Packers - Seahawks TD call


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Marlow » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:32 am

OK, let me start the Apocalypse and say they got the call RIGHT, even though it's clearly an interception. It's all due to the 'Replacement Refs' hysteria, no fault of their own. Follow my logic.

1. In real time, both Tate and Jennings go up and come down with the ball. Call on the field: dual possession - goes to the receiver - Touchdown. Given the real-time speed of the play, it was indeed a viable call to make - sure looked like they both came down with it (why that's in error will be revealed in replay, but that's the call on the field).
2. Now Replay must overrule the call on the field (NOT determine what the call SHOULD have been, an important distinction). In replay we see that Tate first commits interference by pushing a defender down as the ball is arriving, but that's irrelevant in THIS call. Secondly, we see that Tate only has one hand on the ball and Jennings has two. Tate doesn't have full possession when Jenning's knee hit the ground (ending the play), BUT - and here's the kicker - he DOES have one hand ON the ball, so, in fact, the refs can't overrule the call because a catch CAN be one-handed. Therefore, even though the call on the field SHOULD have been 'interception', which also would have been upheld in replay, you can NOT overrule the call that was made on the field.
3. The RepRef issue is a red herring. 5 out of 10 REAL refs would have made the same call because in real-time, it happens so fast you can't tell that Tate really doesn't deserve the call: dual possession.

So, the call is 'wrong', but was 'correct' as called. :D

P.S. I didn't even see the game, but watched multiple video reports on the intrawebs.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:44 am

They certainly missed the obvious offensive pass interference call.

On the bright side the Packers lost---sorry about that Pego---and if this doesn't spark getting the real refs back, I don't know what will.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Pego » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:52 am

This was the worst officiated game in my memory :evil: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:06 am

There were a few wrong pass interference calls througout the game, including the one on the Packers scoring drive. So it doesn't make sense blaming the Packers loss on the one ref call on the last play.

And Marlow is right in making the distinction between call on the field and review. And yes, the call on the field could've been the same with regular refs, because it was a close call, and close calls on the field can go either way.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby mcgato » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:23 am

First rule of defending a last second pass to the end zone: knock the ball down.

Why was the Packer even trying to catch the ball? He could have just swatted it into the third row behind the end zone. Note, I did not watch the second half of the game, so I only saw the play on internet replays.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Marlow » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:20 am

Daisy wrote:
mcgato wrote:He could have just swatted it into the third row behind the end zone.

This was my first thought too.

Last year the Jags won a game at the very end because the DB swatted the pass down - right into the arms of the lone Jag there (Mike Thomas). Touchdown! We win.
Unless you KNOW you can get the ball out of bounds, catch it yourself.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:47 am

I thought for sure when I saw it it was an interception. It may have been. But to me the replays were inconclusive as to whether Tate had one arm or two arms on the ball as they hit the ground. I did not see any replays shown that had proof of where the other arm was so I have to believe he somehow got it in there. How else would he have had the strength to take the ball away? With one hand? I don't think so. So maybe the call on the field by the one ref was correct (tie goes to the offense). Replays could not overturn conclusively.

As has been mentioned, missed calls affected the game as well and a very bad pass interference call that kept a Packers drive going that ultimately led to a touchdown.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the real refs come back. Everyone is blaming every controversial call on these guys when the NFL has plenty of controversial calls with the other guys as well. With all the hype I think the media is making it worse. Yes there are some bad calls, and maybe too many calls, but I think the expectations are going to be too high now for when the real guys get back.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:19 pm

odelltrclan wrote: With all the hype I think the media is making it worse.

Yes, commentary by espn analysts and some others was completely one-sided.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:22 pm

odelltrclan wrote: But to me the replays were inconclusive as to whether Tate had one arm or two arms on the ball as they hit the ground.

It probably was an interception, but that's not the relevant standard to overturn a call. So yeah, I also thought the replays did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn it.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:32 pm

j-a-m wrote:
odelltrclan wrote: But to me the replays were inconclusive as to whether Tate had one arm or two arms on the ball as they hit the ground.

It probably was an interception, but that's not the relevant standard to overturn a call. So yeah, I also thought the replays did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn it.


It wasnt overturned because it cant be overturned.

The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:35 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

NFL released a statement including the following:
The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:38 pm

NFL statement also supports the decision not to overturn the call on review; pass interference, on the other hand, should've been called on Tate, but that part's not reviewable.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby polevaultpower » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:43 pm

The local talk show host I am listening to is just dumbfounded at the amount of national attention this is getting, especially from politicians.

Many of my Facebook friends are still bitter about the bad call that cost us the Super Bowl, and figure this is karma swinging the other way.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4532
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Dutra5 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:44 pm

I don't think Tate established any level of dual possession. The Packers player had the ball against his body and Tate stuck one hand in there. By rule that is not possession nor is it dual possession. Whether Tate was able to subsequently wrestle the ball away from the Packers player means absolutely nothing since once the Packers player is down the play is over.

The NFL is trying to hide behind the "not enough visual evidence" angle which I obviously disagree with.

I do agree that he media is feuling a little more hysteria than warranted and the league needs to be wary of this leading to some level of violence from either participants (towards the referees) or crowds (against anyone including themselves).
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Marlow » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:42 pm

Dutra5 wrote:I don't think Tate established any level of dual possession. The Packers player had the ball against his body and Tate stuck one hand in there. By rule that is not possession nor is it dual possession.

Yes, but in the speed and heat of the moment it DID look like dual possession, because Tate had both arms on it as they wrestled on the ground, a mere fraction after they hit, therefore it could not be overturned on review.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Dutra5 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:01 pm

Marlow wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:I don't think Tate established any level of dual possession. The Packers player had the ball against his body and Tate stuck one hand in there. By rule that is not possession nor is it dual possession.

Yes, but in the speed and heat of the moment it DID look like dual possession, because Tate had both arms on it as they wrestled on the ground, a mere fraction after they hit, therefore it could not be overturned on review.


Didn't look like his hands were on the ball.

I think the NFL is just sidestepping the issue.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:09 pm

Marlow wrote: therefore it could not be overturned on review.


They can overturn anything they want. They could have said no one caught it and that would have been that.

And they do all of the time....
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Daisy » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:30 pm

Marlow wrote:Yes, but in the speed and heat of the moment it DID look like dual possession, because Tate had both arms on it as they wrestled on the ground

I just saw the play and if he was touching the ball he was bear hugging the GB player at the same time. How can that be dual possession? I have this image of both players grabbing the ball at the same time. Not one player grabs the ball and the second player bear hugs the player with the ball.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby BruceFlorman » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Conor Dary wrote:On the bright side the Packers lost---sorry about that Pego---and if this doesn't spark getting the real refs back, I don't know what will.

The Packers don't have a zillionaire big-mouthed owner. Something like this will have to happen to somebody like the Cowboys before it has a significant effect on the owners' negotiating position.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Daisy » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:49 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:Packers don't have a zillionaire big-mouthed owner.

Not so fast, Pego's an owner! I'm sure he's on his private jet, to somewhere important, right now.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby cullman » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:04 pm

polevaultpower wrote:Many of my Facebook friends are still bitter about the bad call that cost us the Super Bowl, and figure this is karma swinging the other way.

Nothing will make up for the bad officiating in that game. Those bastiges!
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby no one » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:40 pm

ya think this football thing will ever catch on and perhaps become a part of the ethos in the US. Perhaps, given recent events 'catch' might be a pivotal word.
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:41 am

If an offensive player has control of the ball in the endzone, as soon as the players feet touch in bounds the play is over. There is no dual possession of a later action, it is already a finished play. The is complete symmetry of offense and defense in this regard, thus, the play was missed so badly that there is almost no way to justify it as being resolved (as in the game) using the fig leaf of reverseable error.

Second, there were conflicting calls by the officials and neither has 'priority' and the league knows it but that does not make for a clean conclusion for the league.

Third, of course, they missed the other call, and badly. The duty of the process is to try to get the right result, not torture the process to obtain a result that absolutely everyone know is incorrect. The league could very easily say something like -- given the divergent calls, the ruling on the field does not have any priority. Thus, the play is an interception and the outcome is what everyone knows it should be.

Finally, I think that the players union is lining up opinions about the safety of the players being compromised and that they will not play unless the process gets addressed.

Yes, I am generally a Packer fan, but I did not even bother to watch it when they were ahead at the end. I would have the same opinion reversing roles.


Finally, the NFL just gave away their entire remaining sympathy by the fans and the media. This is a pennywise and pound-foolish choice by the league/owners, and I hope that it bites them in the butt, as they deserve it.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:40 am

By the way, is it really clear that regular officials would've called pass interference on a hail mary, even though it would've been the correct call? And if yes, there'd be plenty of people saying "you don't call pass interference on such a play, that's just the referees interfering with the outcome of the game."
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:47 am

26mi235 wrote:Finally, I think that the players union is lining up opinions about the safety of the players being compromised and that they will not play unless the process gets addressed.

It seems many in the sports media were just waiting for a reason/excuse to increase their criticism of the replacement refs. Compromising the players' safety would've been the first choice; now that it turns out that's not the case, they got their second choice, a game the outcome of which was supposedly altered by the refs.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby j-a-m » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:50 am

Dutra5 wrote:Didn't look like his hands were on the ball.

Didn't look like the opposite either; and that's a situation in which there isn't sufficient evidence to overturn the call on the field.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Pego » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:59 am

Daisy wrote:
BruceFlorman wrote:Packers don't have a zillionaire big-mouthed owner.

Not so fast, Pego's an owner! I'm sure he's on his private jet, to somewhere important, right now.


Damn right 8-) .
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:20 am

j-a-m wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

NFL released a statement including the following:
The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.


The rule I quoted was direct from NFL.com, maybe they have it wrong? :shock:

Anyway my 9ers face the Jets on Sunday, I dont feel very confident, we have to beat Tebow, Jesus Christ and Officials who funked out of the lingerie bowl.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Marlow » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:57 am

j-a-m wrote:By the way, is it really clear that regular officials would've called pass interference on a hail mary,

No, but yes, even in a Hail Mary, there can be pass interference or else it's just a rugby scrum.

j-a-m wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:Didn't look like his hands were on the ball.

Didn't look like the opposite either; and that's a situation in which there isn't sufficient evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Zackly.

j-a-m wrote:It seems many in the sports media were just waiting for a reason/excuse to increase their criticism of the replacement refs.

Zackly.

It was a perfect storm - an excuse to dump on the RepRefs. There's plenty of bad calls even with the 'real' refs. There's no reason to believe this isn't exactly how it would have played out anyway. The refs made a 'reasonable' call in real-time (as I first saw it in real-time speed, it initially looked like dual possession as it was happening - and I certainly wasn't looking at Tate shoving the DB), and it couldn't be overturned by replay, so there ya have it.

Get over it,Talking Head Pundits. :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:06 am

Marlow wrote:Get over it,Talking Head Pundits. :roll:


Ok, get over it you say? This is unlikely but- Your Jags are in the super bowl, same refs and you lose with a bevy of bad calls! GET OVER IT! :twisted: :lol:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Marlow » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:13 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Ok, get over it you say? This is unlikely but- Your Jags are in the super bowl, same refs and you lose with a bevy of bad calls! GET OVER IT! :twisted: :lol:

That's different!!! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby gm » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:24 am

I don't even remotely care about the NFL, but this NY Post cover was heee-larious --

http://jimromenesko.com/wp-content/uplo ... NY_NYP.gif
gm
 
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:30 am

[quote="Marlow"]
IF, we knew the Packers will make the playoffs anyway, then its not such a big deal, but what if they miss post season by one game. :(
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Marlow » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:37 am

SQUACKEE wrote:IF, we knew the Packers will make the playoffs anyway, then its not such a big deal, but what if they miss post season by one game. :(

C'est la vie.
Sh*t happens.
Life isn't fair.
Breaks of the game.
That's the way the cookie crumbles.
and my favorite . . . it is what it is. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby gh » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:46 am

<<....Mike Perry, a spokesman for the betting site Sportsbook.ag, told ESPN that the money swing on that call was closer to $250 million. So let's not dismiss the organized-crime angle out of hand. Who could be more vulnerable to gambling interests than a low-paid, virtually unknown referee who soon will disappear altogether from the NFL scene?...>>

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/giants/jenkins/ar ... z27aibONWl
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:33 am

That didn't take long.

    The NFL and the NFL Referees Association made enough progress in negotiations Tuesday night that the possibility of the locked-out officials returning in time to work this week's games has been discussed, according to sources on both sides.

    An agreement in principle is at hand, according to one source familiar to talks, although NFL owners have postured with a "no more compromise" stance.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/84276 ... ek-sources

And now this.

    The N.F.L. and the referees’ union were closing in on an agreement to end the lockout, which has turned the first three weeks of the season into a controversy-filled mess, according to a person briefed on the negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/sport ... ml?_r=1&hp
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby DrJay » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:28 am

Dutra5 wrote:I don't think Tate established any level of dual possession. The Packers player had the ball against his body and Tate stuck one hand in there. By rule that is not possession nor is it dual possession. Whether Tate was able to subsequently wrestle the ball away from the Packers player means absolutely nothing since once the Packers player is down the play is over.

The NFL is trying to hide behind the "not enough visual evidence" angle which I obviously disagree with.

I do agree that he media is feuling a little more hysteria than warranted and the league needs to be wary of this leading to some level of violence from either participants (towards the referees) or crowds (against anyone including themselves).


What Dutra said. Pretty obviously an interception on the replays I've seen.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: Packers - Seahawks TD call

Postby Dutra5 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:43 am

gh wrote:<<....Mike Perry, a spokesman for the betting site Sportsbook.ag, told ESPN that the money swing on that call was closer to $250 million. So let's not dismiss the organized-crime angle out of hand. Who could be more vulnerable to gambling interests than a low-paid, virtually unknown referee who soon will disappear altogether from the NFL scene?...>>

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/giants/jenkins/ar ... z27aibONWl


I don't think there's much there which indicates any of these particular refs would on the take however it wouldn't shock me if a phone call was made from Vegas to Goodell telling him he needs to get the deal done.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests