Review booth are regular refs

[crazytown41]

That's what's so funny about everyone being pissed off.

I think everyone forgot how bad the regular refs were as well.

:laugh2:

[Yoshimitsu]

They couldn't overturn that. The only thing reviewable was if it was a catch. Not who had possession. That is a judgement call.

[Eric_Boyer]

exactly!

an incomplete pass with no time outs would of been the only way the replacement refs could of impacted this game with no recourse of getting it right.

by calling it a touchdown, the replay booth was allowed a chance to see it. they messed this up as that was clearly not simultaneous possession. the replay booth should of over turned this. they some how overturned the GB fourth and goal play which had no visual proof BTW. So this mess is on them and them alone

the way the media is acting on ESPN makes me question their bias on the issue

[Eric_Boyer]

They couldn't overturn that. The only thing reviewable was if it was a catch. Not who had possession. That is a judgement call.

this exact thing happened to us last season and it was over turned in our favor.

[GloryDaysRBack]

People are sooooo dumb

This is what I'm telling everyone

[Crash Override]

The review booth doesn't decide whether the play is upheld or overturned, just whether the play should be reviewed in the final two minutes, on scoring plays and turnovers, and that play was inside the final two minutes so it would have been reviewed regardless of whether it was called a touchdown. Green Bay was robbed a win by the replacement refs.

[Roadtrip635]

exactly!

an incomplete pass with no time outs would of been the only way the replacement refs could of impacted this game with no recourse of getting it right.

by calling it a touchdown, the replay booth was allowed a chance to see it. they messed this up as that was clearly not simultaneous possession. the replay booth should of over turned this. they some how overturned the GB fourth and goal play which had no visual proof BTW. So this mess is on them and them alone

the way the media is acting on ESPN makes me question their bias on the issue


Clearly NOT simultaneous possession

http://i.imgur.com/hOrH7.jpg

[Eric_Boyer]

Clearly NOT simultaneous possession

http://i.imgur.com/hOrH7.jpg

agreed. the replay system needs to correct that. in a bang bang play, I can't fault the official on the field calling what he did, but it should of been reversed.

[GloryDaysRBack]

That's way after the catch was made

Not saying I disagree..but it is

[Hoofbite]

this exact thing happened to us last season and it was over turned in our favor.

What play?

[Crash Override]

What play?

Just guessing but I'm thinking the Seattle game on a Doug Baldwin catch which was ruled an interception by Sensabaugh if my memory is correct.

[Idgit]

Clearly NOT simultaneous possession

http://i.imgur.com/hOrH7.jpg

It looked like simultaneous possession to me, with the Packer having a much better grip on the ball. Not sure how much that matters when the offensive player has possession, too.

[CowboysYanksLakers]

The booth officials had NOTHING to do with the call on the field.

[jimmy40]

It looked like simultaneous possession to me, with the Packer having a much better grip on the ball. Not sure how much that matters when the offensive player has possession, too.yeah the Packer had possession of the ball and the Seahawk had possession of the Packer's shoulder.

[Crash Override]

It looked like simultaneous possession to me, with the Packer having a much better grip on the ball. Not sure how much that matters when the offensive player has possession, too.

According to the NFL rulebook, simultaneous possession doesn't occur when one player clearly catches the ball and another player then grabs for it and achieves simultaneous possession, which is what happened.

I found the play previously mentioned, week 9 of 2011, SEA @ DAL:

(:28) (No Huddle) 7-T.Jackson pass deep middle intended for 15-D.Baldwin INTERCEPTED by 43-G.Sensabaugh at DAL 14. 43-G.Sensabaugh to DAL 14 for no gain (15-D.Baldwin). The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011110603/2011/REG9/seahawks@cowboys#contentId=09000d5d823d47d3

I guess I can't link directly to the video, it's the next one after the highlights, "Over-the-top catch."

[supercowboy8]

It looked like simultaneous possession to me, with the Packer having a much better grip on the ball. Not sure how much that matters when the offensive player has possession, too.

Looks to me like TN has the ball and Tate is trying to strip it, sorry but that was a bad call by the refs and the reply

[Maxmadden]

It looked like simultaneous possession to me, with the Packer having a much better grip on the ball. Not sure how much that matters when the offensive player has possession, too.

Well, get ready to be a minority

[Muhast]

http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1348461193526520778.jpg

[Idgit]

According to the NFL rulebook, simultaneous possession doesn't occur when one player clearly catches the ball and another player then grabs for it and achieves simultaneous possession, which is what happened.

I found the play previously mentioned, week 9 of 2011, SEA @ DAL:

(:28) (No Huddle) 7-T.Jackson pass deep middle intended for 15-D.Baldwin INTERCEPTED by 43-G.Sensabaugh at DAL 14. 43-G.Sensabaugh to DAL 14 for no gain (15-D.Baldwin). The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011110603/2011/REG9/seahawks@cowboys#contentId=09000d5d823d47d3

I guess I can't link directly to the video, it's the next one after the highlights, "Over-the-top catch."

Thanks. That issue aside, though, does the degree of control matter at all if possession were really simultaneous?

I know how the play looks. I'm asking about the letter of the rule.

[supercowboy8]

Who makes the call on replay, the head refs goes over and watches the replay on a tv, but does he make the call or does the replay official upstairs. If its the replay official upstairs then why does the head ref need to look at the play

[Idgit]

http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1348461193526520778.jpg

That's great.

[supercowboy8]

Thanks. That issue aside, though, does the degree of control matter at all if possession were really simultaneous?

I know how the play looks. I'm asking about the letter of the rule.

Tate never had possession, Jennings caught the ball and went to the ground, Tate hand a hand on it never had possession

Also this is another reason why coaches say knock the ball down or out of bounds

[The30YardSlant]

That's what's so funny about everyone being pissed off.

I think everyone forgot how bad the regular refs were as well.

:laugh2:

Review booth refs can only signal for a review, not determine the call. The on-field refs are the only ones who can issue a final ruling. Besides, you can't overturn dual possession. Once that was invoked, there was nothing that could be done.

[Crash Override]

Thanks. That issue aside, though, does the degree of control matter at all if possession were really simultaneous?

I know how the play looks. I'm asking about the letter of the rule.

They displayed the rule on NFL Network earlier, paraphrasing it basically says simultaneous possession goes to the passing team, but if one player has possession and a second player attempts to gain possession afterward, it goes to the first player.

Based on that rule and what I see, it's pretty clear it should have been an interception. One ref was signalling for touchback before the other one came in signalling touchdown -- since the play was in the final two minutes, the argument that it's safer to rule it a touchdown to ensure it goes to review doesn't hold water because it's getting reviewed either way.

I don't think Tate ever had possession -- Jennings clearly caught it, Tate briefly fought for possession, and when Jennings was on the ground he had sole possession with Tate touching the ball with one outstretched arm.

[GoJacks]

http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1348461193526520778.jpg (http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1348461193526520778.jpg)
That's just funny.

But I will add, the replacements suck so much that it almost made me forget how much the regular refs sucked.

[Hoofbite]

It really looks like the official who signalled for a TD was waiting for the other guy to make a move and when other official put his arms up to wave for a touchback, the guilty referee assumed touchdown and threw his arms up.

[MonsterD]

Someone posted this in the NFL zone a while ago, I was watching it too on tv before.

khzSPpmCf1Q

[Idgit]

They displayed the rule on NFL Network earlier, paraphrasing it basically says simultaneous possession goes to the passing team, but if one player has possession and a second player attempts to gain possession afterward, it goes to the first player.

Based on that rule and what I see, it's pretty clear it should have been an interception. One ref was signalling for touchback before the other one came in signalling touchdown -- since the play was in the final two minutes, the argument that it's safer to rule it a touchdown to ensure it goes to review doesn't hold water because it's getting reviewed either way.

I don't think Tate ever had possession -- Jennings clearly caught it, Tate briefly fought for possession, and when Jennings was on the ground he had sole possession with Tate touching the ball with one outstretched arm.

Your interpretation is certainly a plausible one.

It sounds like though, if possession were actually simultaneous, there isn't anything in the rule that gives preference to whoever has a better claim on the ball. If it really were simultaneous then the tie goes to the offense even if the defender had the better tactical position on the ball. Not saying that happened here one way or another, but it does seem to be a gray area in the rule, no?

If so, it reduces the argument down to whether or not Taint got to the ball at the same time, and eliminates the fact that the defender obviously had better control of the ball.

[Idgit]

It really looks like the official who signalled for a TD was waiting for the other guy to make a move and when other official put his arms up to wave for a touchback, the guilty referee assumed touchdown and threw his arms up.

Yup. That's what I thought, too.

[Crash Override]

Your interpretation is certainly a plausible one.

It sounds like though, if possession were actually simultaneous, there isn't anything in the rule that gives preference to whoever has a better claim on the ball. If it really were simultaneous then the tie goes to the offense even if the defender had the better tactical position on the ball. Not saying that happened here one way or another, but it does seem to be a gray area in the rule, no?

If so, it reduces the argument down to whether or not Taint got to the ball at the same time, and eliminates the fact that the defender obviously had better control of the ball.

If the ruling on the field was interception, do you believe it would have been overturned on review?

If not, it's pretty sad that the game was decided by what may very well have been a ref signalling touchdown because he thought that's what the other ref was signalling.

[bkight13]

I think everyone is focusing on Tate's right hand, but it was his left hand that gave him the dual possession. His left hand was pinned between the ball and Jennings chest. Then Jennings tried to wrestle it away, but Tate's left hand was still on the ball. Clearly a judgement call, but not a terrible call.

[Idgit]

If the ruling on the field was interception, do you believe it would have been overturned on review?

If not, it's pretty sad that the game was decided by what may very well have been a ref signalling touchdown because he thought that's what the other ref was signalling.

I don't think the call on the field would have been overturned, either way. It definitely would have been safer to side with GB given how the play ended up and in light of the horrible OPI non-call in the series before.

[Muhast]

I think everyone is focusing on Tate's right hand, but it was his left hand that gave him the dual possession. His left hand was pinned between the ball and Jennings chest. Then Jennings tried to wrestle it away, but Tate's left hand was still on the ball. Clearly a judgement call, but not a terrible call.


Sorry, but you can't have possession of a football by pinning it with your hand against another players chest when they have both hands on the football.

It is 100% clear GB's db had the ball in the air first, and on the way down. And still while landing, and while rolling around.

At no point at all did Tate have possession of the ball over Jenkins.

[Maxmadden]

Tate never had possession of the ball, he only put his hand on the ball that Jenkins intercepted, had both arms around, and secured to his chest.. Tie goes to the offensive player but Tate never even had any kind of control of the ball. This is such a no brainer it's not even worth talking about the simultaneous possession, there was none.

[bkight13]

Sorry, but you can't have possession of a football by pinning it with your hand against another players chest when they have both hands on the football.

It is 100% clear GB's db had the ball in the air first, and on the way down. And still while landing, and while rolling around.

At no point at all did Tate have possession of the ball over Jenkins.

Tate's left hand was on the ball between Jennings' hands. That is why Jennings couldn't wrestle it away, even after falling on Tate and twisting his whole body away. Definition of a simultaneous catch.

[punchnjudy]

Tate never had possession of the ball, he only put his hand on the ball that Jenkins intercepted, had both arms around, and secured to his chest.. Tie goes to the offensive player but Tate never even had any kind of control of the ball. This is such a no brainer it's not even worth talking about the simultaneous possession, there was none.

Even worse, he was actually holding on to Jenkins' arm, not the ball. You can see it at 1:24 in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5xy_dC--Ms

[Maxmadden]

Tate's left hand was on the ball between Jennings' hands. That is why Jennings couldn't wrestle it away, even after falling on Tate and twisting his whole body away. Definition of a simultaneous catch.

So it was a spectacular one handed grab?

[ConstantReboot]

agreed. the replay system needs to correct that. in a bang bang play, I can't fault the official on the field calling what he did, but it should of been reversed.

That pictures shows that Tate had his arms around Jennings neck. It doesn't show that he had the ball at all.

[Muhast]

Tate's left hand was on the ball between Jennings' hands. That is why Jennings couldn't wrestle it away, even after falling on Tate and twisting his whole body away. Definition of a simultaneous catch.

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. If that was the case,why are mariucci gruden dilfer mortenson van pelt schefter and every other person on TV saying otherwise?

[GloryDaysRBack]

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. If that was the case,why are mariucci gruden dilfer mortenson van pelt schefter and every other person on TV saying otherwise?

Awful argument

Why did the professional ref in the booth call it a TD?

[Muhast]

Awful argument

Why did the professional ref in the booth call it a TD?
That's a great question. I'd love for anybody to show a screenshot showing Tate ever has/had possession.

[GloryDaysRBack]

That's a great question. I'd love for anybody to show a screenshot showing Tate ever has/had possession.

Showing a still pic after the play is over isn't great evidence either

[Little Jr]

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. If that was the case,why are mariucci gruden dilfer mortenson van pelt schefter and every other person on TV saying otherwise?

Because they're so smart and never wrong

[ConstantReboot]

This was the same ref that called the blatant penalty on Carter last week. That was when Lee got smacked by Tate and it wasn't even called. If the ref would have made the right call against Tate, we could have had the ball with a chance to tie. Not saying that we could have won. But comes to show you that one blown call or no call like that can determine the outcome of a game easily.


Thus this ref is crooked and simply favored Seattle. He made several bad calls favoring Seattle earlier. He made a blatantly bad call against Green Bay for PI although it was obvious that it was supposed to be against Seattle.

[AdamJT13]

I think everyone is focusing on Tate's right hand, but it was his left hand that gave him the dual possession. His left hand was pinned between the ball and Jennings chest. Then Jennings tried to wrestle it away, but Tate's left hand was still on the ball. Clearly a judgement call, but not a terrible call.

Having one hand on the ball does not equate to having possession. Jennings had both hands on the ball and the ball held to his chest, establishing possession before Tate got a second hand on the ball (if he actually ever did). Therefore, it can't be simultaneous possession.

And the subject line of this thread is irrelevant. The touchdown could not be changed to an interception on the review, because which player had possession cannot be determined by replay. The only thing the replay could determine was whether the ball came out and touched the ground for an incompletion.

[Muhast]

Showing a still pic after the play is over isn't great evidence either

Show me a picture at any point in the play then. Adam just disputed your comment on the Booth review

[AdamJT13]

This was the same ref that called the blatant penalty on Carter last week. That was when Lee got smacked by Tate and it wasn't even called. If the ref would have made the right call against Tate, we could have had the ball with a chance to tie. Not saying that we could have won. But comes to show you that one blown call or no call like that can determine the outcome of a game easily.


Thus this ref is crooked and simply favored Seattle. He made several bad calls favoring Seattle earlier. He made a blatantly bad call against Green Bay for PI although it was obvious that it was supposed to be against Seattle.

None of the refs from tonight's game worked our game in Seattle last week. The crew we had last week did the Indianapolis-Jacksonville game yesterday.

[GloryDaysRBack]

Having one hand on the ball does not equate to having possession. Jennings had both hands on the ball and the ball held to his chest, establishing possession before Tate got a second hand on the ball (if he actually ever did). Therefore, it can't be simultaneous possession.

And the subject line of this thread is irrelevant. The touchdown could not be changed to an interception on the review, because which player had possession cannot be determined by replay. The only thing the replay could determine was whether the ball came out and touched the ground for an incompletion.

Bob Mcginns tweets say otherwise

But he doesn't specify

[ConstantReboot]

None of the refs from tonight's game worked our game in Seattle last week. The crew we had last week did the Indianapolis-Jacksonville game yesterday.

Whoa.....then I apologize for my mistake.

But I sense this crew favored Seattle. They called back an INT on roughing the passer which seems legal.

Then that pass interference on the defense when it was clearly on the offense.

[AdamJT13]

Bob Mcginns tweets say otherwise

But he doesn't specify

McGinn is wrong. The replay official in the booth only initiates the review. As the rulebook states, "All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the other covering official(s), prior to review." The replay official in the booth can never make or change a judgment call. All he can do is tell the referee to review the play.

[bucktoof]

Just guessing but I'm thinking the Seattle game on a Doug Baldwin catch which was ruled an interception by Sensabaugh if my memory is correct.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d823d47d3/Over-the-top-catch

[AdamJT13]

this exact thing happened to us last season and it was over turned in our favor.

The ruling on the field on that play was an interception by Sensabaugh.

[Wezsh0T]

Seems to me that we had the same call last year in the game vs. the NYJ. Miles Austin and Antonio Cromartie had simultaneous possession. It was called a TD for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ZFs57d-xc

[AdamJT13]

Seems to me that we had the same call last year in the game vs. the NYJ. Miles Austin and Antonio Cromartie had simultaneous possession. It was called a TD for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ZFs57d-xc

That was a good example of simultaneous possession. The play tonight should not have been ruled simultaneous possession.

[dexternjack]

Seems to me that we had the same call last year in the game vs. the NYJ. Miles Austin and Antonio Cromartie had simultaneous possession. It was called a TD for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ZFs57d-xc
They had possession at the same time, it was not the case tonight. Tate's right hand clearly fell off the ball twice and Jennings had both on it while cradled in his chest on the ground. While both similar, yet very different.

[GloryDaysRBack]

The ruling on the field on that play was an interception by Sensabaugh.

bad ruling on the field.

That was a simultaneous catch.

So you're saying the review couldn't change that call? (Dal/sea last year)

[AdamJT13]

bad ruling on the field.

That was a simultaneous catch.

So you're saying the review couldn't change that call? (Dal/sea last year)

That is correct. If the ruling on the field is an interception, it can be ruled only an interception or an incompletion, if the ball hit the ground. If the ruling is a completed pass, it can be ruled only a completion or an incompletion, if the ball hit the ground. The replay cannot determine which player had possession or whether it was simultaneous possession.

[M'Kevon]

That is correct. If the ruling on the field is an interception, it can be ruled only an interception or an incompletion, if the ball hit the ground. If the ruling is a completed pass, it can be ruled only a completion or an incompletion, if the ball hit the ground. The replay cannot determine which player had possession or whether it was simultaneous possession.

Isn't part of the review whether or not the receiver had possession of the ball?

[The30YardSlant]

Isn't part of the review whether or not the receiver had possession of the ball?

Only when the issue of possession is the deciding factor in whether or not a pass was complete. Dual possession is a judgement call that cannot be reviewed.

[The30YardSlant]

Awful argument

Why did the professional ref in the booth call it a TD?

He didn't, on two fronts. First, simultaneous possession is not reviewable. Second, the officials in the booth arent the ones making the final call on ANY review. If there is something to review, they signal to the refs on the field who go take a look at it. The ref on the field has the right to make whatever call he sees fit after review.

[dexternjack]

After all of this madness, I am tired of people blaming Jennings for not swatting the ball down. About 99% of the fans(and some media) explanation as to why "because he is a WR". Do people not know that was not Greg, it was M.D., the safety?

If they are going to complain about that, at least get the player right, all I'm saying.

[muck4doo]

I wanted the Hawks to win this one, but not like this. Jennings had that ball. Tate didn't. Packers were robbed.

[GloryDaysRBack]

I wanted Seattle to win










Just like this

[SkinsFan28]

People need to realize that the refs aren't calling up to the replay booth.

Here's what really happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C8y5z_7YtA

[WPBCowboysFan]

I think everyone is focusing on Tate's right hand, but it was his left hand that gave him the dual possession. His left hand was pinned between the ball and Jennings chest. Then Jennings tried to wrestle it away, but Tate's left hand was still on the ball. Clearly a judgement call, but not a terrible call.

Yeah, but if you recognize this you cant sensationalize it and stir up the masses and build a bandwagon of anger and disgust.

I cant believe that rational people havent considered that maybe the ref saw "More Possession" than the camera showed. And that is exactly why replay has to be conclusive all the way thru the play.

[Sam I Am]

They couldn't overturn that. The only thing reviewable was if it was a catch. Not who had possession. That is a judgement call.

This statement doesn't make sence. Who had possession determines who caught the ball. Who caught the ball is a binary question except in the case of dual possession, which was clearly not the case as seen by replay. Tate did not catch the ball and never had possession of the ball until after the play was over.

[ohiocowboysfan25]

According to Mike and Mike this morning simultaneous catch would mean that they caught it at the same time while the ball was in the air. Jennings came down with the ball and the ball did not move so he had possession all the way through the catch. That's the way I understood it.

[aikemirv]

Thanks. That issue aside, though, does the degree of control matter at all if possession were really simultaneous?

I know how the play looks. I'm asking about the letter of the rule.

That is the basic question IMO because I believe Tate had a hand on the bottom and on the top of the ball.

I do not believe that the Booth could not rule that an INT if they wanted too. That does not make sense at all.

The true injustice of the play was the blatant PI on Tate. The simultaneous is iffy but not the injustice IMO

[aikemirv]

According to Mike and Mike this morning simultaneous catch would mean that they caught it at the same time while the ball was in the air. Jennings came down with the ball and the ball did not move so he had possession all the way through the catch. That's the way I understood it.

But having possesion in the air does not constitute a catch these days!

[ufcrules1]

Wow.. completely insane that some of you here are confused about the call. GreenBay 100% had full possession of that ball. 100% a blown call by the refs on the field. No other way to look at it besides that.

[ohiocowboysfan25]

But having possesion in the air does not constitute a catch these days!

I know it doesn't but to me looking at it the other way I don't think there's anything that I saw that made me think Jennings didn't int it. I don't think you can assume that Tate would be able to one hand grab it when you make the call.

[aikemirv]

Not one replay that I have seen shows where Tates left hand was on the ball. Initial possesion in the air does not determine possesion - maintaining control through contact with the ground does. Was there dual possesion when they hit the ground? I think a case could be made that there was, while the DB had MORE control with it against his body, against your body does not make it more of a catch than not against your body.

By the way, I would have ruled it an INT but I can see why the Referee coming in on the play saw dual possesion. He was too eager, they should have had a conference.

[StarBoyz83]

Clearly int nothing to debate. Nothing to argue!!!

[ufcrules1]

Clearly int nothing to debate. Nothing to argue!!!

Thank you! How can ANYONE deny that? Unreal! I understand some here wanted the Seahawks to beat the Packers.. but come on! 100% intercepted. Not to mention Tate had a VERY blatant pass interference when he pushed the Packer player to the ground before the ball got there.

[DemonBlood]

I wanted Seattle to win










Just like this

http://franzejr.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/trolling-is-a-art.jpg (http://franzejr.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/trolling-is-a-art.jpg)

The people agreeing with the refs best be trollin or...Wow.

[Idgit]

That is the basic question IMO because I believe Tate had a hand on the bottom and on the top of the ball.

I do not believe that the Booth could not rule that an INT if they wanted too. That does not make sense at all.

The true injustice of the play was the blatant PI on Tate. The simultaneous is iffy but not the injustice IMO

The refs blew that game all the way down the line. The blown PI call on Shields the series before was horrible. The non-call on Woodson was bad, too. Then the missed blatant push-off (though I understand how that happens in that circumstance, it doesn't make it right) and the very debatable call on what looked like a game-winning interception.

[jazzcat22]

That's what's so funny about everyone being pissed off.

I think everyone forgot how bad the regular refs were as well.

:laugh2:


The review officials signal that it needs to be reviewed...they do not make the final decision to overturn it or not. I believe that's the way it's supposed to work anyway.

[speedkilz88]

Yeah, but if you recognize this you cant sensationalize it and stir up the masses and build a bandwagon of anger and disgust.

I cant believe that rational people havent considered that maybe the ref saw "More Possession" than the camera showed. And that is exactly why replay has to be conclusive all the way thru the play.
No, it's more like the rest of us know the rules and the two of you obviously do not.

[Muhast]

Yeah, but if you recognize this you cant sensationalize it and stir up the masses and build a bandwagon of anger and disgust.

I cant believe that rational people havent considered that maybe the ref saw "More Possession" than the camera showed. And that is exactly why replay has to be conclusive all the way thru the play.


It is basically impossible to "Catch" a football around another players body, when the other player has both of his hands on it and has it secured against his chest, whereas you only have one hand your arm is wrapped around his body.

[RafaelG]

I don't like Seattle but I HATE Green Bay! So good riddance,good to see them lose a gut-wrenching game!

[Merlin]

Review booth refs can only signal for a review, not determine the call. The on-field refs are the only ones who can issue a final ruling. Besides, you can't overturn dual possession. Once that was invoked, there was nothing that could be done.

Tate never had possession. That's the problem. You can review whether Tate caught the ball.

[Muhast]

Tate never had possession. That's the problem. You can review whether Tate caught the ball.


No you can't. It's been covered in the thread already.

You can review whether it was an incomplete pass or not. Did the ball hit the ground?

It is clearly caught(Jennings intercepted it), but the ruling was simultaneous which is a judgment call on field and can't be overturned.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have heard several people say that the push off, which was severe IMO, is never called. Well, I don't agree with that because I have seen it called in situations like that in the past.

Tate never had possession of that ball. That was a clear INT by the GB DB undoubtedly. However, the real mistake IMO was that the head judge did not conference with both officials. This is pretty key because, as has been explained already, replay can not overturn that call once it's been made and once you go to replay, the call on the field can not be changed. What I have seen with real NFL Officials in cases like this are to get the officials who saw the play or called the play together with the lead crew official and then a discussion ensues. The lead official asks each what they saw. Then, a call is determined and officially announced as the ruling on the field. However, in last nights game, you had two officials with different calls and the lead official never conferred with either of the Officials who actually made the call. He went right to the replay both which, in effect, made the calls on the field official. The mistake was made at that point with no ability to correct it.

One official called TD. The other called Officials Time Out which is generally what happens when you are going to call an INT but the INT ruling was never given, I suspect because the other Official signaled TD. The Official calling for the TO probably did not want to create an issue, which happened anyway, and never called the INT signal but it was clearly an INT IMO. No question at all.

[aikemirv]

No you can't. It's been covered in the thread already.

You can review whether it was an incomplete pass or not. Did the ball hit the ground?

It is clearly caught(Jennings intercepted it), but the ruling was simultaneous which is a judgment call on field and can't be overturned.

But the ruling on the field at the same time was interception by the ref right beside him. I don't see why they just cant get it right in the replay booth.

What is the rule on simultaneous rulings!:laugh2:

[Muhast]

But the ruling on the field at the same time was interception by the ref right beside him. I don't see why they just cant get it right in the replay booth.

What is the rule on simultaneous rulings!:laugh2:


I agree, I wish they could have ruled it an INT in the first place.

[ohiocowboysfan25]

No you can't. It's been covered in the thread already.

You can review whether it was an incomplete pass or not. Did the ball hit the ground?

It is clearly caught(Jennings intercepted it), but the ruling was simultaneous which is a judgment call on field and can't be overturned.

How do the refs know to make the simultaneous catch call but they can't call the most basic of penalties during the rest of the game? smh

[sandtrapjack]

No you can't. It's been covered in the thread already.

You can review whether it was an incomplete pass or not. Did the ball hit the ground?

It is clearly caught(Jennings intercepted it), but the ruling was simultaneous which is a judgment call on field and can't be overturned.
Catch-22 here is possession CAN be overturned by replay review, but only in the case of a coach's challenge. But since this occurred in the final 2 minutes of the half, McCarthy's hands were tied and he could not challenge the call on the field.

[btcutter]

The booth officials had NOTHING to do with the call on the field.

Besides, since NFL doesn't want to pay them, they are currently working for Buffalo Wild Wings:lmao:

[ABQCOWBOY]

But the ruling on the field at the same time was interception by the ref right beside him. I don't see why they just cant get it right in the replay booth.

What is the rule on simultaneous rulings!:laugh2:

No, actually it was not. The ruling on the field by one Official is TD but the other ruling was Time Out or basically waiving both hands over your head in a crossing motion. Now, the INT is implied because before you can call for an INT, you must stop the clock and then motion for an INT. That would be an official basically signalling possession and then facing the other direction and pointing in that direction with arm and hand. That call was never made but it stands to reason that it would have been or else, why not signal TD? As I said earlier, I believe the Official that signaled for clock stoppage saw that the other Official had signaled for a TD and simply did not follow through with the INT call. That, IMO, is the only thing that makes sense.

[aikemirv]

No, actually it was not. The ruling on the field by one Official is TD but the other ruling was Time Out or basically waiving both hands over your head in a crossing motion. Now, the INT is implied because before you can call for an INT, you must stop the clock and then motion for an INT. That would be an official basically signalling possession and then facing the other direction and pointing in that direction with arm and hand. That call was never made but it stands to reason that it would have been or else, why not signal TD? As I said earlier, I believe the Official that signaled for clock stoppage saw that the other Official had signaled for a TD and simply did not follow through with the INT call. That, IMO, is the only thing that makes sense.

Ok, I will buy that except his signalling time out is signalling the game is over. There are no more possesions and therefore no possesion signalling would need to be done would it.

[The30YardSlant]

Tate never had possession. That's the problem. You can review whether Tate caught the ball.

No you can't. Because dual possession was ruled, all they could review was whether or not one of the players was out of bounds or whether the ball hit the ground. If EITHER player was deemed to have possession of the ball and it was a catch, it's a TD because of the dual possession call on the field. Stupid? Yes, but it's the rule. Judgement alls are set in stone on the field, not matter how stupid. Overturning dual possession would have constituted a clear violation of the rules and the ruling ref would be punished.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ok, I will buy that except his signalling time out is signalling the game is over. There are no more possesions and therefore no possesion signalling would need to be done would it.


No. That Ref probably doesn't know what time may be left on the clock but he knows that there was very little to begin with. He would naturally signal for a TO just to insure that the correct time was kept if in fact, another play had to be run. Not sure but I believe the signal for game over is a series of whistles if memory serves. Regardless, the problem is not what one official called and another official called. The problem is that the lead official never conferred to see what each actually saw. The problem is that he went directly to the booth which created a situation where the only ruling that could be accepted as the "ruling on the field" was TD.

[GloryDaysRBack]

NFL got it right

Good game hawks

Pack suck

[aikemirv]

No you can't. Because dual possession was ruled, all they could review was whether or not one of the players was out of bounds or whether the ball hit the ground. If EITHER player was deemed to have possession of the ball and it was a catch, it's a TD because of the dual possession call on the field. Stupid? Yes, but it's the rule. Judgement alls are set in stone on the field, not matter how stupid. Overturning dual possession would have constituted a clear violation of the rules and the ruling ref would be punished.

I think this where the replay booth got it wrong because you did have 2 different rulings on the field - there really is no debating that. All they had to do was say we had 2 rulings on the field and the interception is correct. End of story - there would be little discussion this morning.

[Muhast]

NFL got it right

Good game hawks

Pack suck


How can you really believe that?

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

How can you really believe that?

He has to be being sarcastic. You never tell on here anymore lmao.

[The30YardSlant]

I think this where the replay booth got it wrong because you did have 2 different rulings on the field - there really is no debating that. All they had to do was say we had 2 rulings on the field and the interception is correct. End of story - there would be little discussion this morning.

The problem is that there is no precedent for that. I'm not sure that's even an option. There has to be a ruling made on the field before a review can occur. You can't justify a review by saying "I don't know", only whether or not the call you made was correct.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think this where the replay booth got it wrong because you did have 2 different rulings on the field - there really is no debating that. All they had to do was say we had 2 rulings on the field and the interception is correct. End of story - there would be little discussion this morning.

Replay Booth can not make that call. Only the Lead Official can make that call. That's why it's so important to have a conference with both Officials before you decide to go to Replay. Once you go to replay, the ruling on the field is final and can not be changed. Had a conference taken place, one Official could have said "I saw a TD and here's why." The other could have said, "I saw an INT and here's why". At that point, a discussion on what constitutes a dual possession and I imagine the Official who signaled TD would have changed his call. The Official who thought INT would have probably been found to have been correct. Had neither agreed, the Lead Official would have watched in on the replay and come to the correct conclusion and the ruling on the field would have been confirmed as INT. At that point, the Lead Official would have gone to replay and possession and the fact that the INT was made inbounds would have been upheld and the Packers would have correctly won that game. Because this never happened, the only call that could have stood was TD. The other official only signaled for clock stoppage. It is logical to assume he believed it was a TD because there is no other reason to stop the clock but, he never signaled that. The only call that could have stood was TD and that was the wrong call.

[ufcrules1]

Official comment from the NFL regarding what all happened.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown?campaign=Facebook_news

[GloryDaysRBack]

Simualtaneous catch Is reviewable in the EZ


Read the nfl statement. The NFL said they support the decision to not overturn the call.

Read the rules on a catch and possession

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Simualtaneous catch Is reviewable in the EZ


Read the nfl statement. The NFL said they support the decision to not overturn the call.

Read the rules on a catch and possession

You can't be serious. :laugh2: :banghead:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Official comment from the NFL regarding what all happened.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown?campaign=Facebook_news

This is the bigger problem. NFL Officials clearly blew that call but they will not admit it. Only one player had control of that ball when they hit the ground and that was the DB. The other player wrestled control after the fact and was ruled duel control. That is incorrect IMO.

However, this also signals that the Owners are not going to move on this issue. They are going to let it ride with these officials until they either get an agreement in place that they are happy with or until these officials get up to speed.

[Joe Realist]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1807weszonro1jpg/cmt-medium.jpg

[Sam I Am]

Official comment from the NFL regarding what all happened.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown?campaign=Facebook_news

The NFL contradicted the rules of the game by agreeing with the call in that press release.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

and the rule book contradiction.

Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

The video clearly shows that Jennings had possession and Tate never had possession of the ball until both players were rolling around on the ground.

They are just trying to protect their whole ref fiasco they've gotten themselves into. Which is stupid as hell since it makes them look like dolts.

[Sam I Am]

Replay Booth can not make that call. Only the Lead Official can make that call. That's why it's so important to have a conference with both Officials before you decide to go to Replay. Once you go to replay, the ruling on the field is final and can not be changed. Had a conference taken place, one Official could have said "I saw a TD and here's why." The other could have said, "I saw an INT and here's why". At that point, a discussion on what constitutes a dual possession and I imagine the Official who signaled TD would have changed his call. The Official who thought INT would have probably been found to have been correct. Had neither agreed, the Lead Official would have watched in on the replay and come to the correct conclusion and the ruling on the field would have been confirmed as INT. At that point, the Lead Official would have gone to replay and possession and the fact that the INT was made inbounds would have been upheld and the Packers would have correctly won that game. Because this never happened, the only call that could have stood was TD. The other official only signaled for clock stoppage. It is logical to assume he believed it was a TD because there is no other reason to stop the clock but, he never signaled that. The only call that could have stood was TD and that was the wrong call.

What? Where are you getting this? The replay booth can and DOES call the ref on the field to go to replay. Specifically on scoring plays. All scoring plays are reviewed and the ref on the field have no choice in the matter.

[Sam I Am]

That's what's so funny about everyone being pissed off.

I think everyone forgot how bad the regular refs were as well.

:laugh2:

Ever thought about the fact that the NFL could be pulling strings behind the scenes to protect themselves against the fodder on the field.

Of course, not over turning that GB/Seattle call did more damage than good for the NFL.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What? Where are you getting this? The replay booth can and DOES call the ref on the field to go to replay. Specifically on scoring plays. All scoring plays are reviewed and the ref on the field have no choice in the matter.

Of course they do but not before an official ruling is made on the field. How can you rule on a TD if no ruling has been made on the field.

Where are you getting your info NYC?

[The30YardSlant]

Simualtaneous catch Is reviewable in the EZ


Read the nfl statement. The NFL said they support the decision to not overturn the call.

Read the rules on a catch and possession

No, it's not. The NFL supported the decision precisely BECAUSE the refs couldnt overturn the dual possession call. Once that was invoked, there was no other option but to rule TD under the rules.

[The30YardSlant]

What? Where are you getting this? The replay booth can and DOES call the ref on the field to go to replay. Specifically on scoring plays. All scoring plays are reviewed and the ref on the field have no choice in the matter.

The refs on the field are the only ones who can determine the call, though. The refs on the field are not obligated to listen to the opinion of the guy in the booth if he has one at all. They can view the play and call it how they see it.

[Sam I Am]

No, it's not. The NFL supported the decision precisely BECAUSE the refs couldnt overturn the dual possession call. Once that was invoked, there was no other option but to rule TD under the rules.

Yes they can. Dual possession IS reviewable when it is in the end zone. The NFL even said as much in their press release.

[Sam I Am]

The refs on the field are the only ones who can determine the call, though. The refs on the field are not obligated to listen to the opinion of the guy in the booth if he has one at all. They can view the play and call it how they see it.

:lmao2: :lmao: That would be a lightning fast way to get fired. Ignore someone who has a better view than you do. :facepalm:

[The30YardSlant]

Yes they can. Dual possession IS reviewable when it is in the end zone. The NFL even said as much in their press release.

They need to fire whoever wrote the statement, because as of last night there was no clause for that in the rules. People all over the internet are calling them out for bull****ting the fans.

[The30YardSlant]

:lmao2: :lmao: That would be a lightning fast way to get fired. Ignore someone who has a better view than you do. :facepalm:

You DO realize the on field refs can go over and view the replays on the sideline during a review, right? They can see the same thng the guys in the booth do.

[ABQCOWBOY]

:lmao2: :lmao: That would be a lightning fast way to get fired. Ignore someone who has a better view than you do. :facepalm:

The review booth can not rule on anything until a ruling has been established on the field. If a call is made and the lead official calls for a conference, no ruling is official until the lead official clarifies it. That is why you see officials make statements to the effect, "The ruling on the field is xxx." when you see a replay. It has to be declared and then the replay both can do their thing.

[JonJon]

No you can't. It's been covered in the thread already.

You can review whether it was an incomplete pass or not. Did the ball hit the ground?

It is clearly caught(Jennings intercepted it), but the ruling was simultaneous which is a judgment call on field and can't be overturned.

No you can't. Because dual possession was ruled, all they could review was whether or not one of the players was out of bounds or whether the ball hit the ground. If EITHER player was deemed to have possession of the ball and it was a catch, it's a TD because of the dual possession call on the field. Stupid? Yes, but it's the rule. Judgement alls are set in stone on the field, not matter how stupid. Overturning dual possession would have constituted a clear violation of the rules and the ruling ref would be punished.

Exactly. Even if the review reveals that Tate never even touched the ball, he would still get credit for the touchdown because the ball never hits the ground (due to interception).

[JonJon]

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2zpppjd.jpg

[HowAboutThemCowboys]

Here is a pic of the NFL refs watching last nights game at a bar

http://ma-provincetowntourism.civicplus.com/images/pages/N160/Men%20laughing%20small.jpg

[Sam I Am]

They need to fire whoever wrote the statement, because as of last night there was no clause for that in the rules. People all over the internet are calling them out for bull****ting the fans.

Rule 15 Second 9 article (b) 1.

All scoring plays are reviewed. (b) is Passing Plays and 1. is they can look to ensure it was a catch.

The replay clearly shows that Tate (1) clearly did not catch the ball. He clearly didn't have any possession of the ball until well after Jennings would have been called down by contact.

People keeps spewing that simultaneous catch isn't reviewable. (NFL says yes it is) but they (not the NFL) are wrong. Any catch is reviewable by rule. A simultaneous catch is still a catch so it too is reviewable.

The rule that pertains to a simultaneous catch is if in fact it occurs, the offensive team keeps possession. As the replay clearly shows, it was NOT a simultaneous catch.

[Aggie87]

But it wasn't ruled a simultaneous catch on the field, so it wasn't reviewable as such.

It was ruled a touchdown. All the review booth could review was whether the ball touched the ground or not. If it didn't, then the booth has to uphold the call on the field.

The problem I have is that there should have been pass interference called on Golden Tate before anybody jumped for the ball. The NFL even agreed with that in their statement today.

Had that call correctly occurred, then the catch/interception is irrelevant, the play is over, and GB correctly wins the game.

[Sam I Am]

The review booth can not rule on anything until a ruling has been established on the field. If a call is made and the lead official calls for a conference, no ruling is official until the lead official clarifies it. That is why you see officials make statements to the effect, "The ruling on the field is xxx." when you see a replay. It has to be declared and then the replay both can do their thing.

See the rule book. (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf)

Read Rule 15 Section 9: Replay Offical's Request for Review. They can too.

[Sam I Am]

But it wasn't ruled a simultaneous catch on the field, so it wasn't reviewable as such.

It was ruled a touchdown. All the review booth could review was whether the ball touched the ground or not. If it didn't, then the booth has to uphold the call on the field.

The problem I have is that there should have been pass interference called on Golden Tate before anybody jumped for the ball. The NFL even agreed with that in their statement today.

Had that call correctly occurred, then the catch/interception is irrelevant, the play is over, and GB correctly wins the game.

No. They can review if the ball was caught and if it was a reception or an interception. I've posted a link to the rule book. The simultaneous catch theory is irrelevant.

[bkight13]

No, it's more like the rest of us know the rules and the two of you obviously do not.

Obviously the ref agrees with us and called it a TD, so who is right smart guy??

[ABQCOWBOY]

See the rule book. (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf)

Read Rule 15 Section 9: Replay Offical's Request for Review. They can too.

Really?


Here is what the link you posted says, Rule 15 Section 9, top of page 90.

Review Officials Request for Review. After All Scoring Plays, Interceptions, fumbles and backwards passes that are recovered by (Yada, yada, yada........) after the two minute warning in each half and throughout any overtime period, any replay review will be initiated by a replay official from the booth.


This says nothing at all about the booths ability to initiate a review until such time as a ruling is made on the field, either score, change of possession or establishing position on the field. Nothing at all.

Further:

Reviews By Referee. All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on the filed-level monitor AFTER consulting with the covering officials.


This specifically says that ALL replays will be conducted AFTER consulting with officials on the field. IE, nothing can be reviewed until a call on the field has been established.

How on earth can you rule on something that has not been called or established NYC? Really?

[GloryDaysRBack]

People don't even know the rule on a reception

It wasn't under possession until the players hit the ground. When they hit the ground, it was definitely simultaneous.

The call is correct

[Sam I Am]

any replay review will be initiated by a replay official from the booth.


Your own quote. That isn't a ref of the field.

[InmanRoshi]

I have heard several people say that the push off, which was severe IMO, is never called. Well, I don't agree with that because I have seen it called in situations like that in the past.


Former longtime NFL Official said that the NFL "regular' refs basically let anything go on a jumpball, but he agrees it was an INT.

"On a jump ball, you pretty much just let everything go and who comes down with it. Now Jennings has the ball. He comes to the ground, brings it to his chest. He's established possession, established control, then possession. He's on the ground with the ball. All Tate has is his arm in there on the ball. So it's going to belong to the player that has the ball at the end of the play. And to me, that appears to be Jennings."

http://www.news-record.com/blog/56101/entry/153467

The "regular" refs have ruled offensive pass interference and WRs pushing off so infrequently over the last 30 years that they've basically made it obsolete on the most basic play, much less the NFL's equivalent of an aerial rugby scrum. It's kinda hilarious hearing the media foaming at the mouth about offensive pass interference this morning considering they've endlessly heralded and hyped WRs who built entire careers around pushing off (many of them are in suits sitting on their round table panels).

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your own quote. That isn't a ref of the field.

OK, I can see that you are not going to listen to reason here. You are in this to argue a point. That's fine.

You tell me, how do you initiate one of the applicable circumstances if no call has been made? How do you initiate review on a TD, fumble, INT if no TD, Fumble or INT has been called?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Former longtime NFL Official said that the NFL "regular' refs basically let anything go on a jumpball, but he agrees it was an INT.



http://www.news-record.com/blog/56101/entry/153467

The "regular" refs have ruled offensive pass interference and WRs pushing off so infrequently over the last 30 years that they've basically made it obsolete on the most basic play, much less the NFL's equivalent of an aerial rugby scrum. It's kinda hilarious hearing the media foaming about offensive pass interference this morning considering they've endlessly heralded and hyped WRs who built entire careers around pushing off (many of them are in suits sitting on their round table panels).

But interestingly enough, the NFL did say that the no call on the push off was the wrong call earlier today.

Go figure.

[Sam I Am]

OK, I can see that you are not going to listen to reason here. You are in this to argue a point. That's fine.

You tell me, how do you initiate one of the applicable circumstances if no call has been made? How do you initiate review on a TD, fumble, INT if no TD, Fumble or INT has been called?

It was said that the review booth upstairs could not initiate a review of replay if the ref on the field did not ask for it to be reviewed. I said the review booth can and does initiate reviews of instance replay without the refs on the field requesting a review.

The part that you quoted specifically says the replay officials can initiate a review of instant replay and are required to do so in overtime or after the two minute warning of any half. This is without the refs on the fields consent.

[The30YardSlant]

Rule 15 Second 9 article (b) 1.

All scoring plays are reviewed. (b) is Passing Plays and 1. is they can look to ensure it was a catch.

The replay clearly shows that Tate (1) clearly did not catch the ball. He clearly didn't have any possession of the ball until well after Jennings would have been called down by contact.

People keeps spewing that simultaneous catch isn't reviewable. (NFL says yes it is) but they (not the NFL) are wrong. Any catch is reviewable by rule. A simultaneous catch is still a catch so it too is reviewable.

The rule that pertains to a simultaneous catch is if in fact it occurs, the offensive team keeps possession. As the replay clearly shows, it was NOT a simultaneous catch.

You simply misunderstand how the rule works.

[WPBCowboysFan]

No, it's more like the rest of us know the rules and the two of you obviously do not.

Or maybe us 2 realize that the camera doesnt always show everything that a ref standing right there can see.

Everybody is talking about the blatant PI from Tate. If anybody has been paying attention, its been repeated, and repeated, over and over and over all day long from just about everybody in football that in those jump ball situations PI is never called. They let the guys play.

If the GB defender had batted the ball down instead of catching it - like they are taught and coached to do - the "bad call" would be a non issue.

And how many times over the years have we seen one player seem to have control of the ball in the air, and then by the end of the play another player has wrestled it away, or at least latched onto the ball?

Did Tate have ANY control of the ball? If so, it must count as control apparently.

What is truly amazing is how well everybody but the refs know the rules. :bang2: These poor refs are so far out of their league.

[GloryDaysRBack]

You simply misunderstand how the rule works.

The NFL is lying that its reviewable?

Really? That is your argument?

[Sam I Am]

You simply misunderstand how the rule works.

You went to A&M, you're an aggie. That explains it. :laugh2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

It was said that the review booth upstairs could not initiate a review of replay if the ref on the field did not ask for it to be reviewed. I said the review booth can and does initiate reviews of instance replay without the refs on the field requesting a review.

I never said this. Show me where I said this.

I said no review can be initiated until the Lead Official makes a call on the field and that's still true. By going directly to the Replay Booth, the lead official basically confirmed that the only call that could be made on the field was that of a TD. Had he consulted with the other officials first, which I have already shown to be the rule in the NFL Rules/Regs, he could have discussed the call and probably come to the correct conclusion. At that point, the booth would have called for a review and the Packers would have won that game. That is what is being explained to you. Has nothing at all to do with who can review what. Has everything to do with making a call on the field before any review process can start.



The part that you quoted specifically says the replay officials can initiate a review of instant replay and are required to do so in overtime or after the two minute warning of any half. This is without the refs on the fields consent.

Yeah, so?

Again I ask you, how can you review any play if no call has been made on the field? Also, something you failed to comment on was the specific language, that came from the very regulation you referred me to on how replay must consult with the officials on the field prior to any instant replay review.

The issue is not who can initiate a review. The issue is that the Lead Official did not consult with the Officials who actually made the calls before confirming what the actual ruling on the field was. That should have happened and that is where the problem is. Get over the replay thing. It has zero to do with anything.

[RoyTheHammer]

Or maybe us 2 realize that the camera doesnt always show everything that a ref standing right there can see.

Everybody is talking about the blatant PI from Tate. If anybody has been paying attention, its been repeated, and repeated, over and over and over all day long from just about everybody in football that in those jump ball situations PI is never called. They let the guys play.

If the GB defender had batted the ball down instead of catching it - like they are taught and coached to do - the "bad call" would be a non issue.

And how many times over the years have we seen one player seem to have control of the ball in the air, and then by the end of the play another player has wrestled it away, or at least latched onto the ball?

Did Tate have ANY control of the ball?


The answer to your last question.. is, no. Clearly, he did not. When you didn't catch the ball in the air, didn't even have a hand on it, and when the players hit the ground the most you have is your arms wrapped around the player who is holding the ball with two hands pulled into his chest.. you CLEARLY DON'T have any control of the ball.

Anymore questions.. i'm here all day. :cool:

[HoosierCowboy]

Wow.. completely insane that some of you here are confused about the call. GreenBay 100% had full possession of that ball. 100% a blown call by the refs on the field. No other way to look at it besides that.

that's 100% wrong--does not matter who had it first--it's a catch when they hit the ground and maintain possession--when they hit the ground they both had possession--right call and booth did not have enough evidence to overturn it

[ABQCOWBOY]

that's 100% wrong--does not matter who had it first--it's a catch when they hit the ground and maintain possession--when they hit the ground they both had possession--right call and booth did not have enough evidence to overturn it

I agree that the replay made the right call. They made the only call they could really. However, I don't know that I would agree that the call of dual possession was correct. The rules say that in addition to maintaining possession and being inbounds when they hit the ground, you must also exhibit both control and possession in the air and until you hit the ground. I do not believe that Tate showed that he had control all the way through the catch.

[erod]

The answer to your last question.. is, no. Clearly, he did not. When you didn't catch the ball in the air, didn't even have a hand on it, and when the players hit the ground the most you have is your arms wrapped around the player who is holding the ball with two hands pulled into his chest.. you CLEARLY DON'T have any control of the ball.

Anymore questions.. i'm here all day. :cool:

He didn't have his arms wrapped around the player. That is just wrong.

[Sam I Am]

He didn't have his arms wrapped around the player. That is just wrong.

At best he had a single hand on the ball and it was through Jenning's arm. There is no way Tate had any type of possession of the ball.

I suggest you actually go rewatch the video before posting anymore about this subject.

[bkight13]

As they hit the ground you can see that Tate had 2 hands on the ball as well as Jennings. The ball is not firmly against Jennings' chest as everyone keeps repeating. Tate's left hand is clearly on top of the ball. Neither had full control, thus "simultaneous catch"http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8314/8027874696_95e09ccffc_b.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8314/8027874696_95e09ccffc_b.jpg)

[ABQCOWBOY]

I do not see what you are describing in this pic.

[bkight13]

I do not see what you are describing in this pic.

Blow it up then, because you can clearly see 4 hands on the ball and Jennings's left hand isn't firmly on the ball. Jennings is trying to wrestle away control, but he can't because Tate's left hand IS firmly on the ball.

[RoyTheHammer]

:laugh2:

Are people still trying to argue that Tate had any kind of possession here?

Good grief.. you can lead a doofus to water..

[WPBCowboysFan]

:laugh2:

Are people still trying to argue that Tate had any kind of possession here?

Good grief.. you can lead a doofus to water..

Yeah, imagine it, even the ref thought so . . . . . . . . . . . :banghead:

[RoyTheHammer]

Yeah, imagine it, even the ref thought so . . . . . . . . . . . :banghead:

One ref is the only one who thought so. Hundreds of ex players, analysts, current players, even players on the Seattle Seahawks say differently.

Hell, even President Obama knows it was a screwjob.. don't argue with the leader of the free world, my friend.

[bkight13]

One ref is the only one who thought so. Hundreds of ex players, analysts, current players, even players on the Seattle Seahawks say differently.

Wrong. It was reviewed and wasn't overturned, so it was more than one ref(who happened to be the closest person to the play). I know Gruden and Steve Young are really smart and are never wrong, but I know what I saw as well. The narrative is that the replacement refs are ruining the game and everyone is just jumping on the bandwagon.

[RoyTheHammer]

Wrong. It was reviewed and wasn't overturned, so it was more than one ref(who happened to be the closest person to the play). I know Gruden and Steve Young are really smart and are never wrong, but I know what I saw as well. The narrative is that the replacement refs are ruining the game and everyone is just jumping on the bandwagon.

The replacement refs arn't what people should be whining about. As you and WPB prove in this thread, anyone is capable of missing something that's blatently clear to everyone else. The problem is the real refs and their ridiculous demands.. that's what people should be upset about.

You can say you know what you saw.. and that's fine.. but you're wrong. Simple as that. Tate didn't have two hands on it in the air, he didn't have two hands on it when they came down, and he only got two hands on it after they were already on the ground for a second.. which is simply NOT simultaneous possession.

The end. Mystery solved. Turns out hundreds of current players, ex players, coaches, analysts, former referees, Seattle Seahawk players, and President Obama were right.. and you were wrong.

Who would've thought, right?

:)

[bkight13]

The replacement refs arn't what people should be whining about. As you and WPB prove in this thread, anyone is capable of missing something that's blatently clear to everyone else. The problem is the real refs and their ridiculous demands.. that's what people should be upset about.

You can say you know what you saw.. and that's fine.. but you're wrong. Simple as that. Tate didn't have two hands on it in the air, he didn't have two hands on it when they came down, and he only got two hands on it after they were already on the ground for a second.. which is simply NOT simultaneous possession.

The end. Mystery solved. Turns out hundreds of current players, ex players, coaches, analysts, former referees, Seattle Seahawk players, and President Obama were right.. and you were wrong.

Who would've thought, right?

:)

Just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't make you right. In fact you are 100% wrong because it was ruled a TD, reviewed and upheld and the photo shows that Tate had as many hands on the ball that Jennings had. Yes, in the very beginning, at the apex of his jump Jennings may have looked to have a clear shot at an INT, but before they even hit the ground Tate got both his hands on the ball as well and as they hit the ground Jennings did NOT have sole possession and couldn't even wrestle it away.

[RoyTheHammer]

Just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't make you right. In fact you are 100% wrong because it was ruled a TD, reviewed and upheld and the photo shows that Tate had as many hands on the ball that Jennings had. Yes, in the very beginning, at the apex of his jump Jennings may have looked to have a clear shot at an INT, but before they even hit the ground Tate got both his hands on the ball as well and as they hit the ground Jennings did NOT have sole possession and couldn't even wrestle it away.

:laugh2:

K bud. You're right.. everyone else is wrong. Stick with that.

[Romo 2 Austin]

I always am of the opinion that a play in this type of situation (game on the line) should not be ruled by the refs on the field. Use the 21st century technology and view the angles before the call. If they had done that the Packers win.

[WPBCowboysFan]

:laugh2:

K bud. You're right.. everyone else is wrong. Stick with that.

Who would admit they were wrong now after all the hoopla and nonsense?

All of you have to stick to the story now - no matter what really happend or what the ref, and the replay official saw.

[RoyTheHammer]

Who would admit they were wrong now after all the hoopla and nonsense?

All of you have to stick to the story now - no matter what really happend or what the ref, and the replay official saw.

I know man.. everyone in America, including players on the team that got the win, other current players, coaches, former coaches, former players, former NFL referees.. everyone is wrong.

You are right.. you and blick. You two.. you are the guys.

:)

[WPBCowboysFan]

I know man.. everyone in America, including players on the team that got the win, other current players, coaches, former coaches, former players, former NFL referees.. everyone is wrong.

You are right.. you and blick. You two.. you are the guys.

:)

Actually this thread proves what the sheeple masses will do when they want to believe something and hop on the bandwagon. All ability to objectively reason and think for oneself is gone. Everybody else says so, so it must be! The movement snowballs and becomes CLEAR.

However, when we look at the scenario we realize that maybe all of this isnt that big of a deal after all. Maybe reason needs to come into play. Maybe we consider what actually happened. Two players fought for the ball - and the ref saw that. At the end of the play two players had hands on the ball. And of course in real time the ref did not have all the camera angles and slow motion. What he did have though was what he saw - two players with hands on the ball. The same two players he saw fight for the ball in the air.

Oh, and since the offensive player is awarded the right to the ball, just like in baseball where the tie goes to the runner, the ref signaled TD! Amazingly, there was not enough for the replay official to overturn it so it was a TD! Yet, somehow the whole world can see it differently. It doesnt matter what the rules say. It doesnt matter what was called. It doesnt even matter what actually happened.

Was the ref in real time able to determine that Jennings had at least 51% or more control of the ball? No, he was just able to see that 2 guys fought for the ball. Two guys had hands on the ball. The offensive player was awarded the right to the ball as he should have been.

Parse it a million different ways and break down the video and quote rules and "experts" but it doesnt change reality. The call was made and it was correct! PERIOD!

[RoyTheHammer]

Actually this thread proves what the sheeple masses will do when they want to believe something and hop on the bandwagon. All ability to objectively reason and think for oneself is gone. Everybody else says so, so it must be! The movement snowballs and becomes CLEAR.

However, when we look at the scenario we realize that maybe all of this isnt that big of a deal after all. Maybe reason needs to come into play. Maybe we consider what actually happened. Two players fought for the ball - and the ref saw that. At the end of the play two players had hands on the ball. And of course in real time the ref did not have all the camera angles and slow motion. What he did have though was what he saw - two players with hands on the ball. The same two players he saw fight for the ball in the air.

Oh, and since the offensive player is awarded the right to the ball, just like in baseball where the tie goes to the runner, the ref signaled TD! Amazingly, there was not enough for the replay official to overturn it so it was a TD! Yet, somehow the whole world can see it differently. It doesnt matter what the rules say. It doesnt matter what was called. It doesnt even matter what actually happened.

Was the ref in real time able to determine that Jennings had at least 51% or more control of the ball? No, he was just able to see that 2 guys fought for the ball. Two guys had hands on the ball. The offensive player was awarded the right to the ball as he should have been.

Parse it a million different ways and break down the video and quote rules and "experts" but it doesnt change reality. The call was made and it was correct! PERIOD!

:laugh2:

No, what actually happened definitely matters. Im just glad we have the only two "real" experts in the world on our little board here. Screw players, former players, former refs, coaches, former coaches.. guys who are around the game 24/7.. even guys on the Seahawks who admitted they didn't win that game.. what do they know?

Like i said man, you and blick.. you two are the ones, the keepers of reason. Keep up the great work guys.

:)

[bkight13]

:laugh2:

No, what actually happened definitely matters. Im just glad we have the only two "real" experts in the world on our little board here. Screw players, former players, former refs, coaches, former coaches.. guys who are around the game 24/7.. even guys on the Seahawks who admitted they didn't win that game.. what do they know?

Like i said man, you and blick.. you two are the ones, the keepers of reason. Keep up the great work guys.

:)

And you can stick to your narrative that the replacement refs stole the game from the mighty Packers, not that they got beat up the entire game and got outplayed by a bunch of no names. This is the tipping point that will get the real refs back and there will never be a controversial call ever again. And you can sleep tight tonight in your bed of righteousness.

[RoyTheHammer]

And you can stick to your narrative that the replacement refs stole the game from the mighty Packers, not that they got beat up the entire game and got outplayed by a bunch of no names. This is the tipping point that will get the real refs back and there will never be a controversial call ever again. And you can sleep tight tonight in your bed of righteousness.

What are you talking about man? I just got done saying how lucky we as a group of fans are to have the only two reasonable football fans in the country right here on this board with us. We're very lucky here. Keep up the great work man!

:)


BTW.. that "group of no names", who admitted they lost that game, wink wink, is the same group of no names that kicked our butts the previous week too.

[RoyTheHammer]

Whaaaa??

The real refs are back so soon?

Amazing that all of a sudden the NFL would be working 17 hour days to try and negotiate hard to get the deal done. Quite a sudden eagerness to hit the bargaining table when they already had very competent officials like the ones in the GB and Seattle game working. Strange, huh guys?

:confused:

[bkight13]

Kinda blows the whole Jennings clearly had it first story

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg)

[RoyTheHammer]

Kinda blows the whole Jennings clearly had it first story

<a href="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg)


:laugh2:

[WPBCowboysFan]

Kinda blows the whole Jennings clearly had it first story

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg)

He doesnt want to see it.

Nobody wants to see it.

Its already been determined that the call was horrible.

Its like trying to get a blind man to see the sun during the day, or the stars at night.

[RoyTheHammer]

He doesnt want to see it.

Nobody wants to see it.

Its already been determined that the call was horrible.

Its like trying to get a blind man to see the sun during the day, or the stars at night.

You guys are funny. :)

[DFWJC]

People are sooooo dumb

This is what I'm telling everyone
At least this time GloryDays, what you have been telling them was wrong.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Kinda blows the whole Jennings clearly had it first story

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8039/8028823855_38771e181e_b.jpg)

I don't see how. In this photo, it doesn't look as if either player has made contact yet. It looks as if the ball has not been caught yet.

[RoyTheHammer]

I don't see how. In this photo, it doesn't look as if either player has made contact yet. It looks as if the ball has not been caught yet.

Even if they had, this photo doesn't show the fact that Jennings kept both his hands and arms wrapped around the ball the entire time, while Tate was slapping at it with one arm the entire way down to the ground and had his hand on Jennings arm coming down, not the ball.

The bottom line is its pretty clear to everyone who caught the ball expect for a couple guys who seem content to keep acting silly about it.