if the refs get this call wrong...

[JoeyBoy718]

There has to be a change tomorrow. Seattle just threw a hail mary to beat the Packers. Blatant offensive pass interference by Seattle, and it was clearly intercepted by Green Bay, yet they rule it a touchdown in favor of the Seahawks. What the .............?

 

[newlander]

There has to be a change tomorrow. Seattle just threw a hail mary to beat the Packers. Blatant offensive pass interference by Seattle, and it was clearly intercepted by Green Bay, yet they rule it a touchdown in favor of the Seahawks. What the .............?

......Golden cheapshot, lil' punk Tate got away with murder pretty much: The WHOLE thing is such a circus I just laughed my butt off.....Goodell has himself a clown show: CONGRATS ROG!!!!!!!!

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Even with the blatant push by Tate, the ball was still clearly caught my Jennings. Haha this is ridiculous.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I still have yet to get the feeling that the 'real' refs would not make the same screwups. The problem is that when they bring the real refs back, it doesn't mean that the refereeing will get better.

My guess is that since Kraft and Mara run the league and Kraft feels like he's been screwed and the Packers are one of the darlings of the NFL, we'll see the real refs back within 2 weeks.







YR

 

[Smith22]

Blatant PI on Tate. And the earlier Pi cal on the Packers was garbage.

Horrible job by the so called refs........

 

[JoeyBoy718]

They were just talking to a guy who was a ref for 27 years and he was talking about what happened. Anyway, so, if you didn't see, two refs came over and signaled 2 different things. One from came from the front and one ref came from the back, and at the same exact time, one ref signaled touchdown and the other signaled touchback (meaning interception in the end zone). The retired ref who was explaining the situation said that the head ref would come over if there were 2 refs seeing the same thing, and he would ask them if they agreed on the call, and if they didn't, he would go with the most logical explanation. Anyway, so you would never see 2 refs make conflicting signals at the same exact time. It's just embarassing.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

There has to be a change tomorrow. Seattle just threw a hail mary to beat the Packers. Blatant offensive pass interference by Seattle, and it was clearly intercepted by Green Bay, yet they rule it a touchdown in favor of the Seahawks. What the f...

the replay officials are not replacements. they certainly had a chance to reverse this call.

 

[kirkjrk]

There has to be a change tomorrow. Seattle just threw a hail mary to beat the Packers. Blatant offensive pass interference by Seattle, and it was clearly intercepted by Green Bay, yet they rule it a touchdown in favor of the Seahawks. What the f...

It was an interception, but if GB had played the last 1 minute correctly this would not have happened.

!. Instead of punting the punter should have stepped out of the end zone and taken a safety and then punted from the 20 to Seattle. Seattle would have gotten the ball about their own 30-35 with about .45 seconds left.

2. The rule on 4th down,like it was, is not to try to intercept the ball ,as that gains you nothing, but rather knock the ball down--game over.

 

[wittenacious]

IF, you say?

Not lookin' good for the temp refs at all. Think they gave over to home town emotions in Seattle. They will be crucified in the media this week... and beyond.

Wasn't the first questionable/bad/horrific call to end an NFL game, won't be the last... temp refs or regulars.

Bad call!!!

 

[SkinsFan28]

It was an interception, but if GB had played the last 1 minute correctly this would not have happened.

!. Instead of punting the punter should have stepped out of the end zone and taken a safety and then punted from the 20 to Seattle. Seattle would have gotten the ball about their own 30-35 with about .45 seconds left.

2. The rule on 4th down,like it was, is not to try to intercept the ball ,as that gains you nothing, but rather knock the ball down--game over.

I thought about the safety option but then seattle would only have needed a fg to tie, and if you already had one crazy pi call like gb did, would you want to trust the refs to get that right?

true, he could have batted the ball. but there would have been two seahawks right under where the ball would have been knocked down to.

 

[CrownCowboy]

Haven't seen anything like this before. It was an absolutely horrendous call that decided a game.

With that being said, the original officials were still atrocious themselves. I can remember many many calls over the years that did the exact same thing: decide the game. Maybe it wasn't as blatant, maybe it wasn't as dramatic, but they were bad too.

I guess officiating NFL games is really hard, because no matter who they trot out there, nobody can do it were a ****.

Unbelievable....

 

[Idgit]

Espn did a poor job explaining the simultaneous possession rule. Anybody know if the degree one player appears to possess the ball matters if more than one player has possession? Or does any tie go to the offense, irrespective of who's got the 'better' grip?

 

[Eric_Boyer]

With that being said, the original officials were still atrocious themselves. I can remember many many calls over the years that did the exact same thing: decide the game. Maybe it wasn't as blatant, maybe it wasn't as dramatic, but they were bad too.

sycophants like Gruden didn't make the mistake as dramatic, but they were.

kind of funny Seattle is in on this. their entire fan base can just point to their super bowl loss as an example of regular refs making a fiasco of things on a much bigger stage.

 

[CrownCowboy]

sycophants like Gruden didn't make the mistake as dramatic, but they were.

kind of funny Seattle is in on this. their entire fan base can just point to their super bowl loss as an example of regular refs making a fiasco of things on a much bigger stage.

Yep.

To this day in my opinion, THAT Super Bowl was the worst officiated game I have ever watched. It was an atrocity.

People can act like this is as bad as it gets with the officials and don't get me wrong, it is bad. Just go back in time to all of the other games with the regular guys and you'll realize that it really isn't that much different. Then go back to that Steelers/Seahawks Super Bowl and try not to throw up.

 

[Mr_Bill]

I still have yet to get the feeling that the 'real' refs would not make the same screwups. The problem is that when they bring the real refs back, it doesn't mean that the refereeing will get better.

My guess is that since Kraft and Mara run the league and Kraft feels like he's been screwed and the Packers are one of the darlings of the NFL, we'll see the real refs back within 2 weeks.







YR

While it is evident that the 'real' refs often screwed up, too, the replacements seem to be missing certain things: player protection (helmet-to-helmet contact, cut blocks), pass interference, chippy playing after the whistle blows, etc. that the regular refs usually controlled.

I watched Jaworski for a little while, and he claims that, as it often is for a rookie player, the league is just too fast for these new refs. Things happen much more quickly that they are not even used to seeing at the lower levels.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

the replay officials are not replacements. they certainly had a chance to reverse this call.

I may be wrong, but simultaneous possesion is not reviewable. So after the call on the field was made, the only thing that could've caused them to over turn it would be if the ball hit the ground.

 

[kTXe]

Espn did a poor job explaining the simultaneous possession rule. Anybody know if the degree one player appears to possess the ball matters if more than one player has possession? Or does any tie go to the offense, irrespective of who's got the 'better' grip?

I know exactly what you mean, and this was my initial thought as well. However, the rule doesn't speak of possession, but of control. I think Tate having only one hand on the ball initially (with his other hand on Jennings' arm and later away from the ball entirely before getting both hands on the ball when going to the ground) while Jennings had both hands on the ball the entire time suggests that Jennings had control. While both guys had possession of the ball at the end of the play, I think Jennings established initial control, with Tate establishing subsequent control, and the play should have been ruled an INT.

It's a poorly-worded rule, and I agree that ESPN did a horrible job analyzing it. They seemed intent on discussing who had "better possession" (or something like that), but it has no place in the rule. I think that if Tate had gotten both hands on the ball initially, and kept them there the whole time, the call would have been correct. With only one hand on the ball though, I don't believe he had control. It's not nearly as clear as most of the talking heads have made it out to be, though I agree with them that it was the wrong call.

I'm curious what the reaction would have been had the call go the other way (i.e. it was ruled an INT). My feeling is that there would be a significant number of people claiming the call was wrong, and that it was a simultaneous catch. I don't think the outcry would be as strong as it is right now, though.

I'm not sure about this, but I also feel that the analysts are wrong in saying that, if nothing else, the play should have been overturned by the replay booth. I'm under the impression that a judgment call like that would not be up for review, only whether the ball hit the ground (or something of that nature). If that's wrong, someone please correct me.

One thing that the refs absolutely did screw up on that play, IMO, was failing to huddle before making a final ruling. It was an incredibly difficult call to make live, and I think a huddle may have resulted in the correct call.

 

[burmafrd]

since all scoring plays are reviewed, the final call really is still with the ref in the booth; what he says is what the chief ref will go along with. And all of them are former regular refs.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Tate must have the refs on payroll. :laugh2:

 

[YosemiteSam]

I may be wrong, but simultaneous possesion is not reviewable. So after the call on the field was made, the only thing that could've caused them to over turn it would be if the ball hit the ground.

Except for the fact that there wasn't simultaneous possession until after the INT. Though, I don't know if what you're saying is even true.