Worst Call Ever – Packers Got Screwed
[guest post by JD]
The NFL has to get this fixed. Soon. The refs lost control of the Ravens/Pats game. The pass interference call against GB was horrible, but the game-changing horrific awful bad wrong call that awarded the win to Seattle was a travesty. Not only did Tate deserve a pass interference, it was clear that the GB safety had the ball first.
The guys on the ESPN set were cowards when Russell Wilson was on set.
– JD
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: You mean shoving a guy before the ball arrives is pass interference? And then “catching” it with one hand while the other guy has control with two isn’t a reception? Get out of here!
I.e. JD is totally right.
Video here.
Horrible
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:25 pm
A stain on the game
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:26 pm
Awful
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:26 pm
I will repeat what I said on facebook:
“I’m not a big fan of GB, but they were just robbed of a game. I don’t think this season will really mean a lot.”
Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:29 pm
F**k the Packers. Go Bears.
Comment by Ipso Fatso (1e3278) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:29 pm
You don’t have to like the Pack to think what happened was an embarrassment for the NFL.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:33 pm
Russell Wilson is the 1st QB in history to throw a game-winning interception.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:45 pm
I couldn’t believe it.
It was such an upside down call, that I would almost believe the official who signaled “touchdown” was momentarily confused and forgot that Green Bay was playing defense rather than offense, and he may have actually meant to signal a “touchback” (due to the interception) which is what the other official appeared to be signaling.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:47 pm
The Packers are a non-profit organization, owned by the fans.
The got screwed tonight. You should be happy.
I’m pissed.
fkng lingerie football refs.
Comment by sleeeepy (b5f718) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:48 pm
To paraphrase Reilly – these refs are using a Sharpie to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:49 pm
Sleepy is still up doing lines of coke with billionaires.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:50 pm
“The guys on the ESPN set were cowards when Russell Wilson was on set.”
Wilson is the kind of QB ESPN wants to see. They don’t care if the referees blow the call as long as Wilson can be the hero.
The NFL rakes in billions but refuses to pay a little more for better officiated games.
Comment by DN (d1a4f3) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:53 pm
There are a lot more sticking points in their negotiations than just a little money.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:56 pm
And take my word JD, they’re laughing at you.
Comment by sleeeepy (b5f718) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:57 pm
I wouldn’t take sleeeerpy’s word for, well ….. anything.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:59 pm
Pac got hosed, by the refs…
Comment by MSL (f060a0) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:03 pm
You know who is loving this? The regular refs who are locked out.
Comment by aunursa (7014a8) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:05 pm
that was the most horseshit ive ever seen….. ruins the game… THEY EVEN REVIEWED IT…… FUCKIN stupid or paid off…..
Comment by talonT (d4eef3) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:13 pm
sleeeepy is thrilled that the governing authority (the officials) used their power to redistribute the football from the Green Bay defender who legitimately intercepted the pass, to the sketchy Seattle receiver who had actually committed a penalty on the play when he shoved a defender prior to the ball’s arrival.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:19 pm
Oh please. The call sucked. Guess what? So do a lot of calls by the “real” refs. The Packers were gifted a win they didn’t deserve last year against the Giants when an obvious good TD by Jake Ballard was ruled incomplete despite the replay clearly showing his knee was down in bounds. Then, in the Giants-Packers playoff game, an incredibly obvious fumble by Jennings was blown not once, but twice, by incompetent fool Bill Leavy. And, hey, remember when the Giants entire season was ended by a horrendous missed pass interference call in the 2002 playoffs? A call blown so egregiously that the league apologized to the Giants in writing?
The replacements are bad, yes, but the regular refs aren’t much better, and they sure as hell don’t deserve the money and pensions they’re demanding.
Comment by radar (84775b) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:21 pm
Radar, I wrote last nite in the Emmy open thread that I think that football fans forget how many mistakes the regular refs have made in the past, and that commentators such as Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth need to take a chill pill.
The replacement refs are doing their best, and for the most part, are getting things right. Certainly, this call was absolutely mind-boggling at Green Bay’s expense, but some guys in the NFL are almost pushing a narrative that there used to be a utopian paradise with the regular refs.
Either way, officiating football can be very difficult. Watching at home on tv, we have good camera angles, but the officials’ vision on the field is often obscured by players, and on top of that they have to make a call in real time.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:37 pm
Hahahaha. Exactly.
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:52 pm
We need to redistribute possession to ensure everyone has a shot.
Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:01 pm
Ref-ists!!!
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:06 pm
The Packers are a non-profit organization, owned by the fans.
The got screwed tonight. You should be happy.
– Because we hate non-profit organizations, is that it?
Like all of those non-profit charity organizations that we donate to twice as much as you do, for instance?
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:10 pm
Perhaps the players should walk out.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:39 pm
Meanwhile, Nanny Bloomberg is at it again. This time he’s going after hospital cafeteria food [emphasis mine]:
The cafeteria crackdown will ban deep fryers, make leafy green salads a mandatory option and allow only healthy snacks to be stocked near the cafeteria entrance and at cash registers. At least half of all sandwiches and salads must be made or served with whole grains. Half-size sandwich portions must be available for sale.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:45 pm
They should get haircuts unless they can sing “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”.
I watch professional Mexican midget wrestling, the only honestly officiated sport.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:46 pm
The Houston PD has called in the FBI to investigate that officer-involved shooting of the double-amputee that was threatening him with a ballpoint pen.
No word yet on whether or not the man’s last words were “The Black Knight always triumphs; have at you!”
P.S. This time it’s only a semi-threadjack, as there is related info: In 2008, Marin [the officer that did the shooting] was one of three Houston police officers who were accused of assaulting the father of Green Bay Packers player Donald Driver. They were later cleared and filed a defamation lawsuit that was later dropped.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:03 am
I, for one, always appreciate Texas posts, Icy.
Green Bay, too. It was one heck of a drive, but we got to see buffalo along the way.
I wish the Bears had moved to Gary instead of destroying beautiful Soldier Field.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:38 am
And I miss Anwyn. From back when I was a nice person. http://www.anwyn.com/2007/02/04/its-on/
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:55 am
I don’t think it’s fair to have the Super Bowl in cities which are warm in February, if you really want to talk about unfair NFL rulings.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:07 am
And it should be on Christmas Eve, the way
GodHalas and Lombardi intended in the first place. Expansion! Humbug!No insult to Landry intended.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:13 am
Or was it New Year?
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:20 am
GB has little standing to complain about this. You DONT try to catch last second hail marys in the endzone. You KNOCK IT DOWN period. Use a fist there and there is no touchdown. But all these guys want to pad their interception stats not play as a team. Got what they deserved.
Comment by Gil (2b9c26) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:48 am
I agree, Gil. Ball, ground.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:59 am
GB has little standing to complain about this. You DONT try to catch last second hail marys in the endzone. You KNOCK IT DOWN period. Use a fist there and there is no touchdown. But all these guys want to pad their interception stats not play as a team. Got what they deserved.
How does that change the fact that he intercepted the ball?
I think the most egregious part of this is that they went to replay, and still got it wrong.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:11 am
I quit watching “The Train Wreck of the NFL” after week 2.
Overrated League run by a guy who thinks he is Jesus. Radio is ok by me. Watching this is like watching golf too f-ing slow. Too many commercials. I have shit to do.
Comment by mg (44de53) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:23 am
I disagree. Having the ball first without your feet on the ground is not sufficient. Play is not over. When they came to the ground both of them had the ball and the refs called it a touchdown. They had to give it to one of them because it was clearly not an incomplete pass. If they called it the other way, Seahawks fans would be outraged. The “replacement refs suck” mantra has become a cliche. Used as excuse for when your team loses. Roughing passer was accurate call. Can’t aim for QBS knees.
Comment by Peter (dfde9b) — 9/25/2012 @ 3:54 am
And remember, the reason we have replay is because everyone complained about the REAL refs screwing up calls.
Comment by Peter (dfde9b) — 9/25/2012 @ 3:56 am
When they came to the ground both of them had the ball and the refs called it a touchdown.
Not at all the case. GB defender had 2 hands on the ball and pulled it into his chest. Tate had one hand in there on the way down. Only 1 ref signaled TD, the other signaled touchback for INT. Tate did a great job of shoving defender out of the way and wrestling into a position where he looked to have the ball.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 4:02 am
I remember when football was a game for men
Comment by EPWJ (c5f1fc) — 9/25/2012 @ 4:57 am
I didn’t see the play everyone is complaining about, as I quit watching the game in the middle of the 4th after the bogus pass interception call on Shields. There are enough frustrations in life without having to add to them by watching this dreck.
And Elephant Stone, nice to see you come around.
Comment by Roscoe (15d927) — 9/25/2012 @ 5:30 am
Meh. It’s still baseball season.
Comment by elissa (c825a3) — 9/25/2012 @ 5:41 am
Please do not pour salt into a Cubs’ fans sores, elissa.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 5:58 am
Roscoe – that was the other horrible call I was referring to.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 5:59 am
The Seahawks player had possession and two feet down. After he landed the Green Bay player took the ball from him.
That’s a touchdown, not an interception.
Comment by egd (d580cc) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:11 am
Well don’t let your QB get sacked 100 times in the first half. Come on – stop crying.
So if you got a problem with the replacement refs go volunteer to do it yourself or send in money to the NFL for the Referees benefit fund (that goes for the players too).
Otherwise relax its football – not war. Don’t watch it then – play with your kids or read a book.
Comment by dnice (ab98c0) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:11 am
It is not my QB, or my team. It was simply a horrible call. That cost them the game.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:29 am
You are rigth about the announcers on the video: “tie goes to the offensive player”???? That ball was in the defenses arms. And I’m no packers’ fan
Comment by john b (700c34) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:40 am
I got this premonition that the election will be like the game with Obama being the Seahawks. I mean aside from the media’s Orwellian efforts on Obama’s behalf, like another Florida type situation but this time the phony votes are counted or a 1960 type ballot box stuffing scenario.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:46 am
That’s some strong weed you smoke.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:51 am
Maybe the replacement refs didnt get the memo that the Packers are new “America’s” team.
Remember last year versus the Giants where the SUPER AWESOME ALWAYS RIGHT REFS tried to hand the game to the Pack on a silver platter.
Karma is a beeyatch!
Comment by dnice (ab98c0) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:03 am
So you don’t really care if the call was right, so long as GB got screwed. Gotcha.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:30 am
Possession requires control of the football with both feet down in bounds. Jennings never established sole possession as defined by the rulebook. Tate also had both hands on the ball when both players came to the ground. As per the rule, the tie goes to the offense. This is why it was reviewed and upheld.
For those complaining about the Shield pass interference call, watch the replay again and watch Shield’s left hand – if you don’t want to watch again, I’ll fill you in. Shields had a handful of the Seattle players Jersey and was pulling him down while the receiver went up for the ball. It is completely obvious on the replay, and the official was perfectly positioned to see it.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:32 am
I know that the regular officials make some bad calls from time to time, but this is chaos. Until the NFL brings back the real officials, I will watch no more NFL games. College ball can be more fun anyway.
Comment by BarSinister (664312) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:32 am
The Pack’s drive which put them ahead was sustained by an egregiously bad interference call against the Seahawks, consequently when Shields was flagged for an equally wrongheaded interference infraction in the 4th quarter I marked it down as a compensation call.
The refs were attempting to balance accounts, not the best situation, but given the circumstances, understandable and equitable.
However, the refs blew the final TD call. There was clearly Offensive Pass Interference against the Seattle receiver prior to the arrival of the ball. It shouldn’t have mattered who caught the pass, the penalty took priority.
Comment by ropelight (e497ef) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:42 am
Tate also had both hands on the ball when both players came to the ground
Not at all. Clearly he had one hand not even on the ball on the way down, as opposed to the defender who had 2, and clutched the ball to his chest. Tate never had 2 hands on the ball and possession until they fought for the ball in the ground.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:49 am
You’re confusing two different uses of the word “possession”. There’s the question of possession as opposed to an INCOMPLETION. That rule applies if he lost control of the ball before getting two feet down.
The rule of possession BETWEEN THE OFFENSE AND DEFENSE is that whoever controls the ball first gets possession. Period. John Gruden made that clear last night, as did the (regular) NFL ref that was interviewed after the game.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:52 am
Thanks, Gerald. The idea that was simultaneous possession is asinine, as that requires both players to grab the ball simultaneously. It is beyond dispute that the defender had the ball first.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:54 am
NFL definition of possession:
Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:04 am
_____________________________________________
There are a lot more sticking points in their negotiations than just a little money.
But since we live in the age of Oliver Twist, Scrooge, robber barons, sweatshops and feudalism, we must proclaim “workers unite! Solidarity! We must fight the good fight against naked greed!! We must support the overworked, underpaid laborer!” (Or the sentiments of the writer at ESPN, below)
The phrase “bread and circuses” has sometimes been applied to the condition of the Roman Empire during its long, gradual decline. I do wonder if that phrase may apply to aspects of this current era in US history.
Comment by Mark (dcc949) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:05 am
#57
If Tate had managed to pry the ball loose from Jennings before his feet touched the ground and gain control, then it would have legitimately been a Seattle TD. But of course that didn’t happen. The bottom line is the two feet down only applies if he actually lost control.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:06 am
Obviously a dingbat.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:07 am
Ok got a lil’ carried away JD. I’ll admit it was more like 65 packers caught / 35 packers caught. It was a tough break.
I had posted on FB earlier last night about Golden Tate’s hit on Sean Lee – which actually appeared to be legit – i thought he led with his hands not his head. I guess you have to aim at center mass these days and not the shoulders.
Weird how he was the center of attention again.
Comment by dnice (ab98c0) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:11 am
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf
The rule on simultaneous catches does not use the word “possession”. It refers to “control”.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:14 am
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf
NFL rules Section 8, Article 3, sections a,b,c, read them to understand why you are incorrect.
Pass/Interception requires 3 things:
a) control of the ball without allowing it to touch the ground
b) both feet, or other part of the body other than a hand to be inbounds
c) maintain control of the ball through the act of catching once both a) and b) are met
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:15 am
I remember when football was a game for men
Comment by EPWJ — 9/25/2012 @ 4:57 am
– Methuselah here ^^^ remembers when there were Hebrews in Persia, too!
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:15 am
Once Article 3 has been met, then Item 5 is applied, but article 3 has to be fulfilled before simultaneous catch can be judged.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:17 am
The refs were correct in their intitial ruling, and correct on the replay.
It is only people who do not understand the rules of the game that think this was a bad call.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:18 am
He met all those. You’re stupid.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:20 am
He met all those. You’re stupid.
Comment by Gerald A — 9/25/2012 @ 8:20 am
So did Tate.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:23 am
You’re making that up anyway. Enough of this. Nobody’s paying attention to you.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:26 am
You seem to be…..
You do seem to want to ignore the rule of when a pass is deteremined to be a catch, mistakenly thinking that a catch is made while a player is in mid-air. This is clearly not the case, and possession cannot be determined until the criteria of a catch have been fulfilled.
Applying Item 5 on simultaneous possesion before a catch is even official is putting things in the wrong order (not also that the rule is on simultaneous possession and not simultaneous catch).
I know it is pointless to point out your errors to you as you are invested now in your mistake, but reality is what it is.
What is the final score of the game?
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:33 am
Wisconsin state senator Jon Erpenbach tweeted out Roger Goodell’s phone number last night. Erpenbach is one of the Democrat pussies that fled to Illinois to avoid voting on the state budget earlier this year.
I’m sure that inviting the general public to harass a man that is already well aware of the situation will work out fine.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:45 am
Not surprisingly, the Dog Trainer has seen fit to use this incident to indict corporate America for the way it uses “strong-arm tactics” during union negotiations.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:01 am
We have an affirmative action incompetent president and people are worried about football referees? Get real!
Comment by Jim (748bc6) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:04 am
I just watched the play. It was an interception: period.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:08 am
He met all those. You’re stupid.
Comment by Gerald A — 9/25/2012 @ 8:20 am
So did Tate.
Comment by John — 9/25/2012 @ 8:23 am |Edit This
I just watched multiple still pics on ESPN. GB defender had 2 hands on ball, up against his chest. Tate had one arm in the mix, the other clearly not on the ball, or even in the picture.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:17 am
He came down, both feet in-bounds, with possession, IN THE END ZONE. It became a touchback the second his knee hit the ground, and any wrestling for the ball was irrelevant.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:37 am
Rush made the comment that media coverage of conservatives for the last 50 years has a lot in common with the current bunch of refs.
A friend pointed out that the best refs that don’t do pro are doing major Div I schools so aren’t even available for this. It’s Lingerie League, Div II, III, high school, etc.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:56 am
9, Sleepy, you are wrong again. The commissioner of the LFL had FIRED FOR POOR PERFORMANCD one of the refs, Ochoa, the NFL hired. In fact, he sent Goodell a couple of his crews to upgrade the reffing.
I am calling on my Green Bay East (of 75) classmate, The Packer Sign Fence Painter, Chris Handler, to repaint his fence to say, “Remember this Screw Job and take it out on the other team” (until we get another crack at Seattle).
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/25/2012 @ 10:35 am
41, Yeah, Shields ought to have yelled, “RAPE!” loud enough for all the stadium to hear him.
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/25/2012 @ 10:39 am
Comment by JD — 9/25/2012 @ 9:17 am
What he’s doing is a sleight of hand where he restates the rule from “control” to “possession”.
And you don’t determine it’s a catch or “possession” until after his feet come down. Therefore he couldn’t have had possession of the ball until his feet came down at which point the Seattle player also had “possession”. But the rule says “control” which means just that.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 11:52 am
And now the NFL confirms what I have stated:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:25 pm
“When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.”
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:27 pm
Picture of Tate with both hands on the ball:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/video/2012/09/24/0ap2000000066000_video_rhr_210.jpg
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:31 pm
They can determine that all they want. But that ain’t what happened.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:31 pm
In what world does that picture prove what you say it proves? Why not post the one where his right hand is not on the ball, or when he reaches for the ball?
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:34 pm
Who will Obama pardon first? The Blind Sheik who tried to blow up the World Trade Center or the Blind Replacement Refs?
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:36 pm
The picture demonstrates that everyone who claims that Jennings caught the ball without Tate having also caught the ball are disingenous at the very least. If you have a picture showing that Tate lost control of the ball once they were both on the ground, please post it.
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:41 pm
They showed it all over ESPN today. The pic you posted shows neither player in control of or in possession of the ball.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:45 pm
I think that the union refs are nearly as bad. The union players, union TV announcers and colour guys are bitching to the max to support the union refs. Wake up guys!
Comment by Charles Vairin (7854bb) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:47 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A3nPKntCMAA-yo-.jpg
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:57 pm
The whole basis for everyone thinking that the call was wrong is the (incorrect) assumption that Jennings caught the ball in the air all by himself, and that Tate only got his hands on it once the catch was completed (which by the rulebook definition is not completed until Jennings touches the ground with his body, or two feet). The picture points out that mistaken understanding for what it is, both of them had their hands on the ball in the air, and when the catch was completed (by the rulebook definition, when they hit the ground) both players still had both hands on the ball.
It’s really rather simple, but some people cannot step back and objectively look at the rules as they are written, and comprehend the fact that both players caught the ball, and as such it resulted in a TD for Seattle.
It’s much more fun to shake fists at ‘replacement refs’, who I will agree totally have been making really questionable calls every week, but in this case they made the correct call.
Now if you want to discuss bad calls on pass interference, or roughing the QB, or any other number of penalties in that game. I totally agree, however, in this case they made the right call.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:58 pm
I think my bottom line is, the Packers will get over this. Has there ever been a better team?
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:58 pm
http://bigbangxl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/A3nPLfxCQAAKw4o.jpg
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 12:59 pm
Again, with all due respect to Halas and Landry.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:00 pm
http://c0014499.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_ec09244
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:01 pm
If you think this pictures shows anything other than Tate with both hands on the ball, please note that Tate’s right arm is currently over the shoulder of Jennings, and holding onto the ball. The open hand of a second Seattle player is also shown, not holding the ball, however, also notice that it is also a ‘right’ hand. Tate does not have two right hands. Tate’s left hand cannot be seen in this picture because it is holding onto the bottom of the ball and is obscured by Jennings right arm.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:01 pm
I’m glad I was a lineman. This stuff is too complicated.
Comment by htom (412a17) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:01 pm
BTW, you guys do know that football was invented after some explorers saw some gorillas fighting over a coconut, right?
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:03 pm
Same comment, if this is Tate’s left hand, his arm has been broken rather badly so that his thumb points 180 Deg from where it should be.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:04 pm
John – I like how you skipped over where the NFL said it was offensive pass interference, and the play should have been over at that point. That they did not overturn a call Fter the fact is no surprise, they do not do so, historically. I also like how you ignore Tate’s hand being off the ball.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:05 pm
Htom – it is not complicated at all. John is throwing up a lot of smoke.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:06 pm
And, once again, this is occuring in the air. When both players hit the ground, both players had both hands on the ball.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:06 pm
Uncle, at 185 lbs, was a linebacker/halfback for the semi-pro team that became the San Diego Chargers. Now we have quarterbacks that weigh 220 lbs. Football is getting too big.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:07 pm
http://c0014499.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_ec09244
Clearly Tate’s hand is on the ball
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:07 pm
I don’t dispute this, and I agree with them.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:08 pm
And once again, this is occuring in the air, before ANY catch is considered completed.
Also, where is Tate’s left hand, could it possibly be gripping the ball? Are 1 handed catches now against the rules?
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:10 pm
Haven’t read a single comment. As a working official, in several sports, on the major college level, I’ll challenge any of you to this: if you had been on the field, and seen the play at real time speed, NONE OF YOU would have seen the defender clearly possess the ball alone, then seen the receiver gain dual possession. NONE of you would have thrown the flag on the interference call, in spite of what the NFL says. So, ALL OF YOU would have made the same call.
Interesting note: Jerry Markbreit, former NFL official, said on MIKE and MIKE this morning that his crews over the years had been given a lower rating for missing the pass interference calls on Hail Mary plays. What he didn’t say, and can’t say, is that his crew, or any crew, has called it, because they don’t.
That is a much bigger problem than missing what is obviously a very tough call.
Comment by reff (0b501d) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:15 pm
All the while ignoring the fact that the defender caught the ball, never lost control, maintained 2 hands on the ball, and pulled it into his chest. You can ignore reality all you want, and apparently you have decided to.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:15 pm
http://espn.go.com/nfl/photos/gallery/_/id/8419084/image/5/wild-finish-seattle-nfl-week-3-gallery
This picture is much more interesting to me. Notice that while on his back, Tate has both arms wrapped around the ball, and it is pulled into his stomach, and not Jennings chest.
Even more double plus fun, notice that Jennings heel is out of bounds.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:16 pm
Okay, my bad, the picture I’m refering to is in that gallery, apparently I couldn’t link it directly.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:24 pm
The best part about this story (the Packers will be fine) is that it is reported that bettors lost about $1 billion.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:26 pm
Sigh, what part of this statement acknowledges the fact that Tate also had possesion of the ball? When looking at the rules for what is/isn’t a catch, chest has nothing to do with anything. At no time during the entire process of the catch was Jennings in sole posession of the ball. At no time during the catch was Tate in sole possession of the ball. They both had their hands on it, and thus it is ruled a simultaneous catch. There is a rule for that, and the reception goes to the passing team, resulting in a touchdown.
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:27 pm
Does anyone dispute that eventually Tate wrestled the ball away? Or that the heel eventually went over the line? No.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:27 pm
Do you even acknowledge the fact that Tate’s left hand was on the ball the entire process, as it was between the ball and Jenning’s Chest?
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:33 pm
This, the Ref Strike, and the NHL Lockout (coming to a city near you), demonstrates how far we have gone from just enjoying the playing of a game.
Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:37 pm
Now he’s actually contradicting his previous argument. Previously he maintained that Tate didn’t need his hands on the ball until before the point where Jennings’ feet touched the ground.
Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:42 pm
That’s almost dishonest of you, John. I saw the play live, and Jennings’s heel landed inside the end zone. Only after it landed did it skid out of bounds. But your remark is an attempt to imply that Jennings did not come down in legal possession of the ball.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 9/25/2012 @ 1:49 pm
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:05 pm
Cite?
Comment by John (6dcbda) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:09 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/sports/football/some-bettors-get-relief-on-game-decided-by-botched-call.html?smid=tw-nytimes&moc.semityn.www
Now if the sports books arent even agreeing with the outcome ….
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:11 pm
That’s almost dishonest of you, John. I saw the play live, and Jennings’s heel landed inside the end zone. Only after it landed did it skid out of bounds. But your remark is an attempt to imply that Jennings did not come down in legal possession of the ball.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 9/25/2012 @ 1:49 pm
This made you smile or wink ?!
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:12 pm
O’Goodell is going to save a million in ref’s wages.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:23 pm
Where was the wiseguy money on this game?
Comment by Ken (ba52ab) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:34 pm
The rule you stated is correct – that clearly is the correct interpretation when it is a 50/50 posssession and could even be judged to be the offensive players ball when 60% of the control is in the hands of the defender.
However in this caseTate never had more than one hand on the ball (with a slight momentary second hand on ball. The defender hand both hands on the ball, at least one full forearm, and had it tucked into his chest. At best, Tate only had 10% possession of the ball.
That being said – Why do we give a rat’s arse one the call – We are not getting paid to play – so why do we care.
Comment by Joe (a00dc1) — 9/25/2012 @ 2:57 pm
Not the point. I’m not a professional official, as the refs out on the field were. I’m pretty sure none of those refs can program flight software for satellites, as I have.
The point is that these men were trained to do the job and paid to do the job, and they did their job poorly. It’s perfectly reasonable for any of us to complain when they don’t do the job they were paid to do.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 9/25/2012 @ 3:22 pm
I know its late in the thread but I will jump in to side with John. Jennings got both hands on the ball as Tate got one hand on the point of the ball. Neither had sole control of it. When they initially hit the ground in looked to me like Tate had actually pulled the ball to his stomach before Jennings rolled away and pulled it to his chest. But still neither had sole control. Whether it was 60/40 or 70/30, it was simultaneous possession and that goes to the offense.
If the play had been called an interception, I would have been fine with that as well. In either case I don’t see enough to overrule.
And yes it should have been offensive pass interference but it isn’t some new invention of the replacement refs to swallow whistles on hail marys.
Comment by CAL (01f3eb) — 9/25/2012 @ 4:05 pm
Scott Walker has finally found a union he likes!
This is unlikely to change until the owners feel some pressure. Get your solidarity on folks.
Comment by beerandcoffee (77ac66) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:33 pm
Bugger off, imdw.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:39 pm
I haven’t read this whole thread. Does John have some bullshit reason why Tate didn’t commit pass interference too? The shills are doing the whole “everybody does it in a Hail Mary situation” thing, as if a blatant shove is A-OK under these circumstances.
There is simply no way that this was a valid TD pass.
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:02 pm
Scott Walker NEVER endorsed the referee’s union; he endorsed the professionals that belong to it.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:06 pm
Just watched it again. John is totally full of it. The end-line was never even CLOSE to being a factor. The NFL never said that the call on the field was correct. Jennings had control of the ball with two hands with both feet on the ground and when his knee hit the ground — which was the end of the play.
Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:16 pm
You are filthy liars, and Patriots fans. Bush did it.
Comment by SPQR (044b2b) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:18 pm
Chuck, it is the point. Your ignoring the reality that you, and others like you, are saying they didn’t do their job. You don’t know their job, and, as you said, probably can’t do it. More importantly, that play is hard enough when you all get to see it three hundred times, from 12 different angles, in slow motion. They get to see it once. I would also argue that they DID do their jobs. The idea that all of you seem to ignore is that line above, and when all the talking heads tell you the officials missed it, that is hindsight.
Comment by reff (8865f2) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:41 pm
Tate very blatently commited pass interference, that is without doubt.
Jennings never once had sole possession of the ball, that is all that is in dispute. The refs, the replay, and the NFL have all confirmed that at this point. Only those who refuse to understand the rulebook think otherwise.
Comment by John (5af905) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:51 pm
Sure. None of us decided this on our own; we were told what to think.
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/25/2012 @ 10:42 pm
More people are talking about the NFL now than I can recall (before playoff time anyway).
The regular refs overplayed their hand and the replacement refs will be ‘trained up’ for the playoffs. By the time of the playoffs it will be hard to tell the difference. And even if you disagree, it’s still just a game. The show will go on as the stars aren’t the refs, the stars are the players (look at the relative salaries if you don’t believe me). Gregg Easterbrook can have some TMQ Replacement Referee Whine every week of the season and the NFL will keep on cashing the checks.
Comment by East Bay Jay (a5dac7) — 9/25/2012 @ 11:35 pm
The refs made the right call. Joint possession goes to the player who had first possession, which means feet on the ground. The receiver didn’t interfere, he can go for the ball over the back of a defender who is in his way. It’s vice versa that is the interference penalty ( d over the back of the o ). You don’t have to yield to an interceptor.
Classic mob behavior on display.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 2:19 am
I don’t understand why people try to tell others they did of see what they saw. Not only that, but having seen the same thing as announcers, coaches, players, former players, refs, analysts, bookies, and the vast majority of the sports world, what they saw was not what they saw, and even of they did see it, they are wrong.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 4:58 am
JD,
Because they’re nuts?
Comment by Gerald A (138c50) — 9/26/2012 @ 5:45 am
I finally viewed it.
It was a simultaneous catch as defined. Which is a touchdown for the passing team.
Also once a body is down with contact – there technically is no more wrestling for control.
Sadly, this was a brilliant call by the subs and they should be commended for it.
I sympathise with those who spend thousands to attend these games and have invested much into their favorite franchises, and those frustrated with the entire situation – no one likes to see a terrible product.
Comment by EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 9/26/2012 @ 6:07 am
I have no problem telling them they were wrong, the seattle player on the way down had both hands on the ball.
Let the cryoing begin, its a shame that people want to believe something even though the video evidence is overwhelming
Comment by EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 9/26/2012 @ 6:11 am
Comment by j curtis is a classic display of sarcasm.
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:16 am
No, reff, I do know their job. I’ve seen others do it better. Just because I don’t have the training to do it doesn’t mean that I can’t recognize when someone has done it worse than others.
That’s just laughable, j curtis. The receiver didn’t merely go over the back of a defender for the ball, he pushed the defender out of the way long before the ball was there; in short, he was playing the man instead of the ball. That’s pass interference, and a ref who was standing right there missed the call.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski (a72c35) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:20 am
131, Even Bill Clinton says it was an interception.
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:25 am
R.I.P. Andy Williams
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 8:06 am
No, Icy, you did decide it on your own. You also did decide it on what others told you to think. You also did this, however, after getting to see it 100 times, from a dozen different camera angles, and, while listening to voices you chose to respect tell you that the officials missed it.
Now, try deciding it when you only get to see it once.
That is what the officials had to do.
I too went back and looked at it, and again, see several players jumping in a crowd, at least two players with hands on the ball while in the air.
Just now, I froze the picture, with four players, two from GB, two from Seattle, all off the ground (one has one foot on), all with hands either touching or within inches of touching the ball, the defender in the back reaching over at least two players to get to the ball, and, before the GB defender gets his second foot down, the Seattle receiver has both feet down, and both hands on the ball. And, what I just wrote took me about 60 seconds, and three stop frames on the TV.
The officials got one look, at real time speed, from only two angles. One on the sideline, about 8 yards away, the other from behind, opposite the first, about 12-14 yards away. The official who called the “time-out” signal, meaning he was thinking “touchback” was under the goal posts when the ball thrown and was running towards the play when the ball was touched first. The “freeze frame” of that official’s view is blocked by the second GB defender from seeing who has hands on the ball when it is first touched (try this view). The second official, on the sideline, is a bit closer, and has an open look only at two things: the call he missed, the OPI, and then of both players touching the ball at the height of the jump. By the time both officials get to the scrum, two players have the ball.
What would you call based upon just that two pieces of information, not the 100 replays you have seen?
Again, I challenge you to see this from the mental view of the officials, not from the demented view of a fan.
Chuck, no, you don’t know their job, and stop kidding yourself that you think you do. But, do try answering the question in this string, about what you might call if all you have is the information in that paragraph, which, by the way, is all they have.
I have, and still do, officiate at a very high level, Division I college baseball and basketball, as well as track and field on the Olympic level, and volleyball on the D-I and International level. I don’t claim to be able to do the job of an NFL referee, but, I do know the level of skill it takes to get near that level. Are there things that this crew could have done differently to help get to a good answer to the play? Of course, and that has to be addressed. The R (the white hat) needed to talk to both of them before going to the replay. The two of them needed to say more to each other. BUT, a call had to be made, so that the next step in the process could occur (a replay review) and that did happen.
I’m sure that none of you like the NFL’s statement about the play. Why? The rule was applied correctly in that statement, and replay backs up that statement.
Remember, please, your eyes have shown you a picture a hundred times, with all the talking heads telling you what you see. Don’t think for a second that your opinions of the play have not been influenced by just that.
The officials didn’t get that option. And, based upon the same replays you have watched, they got the call right.
How can that be??? Bet that is a question you have no chance to answer…..
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/26/2012 @ 8:35 am
Reff, I used to be an youth league chief umpire. I would have called offensive pass interference not only on that play, but on others in the game.
And I thought it was an interception RIGHT away, first view.
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/26/2012 @ 8:39 am
142,
Please tell us all what experience you have in making that opinion? Was it your years of refereeing at the pro level? FBS? College? High school?> Youth?
Actually, because you don’t have any training in the matter, you don’t know the standards, the rules or the mechanics so you don’t have any idea what is right or wrong.
Comment by loustiel (fca6a6) — 9/26/2012 @ 8:49 am
That’s just laughable, j curtis. The receiver didn’t merely go over the back of a defender for the ball, he pushed the defender out of the way long before the ball was there; in short, he was playing the man instead of the ball. That’s pass interference, and a ref who was standing right there missed the call.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 9/26/2012 @ 7:20 am
Not how I saw it, but I’m glad you’ve conceded that the refs were right on the touchdown call since we’re in the weeds talking about contact in the endzone now.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 8:51 am
Now, try deciding it when you only get to see it once.
I thought it was an interception immediately, and thought the officials blew the call immediately. Nothing I have seen or heard since has been persuasive enough to change my mind.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/26/2012 @ 8:59 am
Not how I saw it
Then you did not watch it. The offensive pass interference was the single most obvious call in that play.
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:02 am
We were promised that if we elected Obama, all would become right in the world.
Not only has the federal debt exploded, and the Arab Muslim Jihadist world exploded, but the NFL is even being tainted by Obama’s Orwellian Universe.
I blame
GeorgeReggie Bush !Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:25 am
Shorter reff: It’s unfair to blame the replacement officials, cuz refereeing is hard!
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:32 am
The offensive pass interference was the single most obvious call in that play.
Comment by JD — 9/26/2012 @ 9:02 am
The Seattle player was the one with the more set position and the packer was running towards him in reverse. If you are set and a player is running at you in reverse, you certainly can make him stop running at you in reverse so as to keep your set position. Otherwise you’d be letting him back over you. Are you saying the Seahawk was obligated to let the Packer run backwards into him?
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:40 am
Do we inhabit the same planet?
Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:42 am
j curtis,
Are you actually arguing in favor of a pre-emptive two-handed shove of a defensive player ?
If a defensive player back-pedals into a wide receiver, it would be called “pass interference.” Your notion that the wide receiver has no choice but to shove a player down to pre-empt being back-pedaled into, is kind of goofy.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:49 am
Five inches, at 25 feet. It was offhand, one hand, but still shameful. Anybody in the market for a ’90s skinny-butt Beretta in .380? The Walther .22 is not for sale.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:22 am
It’s kinda funny how some of the same people that claim the refs got the touchdown call right, and cite the NFL’s statement as proof(!) totally disagree with the other part of the statement where the NFL says that there was offensive pass interference on the play.
And “funny” is not the right word — “predictable” is more like it. It’s a very human trait to vehemently argue a subordinate point as an attempted means of adding weight to the primary argument. It’s “I’m right about this thing BECAUSE you’re wrong about that other thing, too!”
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:28 am
160
The thing is they devised the rules differently for offensive and defensive pass interference based on open field plays but it doesn’t work so neat for the hail mary passes, where you could argue all players should be treated equally.
The over-the-back play, for instance, is something only the defense isn’t allowed to do. Merely holding your position by preventing a defender from backing over you is a lot less of an impedance than going over someone’s back.
I don’t know if back-pedaling into someone has ever been called an interference. I don’t think it should be, because he’s back-pedaling to play the ball. I also don’t think the receiver is obligated to let the defensive player push him out of position with the back-pedaling. Dilemma’s like this are gonna happen in a chaotic game like football.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:37 am
No, Elephant Stone. You are entitled to hold your position and anybody who tries to knock you out of it, forwards or backwards, does so at his risk.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:43 am
I don’t know if back-pedaling into someone has ever been called an interference. I don’t think it should be, because he’s back-pedaling to play the ball. I also don’t think the receiver is obligated to let the defensive player push him out of position with the back-pedaling. Dilemma’s like this are gonna happen in a chaotic game like football.
There was no dilemna because that is not what happened.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:48 am
totally disagree with the other part of the statement where the NFL says that there was offensive pass interference on the play.
And “funny” is not the right word — “predictable” is more like it.
Comment by Icy — 9/26/2012 @ 10:28 am
For one thing, I’m sure both of those rulings from the NFL were voted by committee, like a scotus ruling. It’s also “predictable” that they wanted to throw the mob a bone, but it’s likely that there were members on the committee who got it right on both counts.
Have you ever disagreed with a scotus ruling? Have you ever thought scotus got part of a ruling right and part of it wrong?
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:50 am
I don’t think it should be, because he’s back-pedaling to play the ball.
Good point. The ball
controlsis the game.Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:56 am
j, The Packers have survived much worse. I cannot even remember the name of that clown they had for a quarter back (sic) a couple of years ago.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:59 am
Methinks someone doth protest ad nauseum
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 11:07 am
You’re making a false case here. I don’t know anything about the mechanics, standards or rules of ballet. But I can still see when one ballet dancer does better than another. You may not know anything about software engineering, but you can tell when one application performs better than another.
Similarly, I can see when one group of referees does a better job than others.
By your logic, only software engineers can ever criticize a software application. Only professional ballet dancers can ever criticize ballet.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 9/26/2012 @ 11:34 am
168, Who you talking about, nk? John Hadl (well past his prime), Frank Patrick (Converted Tight End during the Strike Season), T. J. Rubley, Jerry Tagge (Green Bay West grad and I’m Green Bay East so I have to dump on him), or who???
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/26/2012 @ 11:35 am
Nothing I posted conceded that the refs were right on the touchdown call. You’re being aggressively dishonest here.
Look at the play again. Before the offensive player jumps up, he pushes the defensive player in the back with both hands. That’s pass interference.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 9/26/2012 @ 11:38 am
PCD, yes, the OPI should have been called. I refer to my post at 111, where I point out it simply doesn’t get called in the NFL…doesn’t make that right, but, it is a reality.
Next, is it an interception right off? Better look again….there is an angle from the opposite end zone, closed in, that shows both players have hands on the ball before they get to the ground. NFL rules say that when that happens, it is a simultaneous catch. You would have been wrong. The “fact” that one player gets the ball first, in the air, does not end the play.
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/26/2012 @ 11:57 am
JD at 154…see above….you would have been wrong, too. The rules are written for a reason, and, a catch does not become complete until all parts of the rule are completed.
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:00 pm
I meant Brett Favre and it was not nice what I said. He contributed a lot to the team.
JD, your threads bring out the evil in me.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:01 pm
Icy at 157….”shorter Icy”….”(ICY writing for himself) I’m an asshole cause I can’t make any other point, and I want people to notice me”
Icy at 162….I truly hope you aren’t trying to include me in that comment….I refer to post at 111.
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:04 pm
173, Wrong, reff, There is another part of the rule where it is not simultaneous if one has full possession first, and that is what Jennings had before Tate touched the ball.
Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:14 pm
Look at the play again. Before the offensive player jumps up, he pushes the defensive player in the back with both hands. That’s pass interference.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 9/26/2012 @ 11:38 am
Again, is the receiver supposed to concede ground and let a defensive player backpedal into him? If they can go over the back, and the rule book allows it for receivers, then it’s not sensible to say he can’t protect his position, unless he’s supposed to concede his position and then go violently over the back of the defender to make a play on the ball.
I predict they will come up with new hail mary rules after this because you can’t have separate rules for O and D on this play. I would coach my receivers to use the benefit of being able to go over the back to establish position behind the defender and violenty go over his back to take him out of the play and make the catch. You effectively get to play interceptor with the advantage of a more liberal rule book.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:28 pm
There is another part of the rule where it is not simultaneous if one has full possession first, and that is what Jennings had before Tate touched the ball.
Comment by PCD — 9/26/2012 @ 12:14 pm
You can’t have “full possession” or any possession whatsoever, while your feet are in the air. Tate was the one holding the football while both feet were on the ground. It was an eternity in slow motion until Jennings feet were on the ground. There is nothing to continue from that point because it’s in the end zone. Touchdown.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:37 pm
I’ve never heard of a pre-emptive two-handed shove of a defensive player by an offensive player being considered a legal play. The notion that an offensive player is entitled to do so is just plain silly.
It’s called, “offensive pass interference.”
The NFL office said as much, yesterday.
Also, if a defensive player were to run over an offensive player, even if he is looking back for the ball, he will likely get flagged for pass interference.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:45 pm
Icy at 157….”shorter Icy”….”(ICY writing for himself) I’m an asshole cause I can’t make any other point, and I want people to notice me”
– Personal attacks ist unkool, doncha know?
Icy at 162….I truly hope you aren’t trying to include me in that comment….I refer to post at 111.
– If it applies to you, then consider yourself included; if not, then No.
Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:48 pm
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1428497/GoodPic.png
This is the only frame of the whole video that matters. This is the instant that Jenning’s second foot touches the ground. It occurs at the same moment that Tate’s butt hits the ground. Both players have both arms wrapped around the football. (and Tate clearly has it pulled to his stomach while Jennings has it pulled to his chest)
This is the moment that the pass becomes a catch, not an instant before. Tate and Jennings both have control of the ball at the moment that all aspects that define a ‘catch’ are fulfilled. (a,b,c of Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3) – thus Item 5 is applied for simultaneous catch, and the tie goes to Tate.
Everything that happens after this precise moment does not matter either as the tie makes this a TD, and an instant dead ball.
None are so blind as those that refuse to see.
Comment by John (5af905) — 9/26/2012 @ 12:58 pm
170,
It isn’t a false case. You can look at a ballet dancer and see a “difference,” but what if that difference is a planned part of the dance? What if a piece of software that slower is doing multiple things other than what the person viewing it sees?
The fact of the matter is that you are judging someone based on what you expect, not the standard. Your expectations have no basis in what is the standard the refs are trying to live up to. Your expectations have no basis in the rules or mechanics.
In essence, it is a beauty contest to you. That is all well and good but a winner of a beauty contest does not mean the other contestants were ugly.
Comment by loustiel (fca6a6) — 9/26/2012 @ 1:00 pm
None are so blind as those that refuse to see.
Said without a hint of irony.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 1:06 pm
This is the only frame of the whole video that matters. This is the instant that Jenning’s second foot touches the ground.
Comment by John — 9/26/2012 @ 12:58 pm
Why does that frame matter more than the frame when Tate has both hands on the football and both feet on the ground and Jennings’ feet are both way up in the air?
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/26/2012 @ 2:36 pm
PCD, read this carefully, so you can see the other part of the rule you left out.
JD, you too….
Article 3, “Completed or Intercepted Pass,” on Page 50 of the NFL rulebook. “A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.”
Now, read this carefully, because by the time Jennings came to the ground, another player had hands on the ball. This becomes a judgment call as to who has both control, and gets credit for that control. I don’t disagree that Jennings had his hands on the ball first, but, reading what is above, he did not have control by the rules, so, how does he get credit for a catch?
Now, take the play to the ground. Jennings two feet or other parts of his body, and do the same for Tate. Because, there is nothing there to deny Tate the ball under the same rules as Jennings, right?
Remember, in the rules, there are often several rules to apply to a situation before you get to the correct call.
Comment by reff (0a7a1f) — 9/26/2012 @ 3:36 pm
Icy, you attacked me in my post….me thinks thou dost protest too much…
Since you didn’t name me, but, posted all but immediately after my post, so I get to determine your meaning….unless, of course, you make your meaning all too clear to discount….since you failed to make your meaning clear, you’re still an idiot for thinking that I meant what you accused me of….
Shorter Icy…”I can’t understand anything anyone else writes, so I’ll still be an asshole and hope they notice me…”
Longer reff….”maybe you should just comment in a way that actually improves the discussion, instead of being a clown”
Comment by reff (0a7a1f) — 9/26/2012 @ 3:39 pm
Reff – thank you for being so condescending so as to assume I had not read, nor understand the rule. My interpretation of yours is different. Jennings had an initial catch, and an unbroken chain of control through completion, as I saw it. Tate, on the other hand, had varying numbers of hands on the ball, and at best, was the 2nd to have 2 hands on the ball, and did not gain actual control until wrestling it away on the ground.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 3:50 pm
SO I guess since all you folks want the regular officials back, you’re all now firmly in the pro-union camp.
Comment by JEA (fb1111) — 9/26/2012 @ 5:30 pm
For me, calling this a reception after Tate’s offensive interference push doubly taints the Seahawks’ win. There are always missed calls and bad calls but they usually even out, but this was a questionable call and non-call on the same play. Plus, it changed the outcome of the game and that’s hard to stomach.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/26/2012 @ 6:10 pm
Not only did it change the outcome, it was with no time on the clock, thus not giving the team a chance to overcome. It is markedly different than a blown call, missed call, etc… During the course of the game. Add in awarding points to a team questionably, makes it all the more risible.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 6:15 pm
It matters because they both had control of the ball so Jennings’ feet matter to whether or not he completed the catch. Had one of Jennings’ feet come down out of bounds, but Tate came down inbounds, the sole control and catch would belong to Tate.
Comment by John (5af905) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:17 pm
Explain to those of us who think this was the correct call, citing the rules to back up your thinking, how Jennings made an interception.
Comment by John (5af905) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:22 pm
Had one of Jennings’ feet come down out of bounds, but Tate came down inbounds, the sole control and catch would belong to Tate.
But that did not happen.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:22 pm
Yep, and if he’d had wings, webbed feet and a bill, he’d be a duck.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:24 pm
What I’m trying to figure out, is they are pushing for more pay, this will not help that goal.
Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:26 pm
44% of Seahawk fans think Goodell is a retard.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:39 pm
So you are conceeding joint control? With both inbounds?
Comment by John (5af905) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:43 pm
No, I am not. And you know I am not. That last Combe t highlights your manner of misrepresenting others positions, and arguing points not in dispute. A microcosm, if you will.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:49 pm
This is for “reff” and John, which I excerpted from another website (Profootball Talk). Don’t know how much more conclusively we have to get to prove “reff” and John wrong.
“The relevant portion of the official 2012 rules comes from Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5: “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the officials determined that Tate and Jennings jointly had “possession” when they landed; the question is whether Jennings “gained control” first.
The NFL’s statement likely omitted that fact because the video shows Jennings “gained control” first. This video shows the best angle; Jennings caught the ball with both hands while Tate had only one hand (his left) on the ball. Tate eventually got his right hand on the ball, but after Jennings “gained control” of it.
The league’s most recent casebook, which is posted at NFL.com, specifically addresses this situation at A.R. 8.29, under the all-caps title NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH: “First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.” (Emphasis added.)
Some Seahawks fans defend the indefensible claim that the catch isn’t complete until the players land on the ground, citing the ever-confusing “Calvin Johnson rule,” which makes a catch not a catch until the player maintains possession through the act of going to the ground. They cling to that principle for a very good reason; the league’s statement specifically quotes the rule, blurring the line between “control” and “possession.”
Consider the plain language of the rule regarding a completed pass: “A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).”
This isn’t about maintaining control through the act of going to the ground; it’s about who first secured control, whether the players were in the air or on the ground. Jennings first secured control, while he and Tate were in the air.
Here’s A.R. 8.29, with the names of the player’s included: “Jennings controls a pass in the air before Tate, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, Tate and Jennings fall down to the ground. Ruling: Green Bay’s ball. Not a simultaneous catch as Jennings gains control first and retains control.”
Though it gets complicated, it’s actually pretty simple. Jennings gained control first. Tate, at best, secured joint control later. That’s not a simultaneous catch.
Then there’s the faction of Seahawks fans who believe that there was insufficient visual evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, regardless of whether the ruling was touchdown or interception. But that’s where the league’s statement also is wrong. It’s indisputable that Jennings gained control first, as evidenced by Jennings having two arms at the ball when Tate has only one.”
Comment by mike (0a7461) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:51 pm
Bravo, mike. Excellent comment.
Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:55 pm
Goodell: ‘You f*cked up. You trusted us’.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/26/2012 @ 7:57 pm
Icy, you attacked me in my post….me thinks thou dost protest too much…
– By all means, please quote my personal attack on you.
Since you didn’t name me, but, posted all but immediately after my post, so I get to determine your meaning
– No, you don’t.
unless, of course, you make your meaning all too clear to discount….since you failed to make your meaning clear, you’re still an idiot for thinking that I meant what you accused me of….
– You want me to name names; and if I don’t, then I must have been speaking about you. Remember: paranoia may destroy ya.
Shorter Icy…”I can’t understand anything anyone else writes, so I’ll still be an asshole and hope they notice me…”
– Seriously, what did I write that warrants such a nasty reaction in the form of a personal attack?
Longer reff….”maybe you should just comment in a way that actually improves the discussion, instead of being a clown”
– Flippant, sarcastic remarks are my thing; however, most of my remarks in this thread have been straightforward expressions of my opinion on the play and the call. Re-read them and see. And remember, there is no surer sign that someone is losing a debate than when he accuses his opponent of “not doing it right”.
Comment by Icy (735d7a) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:05 pm
JD, I apologize for giving you the feeling that I was being condescending. That was not my intent.
Mike, I have read and re-read your point. And, I would love to stand corrected, but for one thing. There appears to be two different points in the rule book on the word “control” that are either contradictory, or, the use of the word is fluid in your part of the post. I do not imply or state that what you have written is in any way incorrect. I do wonder how the definition of “control” in the NFL rulebook and the rule you listed would mix.
I have no reason to doubt what you posted, so I will stand corrected.
Comment by reff (8865f2) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:41 pm
Icy…
Answer 1: comment 157….mock me rather than make any sort of reply.
Answer 2: our esteemed host has argued for a long while that if the writer is not specific, the reader gets to interpret…I agree. If you want your meaning to be clear, make it so, or I, the reader, get to decide for myself what you meant….
Answer 3: I’m not even remotely paranoid concerning you….quite the opposite….however, if you choose not to be clear, why get mad at me??? Are you really that easy to prick?
Answer 4: See 1. You want to claim that you get to post the snark, but don’t like the snark in return….well, try actually participating, or, accept the fact that you’re acting like an ass and live with it…your choice, but don’t get pissed when you get called out…
Answer 5: The key word in this string of words is “MOST”….if you come at me, why would you think I wouldn’t return the favor? I simply acted like you, and you didn’t like it….
Dang….and I thought you were cool….sorry to have been so wrong…not the first time, won’t be the last….
Comment by reff (8865f2) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:52 pm
Oh…addendum to Answer 5…
I acted like you AFTER you acted like you….maybe I just like practicing being an asshole, rather than just being one….
Comment by reff (8865f2) — 9/26/2012 @ 10:55 pm
No, no, reff. If you are going to practice, you have to fully commit. If you don’t fully commit, your performance will simply fall flat, not convince and you’ll be a failure as a actor.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/26/2012 @ 11:02 pm
It matters because they both had control of the ball so Jennings’ feet matter to whether or not he completed the catch. Had one of Jennings’ feet come down out of bounds, but Tate came down inbounds, the sole control and catch would belong to Tate.
Comment by John — 9/26/2012 @ 7:17 pm
You are saying Tate’s status is in limbo until Jennings lands. I say Tate completed before Jennings’ feet hit the ground. It’s in the end zone so there shouldn’t be any continuance of the play once completion is established.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/27/2012 @ 4:42 am
SPQR..
.I KNOW I’m an asshole….I know I have to practice to get into his league….commitment is hard….I’ll work on it…Comment by reff (471308) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:03 am
Cite for your statements on A.R. 8.29?
I find a completely different scenario addressed in that section:
“A.R. 8.29 Second-and-10 on B20. Quarterback deliberately throws the ball out of bounds to stop the game clock. Ruling: The pass was not thrown away to prevent loss of yardage. A’s ball third-and-10 on B20.”
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf
Comment by John (1f3c3e) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:15 am
John,
The NFL casebook is different than the rulebook. Here is a link to what may be the original blog post that mike’s comment referenced or was taken from. And here is a link to the NFL casebook that contains the example set forth in mike’s comment. You can find it at 8.29 on page 38.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:46 am
Note that the NFL casebook link I provided above lists it as the 2011 version but the official NFL rules website links the 2011 casebook as the most recent or effective version.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:51 am
I really love that the discussion at this blog has turned into a highly technical analysis with citations and casebooks. It’s more interesting to me than ESPN.
Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:55 am
Thank GOD the real reffs are back!!!
Comment by Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:59 am
211
The interesting thing is that this whole incident has been a microcosm for our politics, economy and more.
For instance, you won’t see the media disecting the rule book, but they will do polls and they will point to polls to say “this many people saw it this way, so therefore we are right”.
But what really interests me is how the game has become micro-officiated. And when you start micro-officiating/regulating, it begets new dilemmas that need to be further microed. Each new rule/regulation begets two more rules/regulations.
I would improve the game by reducing the rules/regulations. For example, I would put mittens on the offensive linemen and do away with all holding penalties. It would make it difficult for them to recover a fumble, but that’s the trade-off.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/27/2012 @ 7:20 am
Amen, j curtis. There are too many rules.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 7:26 am
R.I.P. Herbert Lom, who played Chief Inspector Dreyfus in Peter Sellers’s Pink Panther films, age 95
Comment by Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 7:26 am
Tremendous issues here. I’m very glad to look your post. Thanks a lot and I am looking forward to touch you. Will you please drop me a mail?
Comment by visits (bf3a33) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:07 am
We can mentor you, reff.
Comment by SPQR (32142d) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:26 am
j curtis,
Regarding continuance of a play in the end zone once the “completion is established,” you may have forgotten the game during the 2011 season when the Lions were playing the Bears, and Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson caught the ball in the end zone, and layed the ball down with his outstretched hand after he went to the ground. The officials ruled that he layed the ball down prior to completing the play, thus, it was ruled to not be a touchdown. That was at the end of the game, and it became the difference between winning and losing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqAuFs6Deko&feature=related
Keep in mind, there’s a different standard for “continuing the play” between a player who carries the ball across the plane of the end zone VS a player who is already in the end zone when he receives the ball.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:45 am
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic. I must spend a while finding out more or figuring out more. Thanks for great info I used to be on the lookout for this information for my mission.
Comment by Dota Community|Dota League|Dota Gaming (3f4dca) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:15 am
Keep in mind, there’s a different standard for “continuing the play” between a player who carries the ball across the plane of the end zone VS a player who is already in the end zone when he receives the ball.
Comment by Elephant Stone — 9/27/2012 @ 8:45 am
And a player can dive out and the 1 yard line and hold the ball out so it curls around the end zone cone and be credited with a td but he can’t dive out at the 10 and hold the ball out to get credit for crossing the plane of the 9 yard line. They must have thought it looked cool to get a td in that manner so they ended up making the end zone even more lawless.
And someone can try to down a football at the 1 yard line and they’ll call it a touch back if part of the player is in the endzone but the ball is completely out of the end zone. This is almost the opposite of the previous example. The exact opposite of that punt play is someone running for a td and his body completely crosses the goal line but the ball doesn’t. They’ll mark the ball at the one.
Comment by j curtis (be8a02) — 9/27/2012 @ 10:02 am
SPQR…I am honored….to have such a mentor as you for this and JD for being a racist…
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/27/2012 @ 4:52 pm
reff, I believe in giving back to the community.
Because It Takes a Village to raise an asshole.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 5:00 pm
I left the village as a young reff….been wandering in the wilderness of bad calls ever since…
Makes one callous, hard….a different version of the assholes I see here….
I’m willing to change…..to learn…..
Help me Obi Wan Kanobi, you’re my only hope!
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/27/2012 @ 5:13 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIFJLMyUwrg
Link fixed…I hope….
Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/27/2012 @ 5:15 pm
Law 1 – The Field of Play
Law 2 – The Ball
Law 3 – The Number of Players
Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment
Law 5 – The Referee
Law 6 – The Assistant Referees
Law 7 – The Duration of the Match
Law 8 – The Start and Restart of Play
Law 9 – The Ball In and Out of Play
Law 10 – The Method of Scoring
Law 11 – Offside
Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct
Law 13 – Free Kicks
Law 14 – The Penalty Kick
Law 15 – The Throw-in
Law 16 – The Goal Kick
Law 17 – The Corner Kick
Comment by Leviticus (612bca) — 9/27/2012 @ 5:23 pm
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic. I must spend a while finding out more or figuring out more. Thanks for great info I used to be on the lookout for this information for my mission.
Comment by Dota Community|Dota League|Dota Gaming — 9/27/2012 @ 9:15 am
I still am suspicious these spams are part of some Chinese cyber-attack conspiracy.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/27/2012 @ 5:42 pm
Isolate your networks, MD. It’s pretty straightforward. Eliminate remote access.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:23 pm
Any electrical grid which permits remote access should be hung by its anodes.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/27/2012 @ 6:24 pm
If the Chinese want to crash Google and YouTube, I have a History of the Revolution that I have been meaning to read.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/27/2012 @ 7:21 pm
Leviticus,
I think I get what you’re getting at with that post…in contrast with all the overly complex, nuanced rulebook of the NFL—which reads like the 2,800 page ObamaCare bill—you’re establishing that soccer has a lean, svelte rulebook, which accounts for a fluid sport.
Well played.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:32 pm
E.S., ah but no one can explain “off sides” in soccer.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:34 pm
SPQR,
Ha, ha, well, offsides can be explained, and it can be “diagrammed” nicely when looking at a slow motion replay…the problem is it can be difficult for a ref and linesman to call it accurately, because it requires them to be able to “see” where the players are at the very moment the ball is kicked—even when the ball is played from a long distance.
On top of that, the ref and linesman can’t necessarily be expected to predict the very moment “a through ball” will be played.
A lot of people would like to see more linesmen for big tournaments, the same way that Major League Baseball institutes additional umpires down the lines during the playoffs.
Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:18 pm
Reals are back! Time for wannabes to ess tee eff you.
Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/27/2012 @ 11:18 pm