Must just have missed the outrage

[Cave_Johnson]

I think the OP had a valid point in comparing one call to the other - not because the plays were of equal magnitude or because the quality of the refs were the same, but because of the completely different responses we have seen from one particular fan base on this site. But not all of them of course. Screaming bloody murder for one mistake and trying to justify/neglect the other appears very hypocritical. For better or for worse, mistakes are just part of the game. Sometimes it will hurt your team and sometimes it will help your team.

If you're asking for my opinion on the officiating in the two games, I will say that I think the referees HANDLED the Detroit/Dallas game poorly when they picked up the flag. But I think the calls that they missed in that game were much more subjective (granted still incorrect) than the one referred to in this game. I'm sure you will probably disagree with me on that, as most people will. My only reasoning is that I think I've been desensitized to bad pass interference penalties. I've seen muggings not get called for PI and I've seen the slightest touch get called for PI. It's entirely subjective and the rule is stupid. As for the penalty on the Sherman interception, the guy was clearly offsides when the ball was snapped. I don't know how the line judge, or anyone else, could possibly miss that.

These calls definitely vary way too much from officiating crew to officiating crew. Last game of the season one Rams receiver barley nudged Sherman and got called for offensive PI in a game where DB's on both sides were all over the WRs.

Earlier this year Percy Harvin scored on a 30+ yard TD run against San Diego in which he CLEARLY stepped out of bounds. The refs are supposed to review every scoring play, yet they let it stand for some unknown reason. Don't know how they miss those calls either but that's the kind of BS I'm talking about.

 

[flyerhawk]

What then? We don't know what then, obviously. We don't know how the sequence of events would unfold after that point, obviously. This isn't ground-breaking here. However, with these two teams as evenly matched as they were, any sensible person would believe that the outcome of the game COULD have been decided on one or just a hand-full of plays. The outcome very likely would have been different if #86 doesn't try catching the ball with his face. The outcome very likely would have been different if Wilson doesn't hit that miracle 2-point conversion. The outcome very likely would have been different if the Packers tried going for it on 4th and goal, etc. Likewise, the outcome could have been different if the refs had correctly called the penalty on that non-scoring drive.

Well I would argue that they weren't all that evenly matched when it is all said and done. The Seahawks had 5 turnovers and still won. Historically that is pretty rare especially given where those turnovers were on the field. But regardless, the refs are a force majeure. Pointing to a specific play and proclaiming that it was a game changer ignores the other plays that they also equally impacted the game.

If this was the Seahawks/Broncos Super Bowl, where one team is clearly better than the other, I wouldn't consider a play like this to be much of a factor. But this game? Two very evenly matched teams where the Seahawks come back in one of the wildest overtime playoff comebacks? Yea, that single play or a hand-full of plays could have been what swung the tide in the Seahawks favor.

IOW, a game that ends in overtime will have a number of plays that, had they gone otherwise, would have changed the outcome of the game? Yeah, I agree.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

Well I would argue that they weren't all that evenly matched when it is all said and done. The Seahawks had 5 turnovers and still won. Historically that is pretty rare especially given where those turnovers were on the field. But regardless, the refs are a force majeure. Pointing to a specific play and proclaiming that it was a game changer ignores the other plays that they also equally impacted the game.

IOW, a game that ends in overtime will have a number of plays that, had they gone otherwise, would have changed the outcome of the game? Yeah, I agree.

I say that this play may have had a significant impact on the game and you think that means I'm ignoring the other plays that impacted this game? Just stop. That's a ridiculous line of reasoning. I even mentioned several key plays and noted their importance.

So now you agree that this play was important. That was my point all along, contrary to your "The truth is, that missed call had a negligible effect on the game" comment.