MattM

....that "LeRoi" means "the King" in French. Guess what "Rex" is Latin for? Sorry if someone else has previously pointed this out, but I'm too lazy to check through all the discussion threads. If it is you, Rex, a sincere WNY welcome--you're just what the doctor ordered to shake things up around here!

How about, "in the future, don't post here, !@#$?" Look at the guy's screen name, for goodness sake--if that ain't a troll, I've never seen one. Personally, I can't wait until New England* sucks again--will be fun watching all of their front-runner fans go back to rooting for other teams. Did you see Manning today? That will be Brady, too, in two years or less. Father Time is undefeated thus far.... But there is something in the rule about waiting for the ref to get back in position after notifying the defense before starting play. That may be what didn't really occur here, depending on the mode of communication used.

But that's exactly what the rule says--read the last sentence of Art 3, section 1--it mentions not starting the play until the referee is "back in position" after telling the defense, which to me (and Harbaugh) is where they screwed up here, as it sounds like they allowed the snap almost immediately after telling the D who was ineligible.

According to Harbaugh, they did it multiple times, which is why he was seen repeatedly yelling at them from the sidelines on TV multiple times last night. He took the penalty on purpose he said because it was the only way they'd listen to him, and apparently still didn't. He needs to keep pressing this. Even under the benign explanation, the refs in that game should not be NFL refs next year--the rule book is amazingly clear on this point, so no excuse for them missing this, especially with a coach pointing it out to them. As for how they're supposed to announce it--just like they do for eligible players. In fact, they just audibly did it in the Colts-Broncos game about ten minutes ago. Seems pretty straightforward actually.

That's a kind/benign reading of the situation. Note that Harbaugh pointed this out to the refs several times to no avail. Still think the benign explanation is correct?

You're totally correct--in particular Art 3, section 1's last sentence about the ball not being snapped until the referee is back in position (after telling the D about the eligibility situation) clearly indicates that the refs didn't call this game properly. Who here is really surprised, however? According to the rule quoted, they are supposed to. What a crock. Harbaugh really needs to speak up about this. I really want to see a coach cheated by these guys grow a pair and say so to the media.

I agree with the folks above that the $ he'll demand is better spent elsewhere (like places we have holes--QB if one becomes available, G (Iupati?), TE (too bad Roman can't bring Vernon))--or resigning Hughes

That's because Rex's son plays at Clemson, no?

Did you ever think that might be why they picked him--we have no QB, so need a strong running attack?

One was a Monday night.

I disagree with the last part. Apart from Chris Ivory, Richardson, Wilkerson, an aging Mangold and maybe David Harris, I can't think of anyone else there who would be noticeably better than the Bills player they'd replace.

Just saw the PC--Harbaugh was pissed, but the League has apparently ruled it ok (big shock, I know, right?). Haven't studied it enough to know who's right.

You honestly don't think Idzik's idjit GM job had nothing to do with that?

That would be a waste of FA money better spent elsewhere where we have real holes. For ex, if Roman can bring Iupati, I'm all for it.

Nice no call on the PI just now, too. Even Collinsworth said it was PI

Bingo--and we have a winner!!!

I'll go back and look after the game--thanks

Go watch it--I've got it on DVR and watched it 3 times. Utter crap call, too, on the last series

Anyone else see that obvious hands to the face by the Cheats* on that Brady TD? They'd call that all day, every day on us....

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/eppa.htm Nor, as per the link above, do they appear to be allowed under Federal law (a couple of non-applicable exceptions). There's the answer I was looking for above. Too bad, because it might have helped solve the League's perception problem on this issue.

Always glad to be of service, although you got the last part wrong--I thought I made it pretty clear that I have no idea whether the science behind lie detection is settled or not. What's really kind of funny is that the guy with perhaps the most consistently cantankerous, negative, sarcastic view on this board doesn't buy into a negative view of human nature that presupposes a need for such corruption controls. I, at least, find that kind of funny. I also hope that you noticed that I was one of the few who supported your Gary Kubiak flier--it's to bad that the Bills don't seem to be listening to you/us on that one! No idea either way. That was one of the questions that I had myself.

Very simply questions about bribery or outside interference with their judgment of any kind, for ex., blackmail. Push works as well as pull, as in sending a nice looking young woman to the hotel bar the night before the game and Mr. Ref is paid a visit the next morning along the lines of "see these pictures of your nice, happy family. Would be a shame if anything happened to it." If these guys can periodically pass those tests, and assuming the science behind the tests is sound, then I think that would help the integrity of the game. As others have noted here and elsewhere, the game is reffed by human beings--human beings can be bribed or extorted. The League should put in place measures to prevent that, to the extent possible, particularly after similar things have happened in other leagues. I'd personally feel a little better about the game if such measures were possible and used. Don't personally know enough about the science of lie detection to know if there would be any real value in it (and if the obstacles to it, such as privacy rights issues and union objections, could be overcome), but if there was, I would think it might be worth the League's while to consider it, particularly if they and their owners have nothing to hide. Were the idea floated, it might be interesting to see who objects (on the League/owner side, that is--I could understand why the refs might object simply on principle). I think any reasonable person would agree that the League's reputation took a large beating in Dallas this weekend and the playoffs are only partially over. One more similar incident (and we all know both New England* and Dallas play this weekend) and this kind of trouble could actually get some legs, rather than die down like it usually does. I disagree--to cover off the issue I'm concerned with, corruption, full time officials won't work, not unless you pay them a helluva lot more than you're discussing there. Incompetence is a whole other separate matter.

You are probably correct, but in some cases workers (even unionized ones) are subject to things like drug tests, although in most or all of those cases there may be at least a sheen of "safety" as the rationale for those tests. I do also recall a colleague a number of years ago (at the police dept of all places) talking about needing to pass a lie detector test on drug use and ethics for a job in the securities industry--as it turned out, he had previously dealt coke so failed the tests (true story).

After the latest officiating fiasco which looks more than a little shady (multiple calls and no calls going one way late in a game helping a popular team to victory, such perception not helped by the "party bus" incident), is it feasible or desirable for the League to require their officials to submit to periodic lie detector tests? Could the League condition employment on agreeing to take such tests? Not a labor lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), so I don't know the answer, but do think it might go a long way towards placating some folks who can't help but think something untoward is going on based on what they're seeing with their own eyes. My father of all people recently raised this possibility. He's watched football longer than the Bills have been around and seemed to think it would be a good idea. If that's possible, how would fans go about demanding it, as personally, I think it would indeed be a good idea.

I love how the picture the BS article uses shows clearly that the Lions receiver was being tackled well before the ball got there. I don't think I've seen a worse call in a loooonnnngg time (and I watch most of the Patriots*' games!)