So was it a TD or a pick?

[MHSL82]

Even though it was glaring, textbook and clearly a penalty, I don't think the focus should be on PI. Any ref (including Gerry Austin last night) will tell you that you simply don't call it on Hail Mary plays. I'm just kinda over that part of the mess.

It was like watching a shootout where whoever has the ball last is going to win, but in this case it was whoever was going to get the last bad call. If a play like that doesn't move the needle in negotiations then it's going to have to happen in a Giants-Cowboys game.

This is true. I don't know the logic of it other than not wanting to make a call to decide the game, but any call on that play would, unless they dropped it or caught it unopposed. Given how late these replacement refs throw the flag, if they saw it after the push and catch (INT) but before the TD call, they could throw it and we'd just think they were slow.

They were saying that the Replay Official could not overturn the call of simultaneous catch and TD when it's a judgment call or something like that. I also heard that wasn't true. But IF that were true, I wonder how this would play out if the replay official ignored that rule and overturned it anyway. Seattle would be crying foul, but given that Packers are crying foul now, it would have been the same as to the teams being mad. There'd be some precedence being set there or the league would fine/fire the Replay Official, but would they take the victory away from Green Bay again and give it to Seattle? Juries nullify the verdict (render a different vote than the letter of the law) for justice. Would the NFL reverse that saying the Replay Official had no authority to do so unless the guy was out of bounds, the ball hit the ground, or there was no control of the ball at all? Or would they, just like admitting the missed offensive PI, say that despite the Replay Official overstepping his authority (PI in the other), the result is final (trying to avoid overturning a game result)?

 

[MHSL82]

Someone from the Referee Union paid the Replay Official to not overturn it, because then it would be the impetus for a deal, they thought.

 

[numone9er]

I'm not saying that this is true, but i think this is something that has to be considered.

What are the chances that the refs threw the game? There were multiple penalties on that last drive that should have been called. Again, I'm not saying that it is true, but it has to be considered.

 

[abaskin18]

I'm not saying that this is true, but i think this is something that has to be considered.

What are the chances that the refs threw the game? There were multiple penalties on that last drive that should have been called. Again, I'm not saying that it is true, but it has to be considered.

I'd be more inclined to agree if I hadn't seen GB's final scoring drive.

 

[MHSL82]

I'm not saying that this is true, but i think this is something that has to be considered.

What are the chances that the refs threw the game? There were multiple penalties on that last drive that should have been called. Again, I'm not saying that it is true, but it has to be considered.

I'd be more inclined to agree if I hadn't seen GB's final scoring drive.

I think I understand what you're saying, but just to make sure. You're saying on that final Green Bay scoring drive, the replacement refs called TD on one (that was later shown to be out of bounds) - a thrown game wouldn't have had that original call? They would have originally called him out?

But then they took that TD back and didn't give Rodgers the first down until it was reviewed. A thrown game would not have given Rodgers the first down, just like it was originally called. All this shows me is inconsistent calls - I am understanding of the hard job refs have. I could see me not knowing he passed the first down marker and not seeing him out of bounds. But my point is, there were so many calls going both ways that I can't say it was thrown. I do believe there were bigger calls pro-Seattle though.

 

[numone9er]

I think I understand what you're saying, but just to make sure. You're saying on that final Green Bay scoring drive, the replacement refs called TD on one (that was later shown to be out of bounds) - a thrown game wouldn't have had that original call? They would have originally called him out?

But then they took that TD back and didn't give Rodgers the first down until it was reviewed. A thrown game would not have given Rodgers the first down, just like it was originally called. All this shows me is inconsistent calls - I am understanding of the hard job refs have. I could see me not knowing he passed the first down marker and not seeing him out of bounds. But my point is, there were so many calls going both ways that I can't say it was thrown. I do believe there were bigger calls pro-Seattle though.

There were definitely more calls in favor of Seattle. That last drive GB had a few opportunities to win the game, but they were called in favor of Seattle instead. This includes the offset penalties when Browner roughed up Jennings. All though Jennings did get into it with Browner after the call so that one could be excused. There was another play that was picked by a Packer (can't remember who it was) where there was a PI call on the defender when it should have been called on the WR instead.

Again, I'm accusing, just something to mildly consider.

 

[MHSL82]

There were definitely more calls in favor of Seattle. That last drive GB had a few opportunities to win the game, but they were called in favor of Seattle instead. This includes the offset penalties when Browner roughed up Jennings. All though Jennings did get into it with Browner after the call so that one could be excused. There was another play that was picked by a Packer (can't remember who it was) where there was a PI call on the defender when it should have been called on the WR instead.

Again, I'm accusing, just something to mildly consider.

Oops, I meant abaskin's comment on agreeing with you if not for the Packer TD drive.

But yes, Seattle had more and bigger calls go their way, including of course, the last play.

Slightly off-topic, but what do you guys think about the rule that a blocked point-after can't be advanced in the pros but can in college. It would have given the Packers something to play for on the PA. It assured no 2-pt conversion attempt because that can be returned (?). I know they wouldn't go for two as it gave them no advantage.

Ironically, if the Packers went for one on their TD instead of two, they'd likely have scored, in which blocking the PA would have been incentivized. Of course, getting the two points, would insure not losing on this blown call.

 

[abaskin18]

I think I understand what you're saying, but just to make sure. You're saying on that final Green Bay scoring drive, the replacement refs called TD on one (that was later shown to be out of bounds) - a thrown game wouldn't have had that original call? They would have originally called him out?

Not so much. I was saying I would be more suspicious of it being fixed, not just home cooking but a real deal fix to cover the spread or win the game, if there hadn't been a few calls to keep GB's final scoring drive going on a few 3rd downs.

I agree the Seahawks got more calls and got the biggest ones, but I saw enough bad calls against them to conclude that it was likely just an awful game in terms of officiating and unlikely that the fix was in. Certainly is reasonable to speculate about though.

 

[MHSL82]

Not so much. I was saying I would be more suspicious of it being fixed, not just home cooking but a real deal fix to cover the spread or win the game, if there hadn't been a few calls to keep GB's final scoring drive going on a few 3rd downs.

I agree the Seahawks got more calls and got the biggest ones, but I saw enough bad calls against them to conclude that it was likely just an awful game in terms of officiating and unlikely that the fix was in. Certainly is reasonable to speculate about though.

Yep, that's my belief, too... or the replacement refs are good at something - hiding their leanings or trusting that in the end their team will win despite sometime ruling against their team.

 

[abaskin18]

Yep, that's my belief, too... or the replacement refs are good at something - hiding their leanings or trusting that in the end their team will win despite sometime ruling against their team.

There is an art to point shaving, for sure. There was a great doc on the guy from, was it ASU? I don't remember, but anyway it is an art, and yeah I don't think those fellas are quite artistic enough, so to speak.

 

[bdave]

I can't believe some of you think that was a TD

Jennings clearly had two hands on that ball THE WHOLE TIME

TATE DID NOT!

It's an interception END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ChrisPozz]

Packers TE Tom Crabtree on twitter:

Imagine you make a painting. It isn't perfect by others' standards, but it's your painting. You are proud. Then someone takes a **** on it.

I edited it. Crabtree didn't.

 

[MHSL82]

I can't believe some of you think that was a TD

Jennings clearly had two hands on that ball THE WHOLE TIME

TATE DID NOT!

It's an interception END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who?

Edit: I suppose one guy did say it was 10% disputable. I think that was based upon getting two feet on the ground? I think it was an INT, it's just that I've seen people call it an INT before Jennings' feet hit the ground. Unless you can make a football move in mid-air like Reggie Bush, he needs to get two feet down before control is determined? Or is that wrong?

 

[abaskin18]

Who?

The guy in the invisible chair, maybe? :p

 

[NinerSickness]

I can't believe some of you think that was a TD

Jennings clearly had two hands on that ball THE WHOLE TIME

TATE DID NOT!

Not true. The way I heard it explained, if both have possession in the end zone, it doens't matter who has "more" possession. Tate had simultaneous possession, so it's a TD.

The mistake, apparently, was not calling OPI.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Pete Carroll on 710 ESPN Seattle:

"The league backed (call) up and game over, we win. Obviously they missed the push in the battle for the ball, but that stuff goes on all the time."

Ha!

 

[abaskin18]

Not true. The way I heard it explained, if both have possession in the end zone, it doens't matter who has "more" possession. Tate had simultaneous possession, so it's a TD.

The mistake, apparently, was not calling OPI.

To my understanding of the simultaneous possession rule (and anyone feel free to correct me), simultaneous possession only occurs only when that possession begins simultaneously. A player gaining control of it subsequently, while both players would have physical possession of the ball simultaneously, is not simultaneous possession according to the rule.

However, they wrongly called it simultaneously possession on the field which, depending on which reports you read, could have limited what the booth was able to review within the play.

 

[deep9er]

To my understanding of the simultaneous possession rule (and anyone feel free to correct me), simultaneous possession only occurs only when that possession begins simultaneously A player gaining control of it subsequently, while both players would have physical possession of the ball simultaneously, is not simultaneous possession according to the rule.

However, they wrongly called it simultaneously possession on the field which, depending on which reports you read, could have limited what the booth was able to review within the play.

agree it was NOT simultaneous, Jennings took possession (had it completely wrapped with in both arms, and against his chest) and his hip hit the ground. so when they both hit the ground, play over and its an INT. Tate's HAND (not arm) was on the ball, but after his arm was reaching around Jennings.

the refs were indecisive and during those few seconds after they hit the ground, Tate was able to turn Jennings closer to him to make it look simultaneous. the ref who signalled TD was unsure, so should have conferred with the other ref first. cause the first ref had it right and signalled play over.

yes, according to the scroll across the screen, once the TD was signalled, the booth can't overturn it.

 

[deep9er]

i've always wondered about the hail mary pass ever since Doug Flutie? why do you even let the QB throw it? why rush only three linemen?

i would rush four and not necessarily four linemen, i'd consider one or two LB's, or make one a DB? maybe even rush five depending on the QB, and exactly how far away?

cause you know the QB has to wait a long time, so why not sack him? at very least you chase him sideways so he can't throw it very far. maybe you get a holding call?

 

[DoobieKeebler]

I took a few (shitty) screen grabs. Never uploaded pics before to SportsHoopla, so wonder how it'll work.



The way the story looks to me is: Defender catches it. Tate tries to rip the ball out of the defenders hands and into his body. The defender still gains control of the ball, then falls onto Tate. Tate is still trying to strong arm the defender, so the defender rolls over so that both refs see he has control.


My OPINION on things that can't be seen is a bit more out there: I think the replaement refs were day dreaming about those cool dinosaurs that grow when you pour water on them because the refs were tired of work and wanted to go home and play in their tree forts since everyone is mean to them.

All disregarding the blatant offensive PI that came before.