RedRamage

I think it's more that the NFL isn't paying them enough to NOT have to work another job. I obviously have zero inside information here, I don't know how much they pay or whatever... but I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of this: The employer only needs you to work from January to July and only pays you for those months. They don't pay you as much as you'd like to have year round, so you get another job from August thru December. During that Aug-Dec time you're getting out of practice of your Jan-Jul job... you're forgetting details, you're not remembering all the steps you used to take to complete the job... then you come back in January and have to spend part of the time re-learning the old job as well as learning any new twists. What the employer should do to get the most out of you is pay your year round and during the Aug-Dec you can be reviewing last year's work, making suggestions for improvements, talking with clients to get a good understanding of what they want, learning the new stuff before January, doing some practice runs in December and be 100% ready to go in January. You'll be a much more productive and accurate employee this way (in theory). The obvious downside here is that the employer has to pay you for 12 months instead of 7. The employer may not see that as cost beneficial... the added cost of those other 5 months doesn't produce enough better of an employee to make it worth it. BUT: Your clients are complaining to the employer that you're not doing a very good job and could using more training and practice. If the employer is a pretty hard successful company and could pretty easily afford to pay you year round and make the clients happier... it seems like the employer is just a cheap bastard.

The hope is that they would have more time to studying the rule book and more time training by looking at film. Maybe there would be more time they could spend with teams off season or between games so that more communication can happen. Whether that happens or not is obviously a big question mark, but officiating is just a part-time gig and most or all of these officials are normal M-F jobs, that does mean they'll have less time to focus on officiating.

^^^^ This... 100% this. Now obviously I want the Lions to win so I'd prefer which ever team we think we have a better shot at. But, at least as far as I'm looking it would probably be very similar to either, in which case I want the Rams cause I would be so much more upset if we lost to the Packers twice, at home, and one of those was knocking us out of the playoffs.

Johnson hasn't proved he can do anything with an offense that doesn't include Brock Wright in it.

Rated how? Based on how the player views them as a successful coach/coordinator? Based on if they like to play for them? Based if they think they'd be a good HC? Based on looks?

Here's roughly 16 minutes of therapy that's helping me move on...

100% my feeling as well. The Lions assumed the officials would do their job. They didn't.

If official audio exists of this, it'll never get out.

Correct. If Skipper was eligible, he would have been lined up in an illegal formation. So, even if the Lions decided to check out of the play or Decker is covered and Goff decided to run the ball in, the Lions should have been flagged for that as well. Once 70 was wrongly announced as eligible the Lions were screwed no matter what. There was no possible way they could have run a legal play. Correction: Once 70 was announced AND the Lions got in formation at the line.

Yes, quite possibily, and yes. The whole play is designed from the ground up to catch the defense napping: 70 have come in as eligible multiple times previously 68 (Decker) and 58 (Sewell) walk to the ref while 68 reports, so that maybe the defense will confuse 68/58 70 run on the field seemingly headed to the ref, but doesn't go to the ref. The Lions run an unbalanced OL to make it look like 68 is just a normal OT, not a TE. 58 lines up in a spot that might be considered a TE spot, further selling the possible confusion from above. The Lions receivers on that side line up in such a way to emphasize that one is further back, making it look like the other might be on the line (he wasn't) which would cover up 68, which would mean 68 wasn't an eligible receiver. 68 does a good job of selling the block before leaking into the endzone. So, YES: the ref calling the wrong number meant that the defense probably wasn't concerned with 68. And YES: the screwup make it most likely that 68 was/would have been ignored. However: Given the play design there's still a very good shot that Decker isn't closely covered, makes the catch, and the Lions score the points.

The flag comes out more than 30 seconds after the play was over. It's still very likely a mistake though. I mean we'll never know, but the refs all got together and chatted: Ref1: Brad, didn't you say 70 was eligible? Brad: Uh..... Ref2: No, 68 was eligible, this is the play they told us about. Ref1: Sure, but it was announced that 70 was eligible Brad: Um.... Ref2: Didn't 68 report to you? Brad: Ah, no... it... it was 70 that reported. Ref2: Really? I thought I saw 68 go up to you. Ref1: But you clearly said 70, right? Brad: Yea...yeah... I said 70. It, ah, it was 70 who reported to me, just like all game. 68 never reported. Ref2: You sure? Brad: Yes, I'm sure. 70 reported, I'm throwing the flag. The most logical, sensible this is that Brad got it wrong. Either he forgot which number it was and either saw 70 running and assumed or remembered 70 reported before and assumed or he got genuinely confused and forgot about the trick play. I mean look at what the NFL did after the game: Official team gets downgraded and a video gets sent to all 32 teams telling them that it's very important to clearly indicate, both physically and verbally, to the refs when you're eligible. Of course the spin on the video is that the Lions didn't do this but if it was just the Lions who screwed up and no new procedures need to be given or emphasized, why does a message have to even go out?

Third: The PA announcer is not an official. The Lions, even if they heard 70, might have thought the PA announcer got it wrong given that the refs KNEW about the play ahead of time.

Yeah, the UFL season is shorter... only like 8 games I think, but that still be might too much for a player. I guess I was envision it more like a the player would play in the UFL... if he's good enough, the NFL team would promote him to the NFL and he wouldn't go back to the UFL. If he wasn't he'd say in the UFL for two seasons and then either be promoted or let go by the NFL after that... so you'd never have UFL season -> NFL season -> UFL season. It would be UFL -> NFL -> NFL or UFL -> UFL -> NFL. Even that might be too much, but remember these aren't likely to be starters, so they won't see extensive game time. Still full practice of course... and that's much more time than game times so yeah... maybe I'm dreaming.

Now that brings up an interesting idea: Iron Man Football. Do like the AFL used to do and severely limit substitutions so that players needs to be play on both offense and defense. Obviously this wouldn't be a minor league for the NFL as the game would be quite different, but it would mean much fewer players.

So... the NFL allows trick plays... I mean why not? They're some of the most fun plays to watch and as long as they follow the rules they should be legal, so yeah... trick plays are a good thing. The NFL also acknowledges that trick plays can be confusing, even for the refs. This is why (according to Rex Ryan) part of the pre-game procedure is the coaching staff of each team going over what it may be doing during the game with the officials, including trick plays and diagraming them so that it's clear to the officials.

Here's the evidence we have: Pregame: Campbell says that he went over the play with the officials BEFORE the game. Rex Ryan confirms that this is general practice on any trick plays to make sure the officials know what to expect. In game: We see Goff direct Decker to report. We see Decker converse with the official who appears to nod at Decker. We see the Lions lineup in a legal formation if Decker reports, but what would be an illegal formation is Schipper reports. We see the Lions run a play that's clearly been practiced repeatedly and is designed to throw to Decker. We have flags thrown late. We have the ref sayings two different penalties were flagged, but only one was announced. Now, as much as I've joked about the refs being on the take, I don't know if they actually are. It's probably more likely that it was just plain incompetence than intentionally trying to screw the Lions. And in the end, nothing will happen. The NFL will never change the outcome of the game despite the potential ramifications in terms of seeding and playoff locations. For the record: I don't blame Dallas fans (if any of y'all are out there reading this) for celebrating the win. Bad calls do happen all game long and sometimes they go for your team, sometimes they don't. A team can't control that and if it helps your team, well... that's what happens sometimes. I just sucks when your a fan of a team like the Lions who seem to collect game changing bad calls on a regular basis.

Just in case you needed anymore proof that the guy was confused and making stuff up... from the pool report: https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2023/12/31/detroit-lions-taylor-decker-flagged-on-2-point-play-referee-brad-allen-explains/72071503007/ Why was there a penalty called on the two-point conversion for an illegal touch? “So, we had a situation where if you were going to have an ineligible number occupy an eligible position, you have to report that to the referee. On this particular play, No. 70, who had reported during the game a couple of times, reported to me as eligible. Then he lined up at the tackle position. So, actually, he didn’t have to report at all. No. 68, who ended up going downfield and touching the pass, did not report..." We noticed there were two flags thrown on that same play. Was there another penalty called on that play as well? “Yes. Because No. 70 reported as eligible and he was covered up on the line of scrimmage, that makes it an illegal formation. So, No. 70 is in an illegal position because he is covered up by rule, and No. 68 catches the pass, which is also illegal.” So in one answer it's "He didn't even need to report... so that was silly of him wasn't it?" Then in another answer: "Because he reported and lined up wrong it was illegal. He shouldn't have done that and we flagged him for it." (Obviously that's me adding some thoughts to his answers.) Then the next step: When there's two flags thrown for two different penalties, aren't they always announced with the other team declining whichever is the lesser penalty? Yet only the one penalty was announced.

Yes they did, and NFL Europe of course failed too. How much of that was Europe not embracing football though? I dunno. I think the NFL is also a much bigger product these days than it was back then. Obviously I'm conjecturing and guessing a lot. I think a development/minor league COULD work and the NFL has enough money to make it work if they wanted to. The question is whether they want too. Would the value they get out of it be worth the money put in? That's the biggest question. With college football they essentially get a free minor league. And with the damage that the game puts on a player's body the league/teams may not want more damage. But I could envision a situation where there's an 8th, 9th, and 10th round of the NFL draft where the players picked are put on UFL rosters, paid for by the NFL teams that drafted them (at a UFL salary rate) and under team control for 1 or 2 seasons or something...

I dunno... I think there's room for Spring Football as development/minor league sort of thing. For instance I'd love for the Lions to "loan" Sorsdal and Martin to the Panthers for some seasoning. If the NFL investing some money into the league that way and was able to use it for a developmental stuff (sorta an Arizona Fall League for the NFL) then I think it could work. I don't know if it will ever be able to stand on it's own though.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/usfl-xfl-combine-to-form-united-football-league The Michigan Panther's will be part of the UFL, which surprises me, but pleases me as well. The first game for the new(ish) league is March 30 and will be the XFL Champs vs. the UFL Champs. Other than the Arlington Renegades (XFL Champs) we don't know which other 3 XFL teams will make it through yet (Kinda surprising given how close the season is). The three USFL teams besides the Panthers who made it through are USFL Champs Birmingham Stallions, the Houston Gamblers, and the Memphis Showboats.

I fixed the NFL's webpage for them: And no... I'm not bitter at all.

Cowboys have a realistic shot of getting the 2 seed. The Lions may have to go back to Dallas in the playoffs.

Making it to the SB would at least end the "Detroit has never made it to the Super Bowl" talk.

Given that this play was specifically told to the officiating crew BEFORE the game, Campbell probably figured they would do their job and get it right. Also, I just re-listened to the broadcast and I didn't hear it announced at all. Not saying it wasn't announced but I was specifically listening for it and I didn't hear anything. If I couldn't even hear it when I was listening for it, I suspect it would have been super easy to miss it if I wasn't.