nfl agrees with the call

[abaskin18]

Not necessarily. I wouldn't say that after listening to Gerry Austin last night and this morning. He said that P.I. might not get called in a situation like that if it's close. I don't want to say "it's understood" that the players are allowed to play extra hard in those situations, but he said something along the lines of, "You probably aren't going to call P.I. there unless it's obvious and egregious." The NFL might argue differently with how I worded that but I got the sense that if all officials think how Gerry Austin spoke, that something close to P.I. on a play like that MIGHT not get called. Therefore, I would not say that P.I. is NEVER going to be called on a play like that.

Fair enough, in terms of word usage. Even if it was 50/50 in terms of frequency (and I think we can at least agree that it isn't) I wouldn't be focusing on that non-call.

My only point remains: that PI non-call is not at the top of my list when it comes to what went down last night. You are correct though, that "never" and "always" stuff gets you into trouble. Point taken.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

abaskin....the thing is, PI is usually not called on hail marys...because the players rarely try to mug each other like that. A blatant penalty like that *would* normally be called by a competent ref, I believe. Its not like they go to prison rules for that one play. I've certainly seen PI called on a hail mary before for less.

 

[abaskin18]

abaskin....the thing is, PI is usually not called on hail marys...because the players rarely try to mug each other like that. A blatant penalty like that *would* normally be called by a competent ref, I believe. Its not like they go to prison rules for that one play. I've certainly seen PI called on a hail mary before for less.

Tell that to the 2002 Giants. This isn't the first, and it's not the worst. Regular refs have and will continue to let a lot go in those situations. So I cannot agree that it WOULD have been called by a regular ref and I certainly cannot agree that it was THE main problem and should be where our attention is most focused.

 

[ViperVisor]

In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable.

That makes this a bigger fail.

How can you not reverse the ruling. The DB had a grip on it from the beginning. Tate was late and didn't gain control before the DB was down.

 

[Bemular]

I disagree with your assessment of my view. I'm basing my view on years of PI not being called in similar situations, not the word "judgement." In some cases it's been as (if not more) glaring and has taken place to end a playoff game. To claim every flag is as much a "judgement call" as PI is ignorant and I know you don't believe that.

Little to no controversy if the PI was called? True, but there would be even less controversy if the 10+ bad calls leading up to that play were called correctly. A view in hindsight is what means little to nothing.

My rules? You don't need to put words in my mouth to state your point.

My assessment of your view is spot-on. Here is what you said:

"No ref, regular or replacement, wants to make a judgment call to win or lose the game on the final play."

My comment that: "Every flag thrown and not thrown in the NFL is a judgment call." is an accurate statement intended not to dispute your personal opinion but rather to prove that while your personal opinion is fine, perhaps even accurate, as a "personal opinion" it is flawed as a premise; which, of course, leads to your conclusion being flawed as well.


"To claim every flag is as much a "judgment call" as PI is ignorant and I know you don't believe that."

You are confused, allow me to explain. Every call and non-call in the NFL is a judgment call. What you are confused about is something called "degrees of evidence - or degrees of certainty".

By your statement you are intimating that other penalties are less of a judgment call than PI's - which truly would be ignorant. I'll just go ahead and assume you don't believe that - at least not anymore.


Regarding my putting words in your mouth - not me, perhaps you should do a better job of understanding the words that come out of your mouth. Here is what you said

"PI is never going to get called on a hail mary".

Please feel free to explain how my characterization of those words misrepresented them - I mean if PI is NEVER going to be called then essentially the rule doesn't apply to HM's - right?

Perhaps what you meant to say was something more like: "I know from my vast experience that PI is ALMOST never called on Hail Mary's, but if ever there was a time when it should have been called last night was that time."

 

[ChrisPozz]

Just saw on ESPN's bottom line ticker that an estimated 67,000 fantasy football matchups were won/lost based on the final play last night. My brother won his based on the final play but his isn't on ESPN.

 

[Bemular]

Just saw on ESPN's bottom line ticker that an estimated 67,000 fantasy football matchups were won/lost based on the final play last night. My brother won his based on the final play but his isn't on ESPN.

I heard the betting line exchanged between $150-250 Million on the play

 

[MHSL82]

The entire play became inconsequential the moment Tate pushed Shields - THAT is what should be grabbing the headlines not the scrum for the football.

Absolutely true. But I assume if Tate caught the ball cleanly after it, there'd be a lot more people defending the replacement refs - saying that the regular refs could miss that and no one calls PI on a hail mary. Now, other than some select Seahawk fans, the only defense the replacement refs get is that they are not competant (but trying hard) and the Replay Official didn't overturn it. Scoreboard! Just kidding.

 

[MHSL82]

If the NFL is saying the endzone is not in the field of play then that opens up a ton of other problems for them like how do you call a holding penalty in the end zone if its not technically in the field of play, how do you call a fumble recovered in the end zone if its not in the field of play etc etc. A lot of the rules in the NFL casebook stipulate field of play so Im not sure how they get around that one.. The rulebook itself states that penalties are only enforceable when committed in the field of play ( except for personal fouls). Thats a whole new can of worms.

Maybe field of play doesn't include the endzone where that's another field (or term)? That wasn't my belief, but the reason I pose that possibility is because, if it isn't separate, using the words "in the field of play" becomes meaningless. I would already assume that simultaneous catches out of bounds are incomplete. What good does in the field of play serve?

I would not assume that field of play did not include the endzone, I'm just trying to reconcile the reports that endzone simultaneous catches are reviewable but in between the endzones are not - unless there's another rule. I can see the NFL thinking that if it's between the endzones, a tie to the offense is reasonable? But if you simultaneous catch a ball that hit the ground, the hitting the ground would be reviewable. It's just who had it first that isn't reviewable (except in the end zone), if I'm reading it right.

 

[abaskin18]

My assessment of your view is spot-on. Here is what you said:

"No ref, regular or replacement, wants to make a judgment call to win or lose the game on the final play."

My comment that: "Every flag thrown and not thrown in the NFL is a judgment call." is an accurate statement intended not to dispute your personal opinion but rather to prove that while your personal opinion is fine, perhaps even accurate, as a "personal opinion" it is flawed as a premise; which, of course, leads to your conclusion being flawed as well.


"To claim every flag is as much a "judgment call" as PI is ignorant and I know you don't believe that."

You are confused, allow me to explain. Every call and non-call in the NFL is a judgment call. What you are confused about is something called "degrees of evidence - or degrees of certainty".

By your statement you are intimating that other penalties are less of a judgment call than PI's - which truly would be ignorant. I'll just go ahead and assume you don't believe that - at least not anymore.


Regarding my putting words in your mouth - not me, perhaps you should do a better job of understanding the words that come out of your mouth. Here is what you said

"PI is never going to get called on a hail mary".

Please feel free to explain how my characterization of those words misrepresented them - I mean if PI is NEVER going to be called then essentially the rule doesn't apply to HM's - right?

Perhaps what you meant to say was something more like: "I know from my vast experience that PI is ALMOST never called on Hail Mary's, but if ever there was a time when it should have been called last night was that time."

I should have been more clear with my words, but you clearly would rather be "right" about claiming the PI non-call should be where our attention is focussed than discussing the points either of us were trying to make.

Good day.

 

[MHSL82]

Absolutely true. But I assume if Tate caught the ball cleanly after it, there'd be a lot more people defending the replacement refs - saying that the regular refs could miss that and no one calls PI on a hail mary. Now, other than some select Seahawk fans, the only defense the replacement refs get is that they are not competant (but trying hard) and the Replay Official didn't overturn it. Scoreboard! Just kidding.

I meant to add that: The hypothetical defense saying that the regular refs would have not called the PI, because PIs aren't called on hail maries wouldn't be correct, because the regulars could have called an obvious PI, there's a higher degree of certainty that that was a PI. That was too egregious, not "close" as I think ChrisPozz was talking about.

 

[deep9er]

Yeah, exactly. The catch was a very tough call, the PI was as easy as possible. The ref was probably just paralyzed with anxiety over a game-ending call.

thats part of the problem, the refs were hesistant which gave more time to Tate.

to me, the play was over when Jenning's hip hit the ground. at that time he had possession and control, so it was not simultaneous. but due to hestitation, Tate got time to turn Jennings over and it looked closer to being simultaneous.

the second ref - the one who signalled TD, should've conferred with the other ref cause you could see he wasn't sure.

 

[MHSL82]

This may be over-confident, but I expect us to win the division. I don't see, other than injury, us not doing that. Even with Arizona's defense. Even if we don't, I don't see Seattle winning. So, I want Green Bay to have as many losses as I can, even if it was to a division rival. Them losing won't happen often, so I'll take it. It could help us get the 1st seed. So I'm a bit selfish, machiavellian in thought, I'm glad it happened and I don't care how it did. Just get the regs out there so we don't lose because of them (I know the Jets game is unreasonable expectation).

 

[abaskin18]

thats part of the problem, the refs were hesistant which gave more time to Tate.

to me, the play was over when Jenning's hip hit the ground. at that time he had possession and control, so it was not simultaneous. but due to hestitation, Tate got time to turn Jennings over and it looked closer to being simultaneous.

the second ref - the one who signalled TD, should've conferred with the other ref cause you could see he wasn't sure.

I saw the same hesitation in Ref #2 that you've been describing. I'll even speculate that when he saw the hands of Ref #1 start to move up Ref #2 signaled TD not knowing there is more than one thing you can do when you raise both your hands in the end zone...

 

[TobyTyler]

NFL statement: Result final, Tate should have been flagged | ProFootballTalk no suprise at all

Of course they agree but by doing so they look even more ridiculous than they did before. This is shameful.

 

[TobyTyler]

I saw the same hesitation in Ref #2 that you've been describing. I'll even speculate that when he saw the hands of Ref #1 start to move up Ref #2 signaled TD not knowing there is more than one thing you can do when you raise both your hands in the end zone...

I agree 100%.

 

[MHSL82]

Why isn't this in the BS thread?

 

[Bemular]

I should have been more clear with my words, but you clearly would rather be "right" about claiming the PI non-call should be where our attention is focussed than discussing the points either of us were trying to make.

Good day.

Seriously Dude? You admit to having made a poor choice of words, which is no big deal, but then you attempt to make me seem petty for defending my point of view against those poorly chosen words? That's rich.


Look, No one would argue that PI is seldom/rarely called on HM's, but on THAT HM pass the PI was so flagrant it should have been called and if it had been there is not a single football fan/player/coach that would have disagreed with that call - even if it was on a HM pass.

If you disagree because of your personal beliefs, that's fine but don't offer your personal beliefs as if they're policy.

 

[deep9er]

This may be over-confident, but I expect us to win the division. I don't see, other than injury, us not doing that. Even with Arizona's defense. Even if we don't, I don't see Seattle winning. So, I want Green Bay to have as many losses as I can, even if it was to a division rival. Them losing won't happen often, so I'll take it. It could help us get the 1st seed. So I'm a bit selfish, machiavellian in thought, I'm glad it happened and I don't care how it did. Just get the regs out there so we don't lose because of them (I know the Jets game is unreasonable expectation).

we need to win West games no matter, so ok i see the logic in having GB lose.

Green Bay was the initial top dog due mainly to their offense, but their offense doesn't seem close to last year?

 

[MHSL82]

we need to win West games no matter, so ok i see the logic in having GB lose.

Green Bay was the initial top dog due mainly to their offense, but their offense doesn't seem close to last year?

Shhh!!! Don't let them know that! We want them to be in denial and postpone picking it up, peaking, and then falling by the playoffs. Or should we have them peak now like last year? I just don't want two peaks. (Yes, I know they already know about their issues.)