Week Three Roundup
I just watched Monday Night Football. Green Bay can beat the Seahawks. They did beat the Seahawks. But they can’t beat the Zebras. That was an interception. The replacement refs have finally decided a game, and not just on a questionable call/non-call setting up a decisive drive (although Seattle got the benefit of one of those, too — video here, starting at 1:50 — , but that one fishing pales in comparison to literally deciding the game on a bad call after a booth review). Anyway, I’m too disgusted to write any more about that any more. Your week three fantasy football write up follows the jump.
My team sucks. Let’s just get that out of the way so there’s no accusation of pro-Green Bay rancor tainting that judgment. My team sucking is a problem larger than anything any vision-impared group of black-and-white striped purveyors of instantaneous nonsense could do on the field to any single team on the field. No, my team sucks in a deeper, more intrinsic and innate way than is within the reach of even the most inept and/or corrupt replacement referee to volunteer to referee a Pop Warner game.
Not everyone has this problem. For instance, Stoicdread racked up its first victory against Fuzzy Dunlop in what looked to me to be the most even matchup of the week. The Dunlops were hurt by several game-time decisions, including Chicago’s game-time decision to hold Matt Forte out of Chicago’s successful matchup against the St. Louis Rack-o-Lambs, and the Giants defense shutting Cam Newton down more effective than the referees shut down the Packers on Monday night.
And Multiple Scorgasms continues its undefeated season at the expense of Haulin’ Oats. Ron Mexico was no match for the A.C. Milan-looking Arizona Cardinals, but the real credit for the victory goes to Ray Rice’s strong and consistent running game wore down the Head-On-Fire-Guys (that would be Mrs. Likko’s name. You’ll find yourself using it now.) At this point despite last week’s seeming spectacle of parity prevailing all over the place, it’s fair to say that the Scorgasms are the team to beat in our fantasy league.
Thanks to not one but SIX abysmally bad sit-or-start decisions made by their coach, the Unlikely Pseudonyms were administered an epic beat-down at the hands of the Tebow Ghostwriters, in the blowout of the week. It didn’t help the Pseudonyms that they relied on both Green Bay’s kicker and its defense, who were up against a resilient and talented Seattle team, a tough home venue, and a squad of bumbling buffoons spotting the Seahawks six unearned points with no time left on the clock. What’s truly awesome to contemplate in addition to all that is that had the Pseudonyms made optimal coaching decisions, it still wouldn’t have been enough to win. And, had the Ghostwriters made optimal coaching decisions themselves to match, this score could have been 23 points MORE lopsided than it was.
Black Hole dealt the Not-so-Gentlewomen their first outright loss in the squeaker of the week. The decisive factor here was Atlanta coming to San Diego. The Falcons had a three-point agenda for this away game: 1) establish a running game to counterpoint the Julio Jones threat, 2) eat fish tacos, and 3) abuse the Chargers like they were inexperienced substitute teachers. Mission accomplished. I don’t know about the fish tacos part, but they had their way with the Chargers all afternoon long — in a game that was blocked out of broadcast in the Los Angeles market, even on DirecTV’s supposedly-every-game-every-week NFL Direct package. Not that I was bitter about that or anything, either. It’s just that I had a whole bunch of San Diego fans over to the house to watch that particular game on my goddamned birthday, and we wound up having to catch snippets of it all afternoon on Red Zone thanks to the combination of antiquated blackout rules and the apathy of San Diegans who didn’t seem to actually want to drop several C-notes apiece on the product the Chargers put on the field. I’m sure that Atlanta’s fish tacos were tasty, though.
The Ordinary Marksists scored their second win, beating Legitimate Reception (a team which should have no aspersions cast on its name, as this team is innocent of the embarassment against humanity that was the call of a reception ending this Monday night’s game) with a lot of that matchup coming out of the Bengals-at-Redskins game — one that at the start of the season, looked like the biggest yawner of the whole schedule. Turns out that no, that’s likely to be Cleveland at Indianapolis on October 21, which I predict will result in a controversial end-of-game decision that awards the victory to Seattle.
The comeback of the week was Partisan Warrior getting edged by the Dictionary Kids on the strength of Cedric Benson’s Monday night performance that put an initially dominant Seattle team on its heels, where it stayed for the rest of the Monday night game until the replacement referees (recall, the original referees were locked out because their union insisted on a vision plan as part of their benefits package) became the decisive force causing the Green Bay Packers’ official standing to drop to 1-2.
Rounding out the action was Bullmoose Revival weathering what should have been a Monday-night onslaught from Heisman Cain and The Best Goddamned Quarterback On The Planet™. I mean, the guy was throwing lightning-fast, Joe Montana-like short passes the entire second half and there wasn’t a fishing thing Seattle could figure do about it. Good thing they had help from the sidelines!
Yes, I am bitter. You would be, too. Anyway, here’s the standings for the week.
Team | W-L | PF | PA | Diff. |
Multiple Scorgasms | 3-0 | 232 | 149 | 83 |
Ordinary Marksists | 2-1 | 318 | 235 | 83 |
Dictionary Kids | 2-1 | 264 | 220 | 44 |
Black Hole | 2-1 | 210 | 205 | 5 |
Bullmoose Revival | 2-1 | 248 | 259 | -11 |
Not-so-Gentlewomen | 1-1-1 | 279 | 240 | 39 |
Partisan Warior | 1-1-1 | 213 | 201 | 12 |
Tebow Ghostwriters | 1-2 | 227 | 192 | 35 |
Fuzzy Dunlop | 1-2 | 225 | 243 | -18 |
Haulin’ Oats | 1-2 | 197 | 215 | -18 |
Heisman Cain | 1-2 | 190 | 233 | -43 |
Legitimate Reception | 1-2 | 233 | 281 | -48 |
Unlikely Pseudonyms | 1-2 | 237 | 309 | -72 |
Stoicdread | 1-2 | 228 | 319 | -91 |
Fishin’ replacement refs. There’s not enough Bourbon in this house to make me calm down after that, and my only consolation is that this is why they make asterisks. Oh, but you know who liked the call? Paul Allen! There’s an unbiased source for you.
Yay! My first win!Report
The Onion is there (NSFW but deadly accurate).Report
And, when a star Seattle player concedes by silence the wrongness of the game-winning call, you know that the decision is, in the words of an anonymous NFL official, “Rodney King bad.”Report
Burt, I dunno whatchoo talkin’ ’bout. Push-off? I dunno whatchoo talkin’ ’bout.
(I did like the post-game commentators ragging on him for that. “They train ’em well at Notre Dame, he came out with that answer right away.”)Report
Well, the call was obviously correct, as it went the Seahawks way. (This starts to make up for the horrible refereeing when the ‘Hawks went to the superbowl.)Report
I do think it’s interesting to have this example of what actually bad refereeing looks like, rather than “judgement call that didn’t go my way” refereeing.Report
The problem in America in one post: NFL refs: important, disgusting and unjust.
One robed Supreme Court Justice inventing law from whole cloth to bankrupt America with Obamacare: Ho hum.Report
You know what? You can be mad about both of those things if you want. It’s not mutually exclusive.Report
Seems to me is that the issue is refs watching the ball, rather than the players; and that the players are recognizing this and taking advantage of it.Report
Great observation.Report
I wasn’t watching the game live, but I saw the replays and given the harsh comments toward the ref it wasn’t what I was expected. It looks like the Seattle receiver gets two hands on the ball comes down that way. I’m glad I didn’t have to make that call but I’m wondering why exactly it’s not a reception. As near as I can see it’s because at the end of the pile the ball is closer to the defender’s torse.
In any event, contrary to some other incidents it’s not clear to me that the regular refs would have called it any different.Report
Great point, Koz. I think people are mistaking the outcome for the action. The rule is apparently that simultaneous possession goes to the offensive player. I don’t think it was simultaneous possession, but I have the benefit of watching it on slow motion replay.
What I enjoyed about the play was having the follow two exchanges with Zazzy, who was trying to sleep in bed next to me…
K: Holy crap! Did he catch that?
Z: [Pause] Well, did he?
K: I… don’t… know.
Z: What do you mean that you don’t know?
K: I don’t know if ANYONE knows.
… a few moments later…
Z: Is the game over at least?
K: I… don’t… know.
Z: Is this some sort of trick to keep the TV on longer?
K: I…….. don’t……. know…..Report
As a Seattle resident and Seahawks fan, I’m both aware of how bad the call was (the postgame Seahawks Twitterverse was a pretty hilarious blend of disgust and excitement) and gratified that national commentators and the general NFL fanbase is outright admitting that the call was worse because it hurt the Packers, implying that if it had been reversed and the Packers had been given an incredibly dubious TD to win over Seattle, it’d be less of a problem and maybe just blow over. The fact that some franchises are given preferential treatment by the media and the rest of the country is a pretty well understood fact here, but it’s rare to see it so out in the open.
And that sense of aggrievement at being blamed for an injury to the precious Packers will probably go a long way this season, since as we all know being aggrieved is the most powerful motivation in sports. So it’ll probably help Green Bay’s season as well.Report
[Citation needed].
If the situation had been reversed, and Green Bay was sitting on top of an unearned win and Seattle was told informally that it was a bad call but they have to live with it, I would accept the win (as Seattle is doing) but I’d still concur with pointing out that if the refereeing is going to be this bad and the rules don’t mean anything and all that money and technology and effort invested in replays will be disregarded, then the integrity of the game is substantially diminished and maybe I’m a little less eager to watch it despite my affinity for my own team. I want to see my team win, I want that win to represent its superior skill, strength, and strategy. If there was a rule that Green Bay simply wins every game automatically just because it’s Green Bay and everybody’s supposed to love Green Bay because hey, it’s Green Bay, that wouldn’t be interesting at all.Report
Maybe they should sign Tebow.Report
Right. All he does is win.Report
In case it wasn’t clear, I absolutely agree it was a bad call, and a bad call poorly executed (where was the white hat?). But I and other Cascadians are at least a little bit bemused that the country is having an existential cry over Green Bay losing a regular season game when, for example, a referee so bungled a series of Superbowl calls that he publicly apologized to the Seahawks. Or that Vinny Testaverde was given an incorrect late touchdown because his head apparently looks like a football in a game that essentially ended Seattle’s hopes for the playoffs (and got Erickson fired, so thanks I guess).
Somehow the integrity of the league survived those blunders and the rules still meant something. Which is why one wonders why the very soul of the league is at stake when the Packers lose but a botched Superbowl is just crybabies being crybabies (citation needed).
On the specifics, by rule replay couldn’t overturn the play because replay can’t determine possession. At least that’s my understanding based on all of the yelling of the past few days. Once the ref called touchdown (one of them, anyway), replay was effectively bound to a pretty narrow set of criteria that weren’t relevant.Report
“Somehow the integrity of the league survived those blunders and the rules still meant something. ”
The problem is that even by the rules this wasn’t a reception by the Seahawks.
Setting aside the overt offensive-pass-interference–and that’s a big thing to set aside, but we’ll do it anyway for now–the post-game commentators quoted chapter and verse on the subject of simultaneous catches, wherein it was stated that if a player catches the ball, and another player comes in after that and grabs hold before the first player hits the ground, then it is not considered a “simultaneous catch”.Report