesn't look good.

The NFL produces a product. We consume the product as long as we choose to do so. Perception of fairness is important to the league. This isn't a court of law; it is the court of public opinion. Perhaps the NFL can defend itself quite successfully in a court of law, but it is beginning to lose credibility in the court of public opinion. And it is incumbent upon the league, not the consumer, to change any negative perception. We are not required to consume the product. The NFL has an existential need to address lost credibility, regardless whether the league or the officials "got it right."

After 50-plus years of football -- playing, coaching, watching -- I have seen myriad poor calls. I have seen inexplicably bad calls. But I don't recall having lost confidence in the fairness of the competition -- until now, when my ability to suspend disbelief has been cracked if not entirely broken.

And please don't bore me with the hackneyed "You must play well enough to overcome bad calls." Of course you'd like to do that, but you can't always achieve that goal. Sometimes the timing or circumstance of poor calls can't be overcome. I'd rather look like George Clooney, but I don't.

And of course Dallas lost in large part because it doesn't have a great defense. But Green Bay doesn't either. What does any of that have to do with whether a poor call -- or a set of poor calls -- changed the outcome of a game? It is a false choice.

The NFL has benefited from the fact that most fans deeply prefer not to be seen as whiners or as grassy knoll conspiracy nuts. As a result, the morally superior position becomes "don't complain about the refs. Just play well enough to overcome them." But we are given another false choice, and quite frankly, we are sold a bill of goods.

Which is the crazier idea -- to wonder whether the officials have become biased for whatever reason or to blindly insist that a sport of which billions of dollars are gambled is immune to an officiating scandal? Such a scandal will almost certainly occur, as it has in other sports. When it does, it won't prove that all NFL games are rigged. But the fact that it almost certainly will occur proves once more that the NFL needs to take care that its games are perceived to be fair.

Recent events have challenged that requirement.

Superbly stated!!!!!!

 

[Qbert]

NFL doing all they can for a Rodgers Brady super bowl, I feel bad for Atlanta

 

[KJJ]

Both defenses were incapable of stopping the other offense.

Until the last 40 seconds of the game:
Green Bay scored on 7 of 10 possessions.
Dallas scored on 7 of 10 possessions.

On their 11th possession GB scored winning FG.

I'd sure like to see what would have happened had the refs not stolen one of our possessions.

When the game was on the line they made the play and we didn't. They got a possession stolen when Mo got away with a clear hold on a 3rd down play. What would have happened had that call on Butler not been made was the same thing that ended up happening, Rodgers would have gotten it done with the game on the line. He's too good and we don't have the pass rush or coverage to contain him. We couldn't stop him with over 4 minutes to play in 2014, he was able to eat up the clock and our defense didn't give our offense one last opportunity.