You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2012 NFL Season
Is possession in the air or on the ground? I don't know. The NFL seems to indicate it's on the ground based on their statement, but regardless, it's highly unlikely the refs knew either. It's a judgement call which the refs made (or didn't make). It doesn't matter if you agree with it or disagree with it.
The refs also didn't overturn the call because apparently they were told by the NFL replay person (an employee) that they couldn't when they were reviewing the replay. Again, it doesn't matter if that's right or wrong...that's what happened. I realize the call was huge because it was the last play of the game, but the reality is Seattle should have just been kicking a game winning field goal and the play never should have had to happen in the first place. Everybody ignores that and complains how the Packers got screwed...the truth is, Seattle was about to get screwed and all that play did was fix the earlier wrong.
I don't know the exact specifics of the "simultaneous" catch either. To me it sounds like it should be in the air. But it could very well be on the ground. To me, that's not simultaneous. The defender intercepts the ball, then when they get to the ground the offensive player wrestles the ball away, or at least shares possession. How is that simultaneous?
I just feel bad that it's gotten to this point. EVERY team has been screwed over by these officials in one way or another. There are countless examples. The Prime Time games obviously get the most coverage, and those are supposed to be the "best crews".
And you are right, the fact that the play wasn't overturned wasn't completely on the refs, though they do have the final say. The replay official, the commish himself. They could have rectified this in no time. Heck, the NFL office was busy calling the Denver coaching staff in the middle of their game to tell the coaches to stop yelling at the refs. Yet they can't pick up the phone to say, "Uh, I think you might have gotten that call wrong". There's just no excuse for any of this. Oh wait, yes there is. Power and greed. 
Re: 2012 NFL Season
I would think it's in the air using common sense, but not all rules are common sense (see the Calvin Johnson TD that should have beat the Bears a year or so ago). That's part of the problem...the regular refs know most of those rules inside out, or at least somebody on the field does. They get together and discuss calls before making them, which is the opposite of what happened here resulting in conflicting calls. I think the first guy was going to call interception. The second guy saw him raise his arms and immediately raised his to signal TD (not to contradict him, but because I think he thought the other guy was going to signal TD too).
It's a big mess and it was all avoidable. The regular refs aren't perfect, but in the end, they get it right almost all the time. Very frustrating to see officiating like this.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: 2012 NFL Season
Possession is a little complicated I guess, haha. You don't have possession if you don't come down with the ball, that much is simple. The catch is ruled simultaneous or not simultaneous based on point-of-contact between the ball and players, which is in the air. If it's caught in the air by one person and then on the ground possession appears simultaneous, I think the original catch keeps the ball. I can't cite that in the rulebook but I would almost swear I've seen it called/explained that way a handful of times over the years.
To me it seemed like Jennings' grip on the ball was dominant both in the air and on the ground, though. It was in his body and his hands, Tate was reaching just to keep hands on it.
Regardless of the rulebook, Buzz, you're really in the vast minority if you think this is a close call and not a huge mistake. It's not so much about how it impacts the records of the teams as it is about how the ending of MNF was screwed up by refs. I mean, MNF!! An American institution tarnished in an unprecedented fashion by the NFL's greed! It's not about who deserved the win, Pack or Seahawks. I agree GB had a lot of calls go their way earlier, but that's not the point. Or not the focal point anyway.
I think this is the worst call since the Tuck Rule, which was the worst call of my life probably. And that takes a lot to admit from a victim of the original Music City Miracle.
Re: 2012 NFL Season
Regardless of the rulebook, Buzz, you're really in the vast minority if you think this is a close call and not a huge mistake. It's not so much about how it impacts the records of the teams as it is about how the ending of MNF was screwed up by refs. I mean, MNF!! An American institution tarnished in an unprecedented fashion by the NFL's greed! It's not about who deserved the win, Pack or Seahawks. I agree GB had a lot of calls go their way earlier, but that's not the point. Or not the focal point anyway.
I think this is the worst call since the Tuck Rule, which was the worst call of my life probably. And that takes a lot to admit from a victim of the original Music City Miracle.
I certainly never said it wasn't a mistake without breaking down exactly what happened. Based on what happened and the way the refs interpreted the rule, they made the right call. Replay upheld it. Replay has to be 100% conclusive...if you don't know exactly what simultaneous really means by NFL rules (and none of us do, nor did the refs), how can you overturn that call? You can't. I guess I'm not all up in arms about it because the game ended the way the game should have ended anyway. The fact that it was the Packers is just an added bonus.
I've been begging for the regular guys since week 1 when I was at the game in Chicago. It's bad, and it's bad across the board. I also believe that the regular guys would have had a tough time with that call. I believe they would have ultimately gotten it right, but it was not the crystal clear interception that some want to make it out to be real-time. Of course I also believe if the regular guys were there, Seattle would have been kicking a game winning FG and that play never would have happened.
It's not that I think it's good for the game. It's not that I'm defending the refs lack of knowledge, or the league for allowing people with lack of knowledge to be officiating the games. I think it all worked out the way it should have worked out, and that is why I'm not nearly as upset as everybody else is. Had GB really gotten screwed, I'd be as upset as everybody else. It's a hard way to lose a game, but they shouldn't have been winning anyway, so how you lose shouldn't really matter. I've yet to see anybody ask them if they were mad at the refs when they got the calls that allowed them to score their TD. No, that mistake was ok because it helped them. BS.
Re: 2012 NFL Season
Buzz, there's a big difference between a bad call during the course of a game and the most horrendous call ever made to end a game. If a bad call is made in the first minute or with 5 minutes left in the game, there's still a chance to overcome that. When there's no time left on the clock, that's it.
And you think Green Bay was gift wrapped the go ahead TD? Okay, let's assume they only come out of that with a FG. They're now up 9-7. How about the bullshit roughing the passer call on Wilson that enabled the Seahawks "game winning" drive to continue? If that non existant call isn't made they never get in position to attempt a game winning FG. Again, you could play this coulda, woulda, shoulda game all day long. Doesn't change the fact that the call that ended the game trumps everything.
And in defense of the "tuck rule". I disagree and think this call was FAR worse. That RULING didn't end the game. The Patriots still had to pick up a 1st down, kick a 46 yard FG in a snowstorm, hold the Raiders from scoring, and kick a game winning FG in the snow, AGAIN. The Raiders had plenty of chances to still win that game. The Packers had none.
Re: 2012 NFL Season
I think you're making the case for me. That's been my point all along. What happened, happened. And given the knowledge that the refs had at the time, they made the right call. Replay wasn't conclusive enough to overturn it. They had 59 minutes to overcome that...well, they had 59 minutes to not put themselves in position to have that happen. Lets say for argument's sake that defensive PI was called on the guy that Tate shoved out of the way and the ball falls incomplete. Horrible call, right? Is that horrible call okay because GB still had a chance to stop them when the ball is placed at the 1 yd line? I don't see it that way.
As for the Int, perhaps knowing they only need a FG, they ride Lynch down the field. Maybe GB misses the FG and Seattle runs out the clock. I agree you can't play coulda, woulda, shoulda. The Packers should have played better - that's the shoulda that matters. If you leave a game to the refs that you know are bad (and you've been taking advantage of for 2 weeks) and it doesn't work out your way, you can't really cry about it...that's on you.
That's the reality. Everybody's all upset because it was the last play. Every game has a last play. Some games have bad calls on last plays. That's the way it goes. If I were a Packer fan, I'd be upset. Looking at it from the outside, I blame the Packers for not making that a non-issue.
Re: 2012 NFL Season
Not sure how you can say the replay wasn't conclusive enough to overturn. That's about as conclusive as it gets.
You're making up scenarios now, with defensive PI being called in the endzone with no time on the clock. The game still comes down to ONE play due to the call. So yes, that would be a rough call. Not as bad as giving a team credit for a TD they didn't earn, but bad in its own right.
The Packers intercepted the ball on the last play of the game. That should have been enough to overcome their poor play in the 1st half.
On a brighter note, it sounds like the NFL and the refs have made progress and are close to a deal. They could even be instated for this weeks games. Of course, nothing is official yet and they still have some work to do. But hopefully they wrap things up nice and quick.
Re: 2012 NFL Season
Not sure how you can say the replay wasn't conclusive enough to overturn. That's about as conclusive as it gets.
It's not conclusive if you don't know what the simultaneous possession rule is. It's relatively conclusive if you have time to research the rule to the point that Tate had one hand off the ball for part of the fall. Again, when does possession officially start? We don't know and I bet they don't either. So if your definition (not you, the ref) is simulaneous possession starts when they hit the ground, a case can be made that both players had the ball. Not saying I agree with it, but I'm saying it's not as clear as people want to make it out to be.
You're making up scenarios now, with defensive PI being called in the endzone with no time on the clock. The game still comes down to ONE play due to the call. So yes, that would be a rough call. Not as bad as giving a team credit for a TD they didn't earn, but bad in its own right.
The Packers intercepted the ball on the last play of the game. That should have been enough to overcome their poor play in the 1st half.
Yes, I'm making up scenarios to prove a point. A bad call that leads to a TD is a bad call no matter when it happens. Seattle got hosed as bad as GB did (at least the end result in both cases was a TD that shouldn't have happened), but it's okay because Seattle had time to make up for the bad call that resulted in the GB TD? I don't see it that way at all.
On a brighter note, it sounds like the NFL and the refs have made progress and are close to a deal. They could even be instated for this weeks games. Of course, nothing is official yet and they still have some work to do. But hopefully they wrap things up nice and quick.
That would be great. I think everybody would agree this is best for all parties involved.
Re: 2012 NFL Season
in this scenario it is not ruled a posession until a player has primary control of the ball and both feet or the body touch the ground
In between jennings getting his first foot down and second foot down is when tate appears to get some sort of shared possession of the ball.
in the instant between the players hitting the ground and the refs arriving there is no replay evidence proving anything other than shared possession.
after arriving - the refs got an up close and better angle than the cameras did but the replays, at a minimum, show the following:
jennings try and fail twice to rip the ball out of tate's grasp
and
a packer #38 helping jennings fight for the ball as tate fights him off with his foot.
the play was then ruled a td.
there is no conclusive evidence in the replays that indicates jennings had sole possession of the ball any time after both feet touched the ground and there is no way tate wins that battles against two packers, including jennings being between the ball and tate's body, without tate having a good grip on the ball with both hands, indicating possession.
the more i watch this the more i think it was not only a closer call then popular opinion but even that it was the correct call based on the rule of simultaneous possession.
