MNF: Packers at Seahawks [Merge]

[zachtn88]

yah when the both have control of the ball . . . do you?

btw, I think a good hint to you in this case is that they were both interlocked and fighting for a full three seconds . . .common sense dictates they both both had they hands on the ball . . . its not as complicated as you may think . . . we just need to use a little common sense and the principles of physics . . . i.e. if Tate did not have control of the ball, the defender, who happens to be fighting for his life to seperate the ball from tate on the last play of the game, who not be taking his sweet time and do it in three seconds . . . just a thought and some help from out friend Issac Newton (no relation to Cam )

You could be standing there holding the ball while I run up to you and grab the ball and knock you down and we wrestle on the ground for 3 seconds does that mean the ball becomes mine? The point is he stuck his hands in after the ball was caught by Jennings.

[Jules]

From a Packers fan

BREAKING - JaMarcus Russell eyeing return to NFL after discovering games can be won by throwing interceptions."

[NewColtsFan]

Honestly, people are taking everything too seriously. Football is a game. Football is meant as entertainment, and that is exactly what we're getting. Entertainment in ways we didn't quite expect? Sure, but it's still entertainment. Just try to remember that at the end of the day, what happened on the field doesn't actually matter. It's what happens off the field that's important

Look at your last sentence of your post. It's what happens on the field that's important.

Well, what happened on the field was an abomination. And what the players will tell you, is that football is not just a game and entertainment.... it's also a business, and it's BIG business. One of the biggest in the U.S.

It's why this thread is nearly 300 posts in just a few hours time.

[Vance]

yah when the both have control of the ball . . . do you?

btw, I think a good hint to you in this case is that they were both interlocked and fighting for a full three seconds . . .common sense dictates they both both had they hands on the ball . . . its not as complicated as you may think . . . we just need to use a little common sense and the principles of physics . . . i.e. if Tate did not have control of the ball, the defender, who happens to be fighting for his life to seperate the ball from tate on the last play of the game, who not be taking his sweet time and do it in three seconds . . . just a thought and some help from out friend Issac Newton (no relation to Cam )

So apparently according to you, if a runner finishes first in a race, then the other finishes second, it's a tie. Awesome.

[ruksak]

So apparently according to you, if a runner finishes first in a race, then the other finishes second, it's a tie. Awesome.

ONLY if the second guy is touching the first guy. No take-backsies.

[Fx Stryker]

Holy %! I just seen what happened in the game. Did that really just happen? WOW! Ridiculous.

[GoColts8818]

If Tate did do that they probably would have ruled it unnecessary roughness on Jennings for being so darn heavy

I am not saying they make mistakes but I heard a rumor that one ref tried to give the falcons two points for tony Gonzalez's shot of the football over the cross bar celebration don't worry another official corrected him and gave him three because he was beyond the arch!

[coltsfanmilyman]

There are really two travesties of this game in my opinion. First and foremost what is getting lost is Seattle Punked and I mean punked GB! Wow they manhandled them and secondly that interview with Tate after the game lets you know everything you need to know about that play. Dude lied through his teeth to every person watching on TV. Not to mention that he gave glory to god right before he lied. . . .

Goddell just watched the replacement refs blow a game and cost a team a loss. All the pundits said that it would take something like this to get things done. . . .Well here it is. . . .

[ruksak]

Dude lied through his teeth to every person watching on TV. Not to mention that he gave glory to god right before he lied. . . .

Just like this guy?

First and foremost what is getting lost is Seattle Punked and I mean punked GB! Wow they manhandled them...

Defensively in the first half, yes. After that, GB took back every bit of momentum and won that game. ....and then "IT" happened.

[Poster X]

again, people are seeing what they want, think or wish to see . . . your guess is as good as mine and when its 50/50 on what is what, well then lets just say that 50/50 is a tie and in that case ties goes to the runner and offense . . .

There was no tie. If you look closely at the video Tate never even has a hand on the ball until the Packers player comes down on him. It looked like at one point he also took his hand(s) off the ball afterward. This call is just completely and utterly ridiculous.

Something tells me Mr. Yehoodi is all for this because this make the tuck rule one of the two worst calls ever.

[stat2883]

that pic was taken a full THREE seconds after the the simultaneous possession, possession to offense, thus TD, play dead . . .

I know the person who posted that is trying to show something that it is not . .

please see the video on NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/v..._headline_stack

you will notice the first video is the play in question . . .both players come down and simultaneous possession happens then they land on the ground, at roughly the 16 second mark of the video . . . at this point in time we have simultaneous possession, possesion then reverts to the offense, so we have offense possession of the ball in the end zone which then equals TD, at the point the play is dead as a door nail and nothing subsequent to that can effect the play . . .

it is a nice try by the twitter guy but it is not a reflection of the play . . .

yeah I know it was after both players were down, but what it shows is essentially the same thing as when they first hit the ground -- it still comes down to what I said initially, whether or not you feel Tate ever had control. I'm not convinced he did, and we've both seen all the same angles, so it is what it is.

The argument for both sides hinges on something that is subjective, so it can't be argued as fact. If your entire argument hinges on simultaneous possession, and the people you're debating with do not accept that premise, then your argument has no meaning. The same can be said the other way, so what we have now is a bunch of people trying to convince other people that what they saw isn't really what they saw.

[bayone]

as I Posted in Replacement refs , 2 articles , 2 videos and 2 analysis both wrong call

Packers-Seahawks: Green Bay becomes first team 'officially' robbed by replacement refs

Article & Video, and when they even replay the video even before the catch attempt

1st

Golden tate clearly pushes away DB Bush to ground so Tate can even try & go up for it Thats offensive interferance as well

2nd

& Packers Jennings appears to get ball first and then brings ball secure against his chest, if anything tate appears helping him hold it there as he tries to wrestle it away

3rd

1 ref says catch, 1 says no but they give it as TD

Dont just watch initial catch but slow mo replay & seems clear , Video is short

http://aol.sportingn...y-replacement-r

==========================================================

There was no tie. If you look closely at the video Tate never even has a hand on the ball until the Packers player comes down on him. It looked like at one point he also took his hand(s) off the ball afterward. This call is just completely and utterly ridiculous.

Something tells me Mr. Yehoodi is all for this because this make the tuck rule one of the two worst calls ever.

another Video and great explanation of simultaneous catch rule and why it wasnt one, appears Jennings had it first and even if not Tate's hand came off ball, also agree on push off by Tate & why werent there any officials in end zone, they had to come in after to make the call

Finally why did upstairs review get it wrong

http://www.nfl.com/n...tle-seahawks-td

[stat2883]

somewhere Tom Jackson is yelling "Knock it down!!!"

--via some guy on twitter

[chadedward]

The Seahawks D shut down the Packers in the first half. If the Packers would have lived up to their explosive offensive reputation, they wouldn't be crying in the Wheaties today.

[Gramz]

CLUELESS in SEATTLE

[Yehoodi]

You could be standing there holding the ball while I run up to you and grab the ball and knock you down and we wrestle on the ground for 3 seconds does that mean the ball becomes mine? The point is he stuck his hands in after the ball was caught by Jennings.

Jesus people . . . dont confuse standing with being in the air . . . yes if I we STANDING with TWO feet on the ground I would have possession . . . but Jennings was in the air when he first touched the ball . . . the ball then dissappears out of sight between the two players long before Jennings gets his second foot on the ground, so we DONT KNOW the status of, location, or who has control and to what exent, when Jennings gets his second foot on the ground . . . you can not make a determination unless you, well here the ref, has visual confirmation of the status of the ball and possession . . . we can assume all we want, but the ball dissappears from view prior to Jennings getting his second foot down . . . the next time the refs see the ball is when his is over both players who are then wrestling for the ball and in the ref opinion at that point its joint possession . . .

its really no different than a ascrum after a fumble . . . surely "someone" has the first possession and is down by contact, but sometimes the ball might change hands out of sight but the possession is given to the person who has possession the first time the ref see the ball which could be after two or three changes of possession . . . the fact that some one might of initial recovered the ball and was down by contact but subsequently gets the ball stolen from him might not be fair, but it is how it goes, the refs can't make a determination until they are sure who has possession and when the ball is out of sight . . .

Similarly the ball went out of sight and the refs could not make a determintion until they were standing directly over the ball . . .

this is really no different that Pierre Woods in SB 42 . . . the giants fumbled the ball . . . pierre woods clearly fell on the ball and there was no giants within a yard of him . . . so its clear recovery by the Pats . . .95% of the time the refs will give possession to the pats, and the fact that the giants came over and turned Woods over is irrevelant becuase woods is down by contact . . . but our permanent official Mike Carey hesitated in making the call (a reason that still a mystery to me today), and since he hesitated he could not make the call until the insuring scrum was stopped . . . well in the mean time three giants jumped on Woods, turned him over like a turtle and ripped the ball out of his hands (even tho he was down by contact and the play should of been dead) and gain possession from woods by the time the refs broke up th scrum . . . well at that point the refs saw the ball in a giants hand and said they recovered teh fumble . . . yah it was unfair bu becuase Carey hesitated they had to wait till the scrum was over and the Pats lost a fumble recovery in the Giants side of the field in a game they losst 17-14 preventing them from going 19-0 . . . so please dont tell me about fiarness. Changes of possession happen whether they are fair or not . . .

[FightLikeSin]

I'm gonna be so mad when they reveal that the end of the Sea vs GB game was actually being filmed for another Buffalo Wild Wings commercial.

[Yehoodi]

So apparently according to you, if a runner finishes first in a race, then the other finishes second, it's a tie. Awesome.

not no correct, the runner who wins the race is the runner who was first seen by the officials to have crossed the finish line . . .the fact that someone else might of actually finished first but outside the sight of the officials my have actually won the race, but we go by who is the first seen by the refs to be leading the race at the end . . .

it is no different than the Pierre Woods example in my prior post #296 . . ."the fact" that pierre woods had possession of the ball prior to the giants turning him over and stealing the ball doesn't change the end result of the refs seeing the gman with the ball . . . the mistake was made by ref Carey by not calling it pats ball when woods fell on the ball . . .

nor is this any different than a scrum after a fumble . . . surely about 15% of the time someone, in reality, has possession of the ball first, but possession is not given until the refs have visual evidence who has possession which, in that 15% of time may have changed has several times from the intial recoverer, but that does not matter, it is who has possession of the ball once the refs have their first visual evidence, which 15% is not the initial recoverer . . . .might not be fiar but it is how it works . . . this is the reason why players fight for the ball and don't want to get off the scrum until the refs make a call and all know it is undecided until the ref see the ball . ..so all will still fight for it . . .

So in that 15% of the time I can not say to you the following "player one falls on the ball first and gains possession and then a scrum ensures, who has possession"? . . . in realily, like the first runner to cross the finsih line in your example, is the first person who has possession, but how football is administered, it is who is first seen by the refs to have possession . . . just or not . . .

[Yehoodi]

There was no tie. If you look closely at the video Tate never even has a hand on the ball until the Packers player comes down on him. It looked like at one point he also took his hand(s) off the ball afterward. This call is just completely and utterly ridiculous.

Something tells me Mr. Yehoodi is all for this because this make the tuck rule one of the two worst calls ever.

First off, the rule by my man Sir Walt Colemen in the playoff game between the Patriots and the Raiders in which Woodsen successful deflected a pass by Brady will go down in history in my book as one of the bravest calls in the history of our sport . . . . . . as I have said many times some rules might be ovely broad: the end point of a forward pass (tuck point), the spiking of the ball at the feet of a RB whilst under pressure (which is grounding but given an exception) and the throwing away out of the pocket under pressure (which is also gounding but given an exception) , but they are overly broad and may not seem fair in the ulitimate ruling, by they are, alas, rules in the NFL . . . in the tuck game it was correctly call, even tho some don't agree with the end point and/or are frustrated with teh fact that it might of been something different that what the rules view it as, a incomplete pass versus a fumble . . .

but like I have said in a few post already this morning, this is no different than a scrum . . . surely 15% of the time player one might truly and in realily have the intial possession, but if the refs can not see it, they will rule possession to who has the ball the first moment they see the ball . . . and given the fact that the ball dissappeared from ALL of our sights and the two landed on the ground (and which is the first point possession can be awarded to either side) we don't, like in the scrum, know who has possession and where the ball is in who's hands . . . it is not until teh ref comes over and is standing over the two of them that he can first make his call . .. . and at that point, in his opinion, the ref felt that it was joint possession . . . the "fact" that tate might not of gained joint possession until after Jennings was truly down, is not, albiet unfair, controlling in this case . . .

[Yehoodi]

yeah I know it was after both players were down, but what it shows is essentially the same thing as when they first hit the ground -- it still comes down to what I said initially, whether or not you feel Tate ever had control. I'm not convinced he did, and we've both seen all the same angles, so it is what it is.

The argument for both sides hinges on something that is subjective, so it can't be argued as fact. If your entire argument hinges on simultaneous possession, and the people you're debating with do not accept that premise, then your argument has no meaning. The same can be said the other way, so what we have now is a bunch of people trying to convince other people that what they saw isn't really what they saw.

I hear ya . . . and yes this very likey falls into the catagory of what might in really happened is different that what the refs can rule on . . . alas, the ball when out of sight, and its say 70% chance that if we were able to have a clear view of what actually happened at the moment Jennings was down, Jennings might of had sole possession when he hit the ground . . . but we can't say this . . . this falls under teh same catagory as the scrums I mentioned (and the Pierre Woods recovery which likely costs us a 19-0 season, so I have been there before with reality versus refs decision) and the person who truly had possession is not the one that the refs can make the ruling on. . .

[stat2883]

I hear ya . . . and yes this very likey falls into the catagory of what might in really happened is different that what the refs can rule on . . . alas, the ball when out of sight, and its say 70% chance that if we were able to have a clear view of what actually happened at the moment Jennings was down, Jennings might of had sole possession when he hit the ground . . . but we can't say this . . . this falls under teh same catagory as the scrums I mentioned (and the Pierre Woods recovery which likely costs us a 19-0 season, so I have been there before with reality versus refs decision) and the person who truly had possession is not the one that the refs can make the ruling on. . .

yup -- and even the two refs right on top of it couldn't agree on it....and like you said, the ball does disappear from view for a bit, so we're all left to try and fill in the gaps ourselves. You make very good points though man, just unfortunately we're left to debate something no one can clearly see.

I'm curious to see what the NFL's word is on this tomorrow, although I have the feeling they'll side with the ruling by the refs for political motives regardless.

[hawkeyes]

If you look closely at the video Tate never even has a hand on the ball until the Packers player comes down on him.

Easy to see that when you watch it in slow motion and see it 3 dozen times from every possible angle ... see it in real time one time and have to make a call in a split second ... The regulars made what turned out to be bad calls all the time as well.

[Poster X]

First off, the rule by my man Sir Walt Colemen in the playoff game between the Patriots and the Raiders in which Woodsen successful deflected a pass by Brady will go down in history in my book as one of the bravest calls in the history of our sport . . . . . . as I have said many times some rules might be ovely broad: the end point of a forward pass (tuck point), the spiking of the ball at the feet of a RB whilst under pressure (which is grounding but given an exception) and the throwing away out of the pocket under pressure (which is also gounding but given an exception) , but they are overly broad and may not seem fair in the ulitimate ruling, by they are, alas, rules in the NFL . . . in the tuck game it was correctly call, even tho some don't agree with the end point and/or are frustrated with teh fact that it might of been something different that what the rules view it as, a incomplete pass versus a fumble . . .

but like I have said in a few post already this morning, this is no different than a scrum . . . surely 15% of the time player one might truly and in realily have the intial possession, but if the refs can not see it, they will rule possession to who has the ball the first moment they see the ball . . . and given the fact that the ball dissappeared from ALL of our sights and the two landed on the ground (and which is the first point possession can be awarded to either side) we don't, like in the scrum, know who has possession and where the ball is in who's hands . . . it is not until teh ref comes over and is standing over the two of them that he can first make his call . .. . and at that point, in his opinion, the ref felt that it was joint possession . . . the "fact" that tate might not of gained joint possession until after Jennings was truly down, is not, albiet unfair, controlling in this case . . .

You're just grasping at straws. The freaking refs were standing right there. Greg Jennings caught it, and if anything pulled Tate's left arm into his body along with the ball... If you watch the video as his feet hit the ground Tate's right arm is on the outside of his.

[stat2883]

The regulars made what turned out to be bad calls all the time as well.

Yes, no one is perfect, but the regulars were never incompetent to this extent (and I'm referring to the whole season, not just this one play). Basic understanding of NFL rules in many cases is killing them.

[hawkeyes]

Basic understanding of NFL rules in many cases is killing them.

Thats to be expected and as such excusable to an extent. Its the reason why they have regular officiating administrators up in the booth and on the sideline who advise them on rules and administration of the game when need be. It has slowed down the games, but for the most part they have gotten calls correct ...

[SilentHill]

To all of those saying that it was a simultaneous possession. No, just no.

I can tell you what I saw. I saw Jennings with possession of the ball, on his way to the ground, then the official that ruled "TD" clearly lost sight of the ball. The ref in the back, who clearly saw the play in it's entirety from the back, saw Jennings with possession and signaled a time out as if the ball was intercepted. Then the ref who had no visibility into when the DB and WR went to the ground came in and ruled it a TD, he also hesitated as if to say, whoever comes up with the ball gets the ball. It is a true monstrosity to football to allow these people to referee games. If they really wanted to hire scabs they should have hired people with knowledge of NFL rules.

[stat2883]

Thats to be expected and as such excusable to an extent. Its the reason why they have regular officiating administrators up in the booth and on the sideline who advise them on rules and administration of the game when need be. It has slowed down the games, but for the most part they have gotten calls correct ...

excusable is a matter of opinion and extends beyond just the replacement refs, and even with a "regular" guy in the booth and sideline, there have still been too many mistakes that have gone uncorrected. Things as basic as spotting the ball after penalties, extra challenges given, etc. If your opinion is that the replacements are doing fine, then ok. My opinion differs.

[King Colt]

STRIKE! Fans Strike. Players strike. Last nights call in the endzone was the single biggest offfciating blunder in the history of the game. You have to draw a line somewhere. TheNFC central is going to be a very close race and this pathetic blunder couls cost the Packers a Super Bolw ring.Can anyone think of a worse call than the one in the endzone last night?

[stat2883]

http://www.nfl.com/n...call-on-tuesday

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 of the NFL rulebook discusses a simultaneous catch.

"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both 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," the rule states.

That strongly indicates Jennings should have been awarded an interception. Tate never seemed to truly gain joint control. A little known part of the rule explains why it wasn't overturned.

The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

curious to hear NFL's word on this, though like I said before, I expect them to side with the ruling on the field to protect the replacements, so no matter what the league says, everyone will still have their opinion.

[hawkeyes]

The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

Thats the important part ... fans / media etc need to stop complaining that they messed the call up twice.

IMO, Jennings had two hands on the ball while Tate had just one - HOWEVER Jennings did not have two feet on the ground at that time. If he didnt have both feet on the ground he could not have established possession of the ball, let alone sole posssession. Tate had a hand in there while their feet were off the ground - when the came to the ground they both had two hands on the ball. Either way (personal opinions aside) the call IMO was a split second call that was made by an official of the game (inexperienced or not) - I dont blame him or the NFL for the call... it happens.

[Yehoodi]

yup -- and even the two refs right on top of it couldn't agree on it....and like you said, the ball does disappear from view for a bit, so we're all left to try and fill in the gaps ourselves. You make very good points though man, just unfortunately we're left to debate something no one can clearly see.

I'm curious to see what the NFL's word is on this tomorrow, although I have the feeling they'll side with the ruling by the refs for political motives regardless.

yes . . . and this might fall into what is right and just versus the rules of the NFL and how things can be administered . . . in the spirit of things most would agree that it was an INT . . . and as Jennings got his hands on the ball first he should be the one that gets to be the one to get possession, first come first serve if you will . . . or at least, unless it is clearly ripped out of his hands the first guy with the his hands on the ball gets first dibs on possession . . .

but alas, as there is a rule that possession goes to the offense and the refs can not see it till they are right over it, you have this rule that picks the teams that was not with its first hands on the ball . . . I will say tho that I have see many times where a DB will go up for the ball with a WR gets his hands on the ball first and then they both grab it fall to the ground and the ball goes to the offense . . . is not unprecidented but the timing and location of this instance is . . . interestingly a lot of times you hear "a great play by the WR to get his hands on the ball and make the catch" or "the DB was not able to gain control of that and rip it away from the WR"

but with the timing of this and the direct impact of this on a game, and not to mention the agenda many have against the present officials, the commentary and comments by the media are about 180 difference than what they have been in the past on similar plays . . .

lets face it folks, the NFL is an offensive league and for the most part they will err on the side of the offense . . . if this happened, as it has in the past, with the regular officials and its Larry Fitz stealing a catch from a noname DB's INT midway through the second qtr of a game, 75% of the people will be praisng Larry Fitz for his fight and never say die attitude and "what a play by Fitz" to secure that catch and stop and INT . . .

I will be interested too to see how the NFL rules on this . . .

[Yehoodi]

You're just grasping at straws. The freaking refs were standing right there. Greg Jennings caught it, and if anything pulled Tate's left arm into his body along with the ball... If you watch the video as his feet hit the ground Tate's right arm is on the outside of his.

sorry Gandalf . .. I cant agree with you on this one

[Poster X]

sorry Gandalf . .. I cant agree with you on this one

It's ok. We must have looked at different videos.

[Gramz]

It's ok. We must have looked at different videos.

the video I saw, clearly showed Jennings catching the ball... I don't know how anyone disputes that.

[mvbighead]

I don't see this call as being as bad as some are trying to make it out to be.

The real problem of this situation is the defense. Why on earth are you trying to make a catch? Knock it down, when it hits the ground, end of play, you either take possession (it was 4th down so the next down is yours) or the game ends with no time on the clock. There was no need for Jennings to bring that ball in... NONE. Knock it down, throw it out, do something so possession can clearly be established as nill. Coming down with it while having Tate's arm inside your grasp, IMO, leaves a very difficult decision to be made.

[GoColts8818]

http://www.nfl.com/n...call-on-tuesday

curious to hear NFL's word on this, though like I said before, I expect them to side with the ruling on the field to protect the replacements, so no matter what the league says, everyone will still have their opinion.

What else can the league do? Over turn the call and award the game to the packers? That's never been done before when other teams have lost on bad calls and is opening a very dangerous can of worms. They have to back up their refs to the public because frankly I think that's part of the problem they haven't been backing them up and have let coaches and players carry on like school children with substitute teachers. Now if they want to talk to those officials in private and say hey you messed up that's one thing and I bet they will but we won't and shouldn't hear about it.

[PrincetonTiger]

That was a bad call

[WSO]

I actually laughed at how hard he shoved the defender and it wasn't called

[stat2883]

What else can the league do? Over turn the call and award the game to the packers? That's never been done before when other teams have lost on bad calls and is opening a very dangerous can of worms. They have to back up their refs to the public because frankly I think that's part of the problem they haven't been backing them up and have let coaches and players carry on like school children with substitute teachers. Now if they want to talk to those officials in private and say hey you messed up that's one thing and I bet they will but we won't and shouldn't hear about it.

It has happened numerous times in the past where the league will come out and say a given call was messed up, but they won't change the outcome of the game, only acknowledge that a mistake was made. However I don't think they will do that this time for the replacements for exactly the reasons you stated.

[GoColts8818]

It has happened numerous times in the past where the league will come out and say a given call was messed up, but they won't change the outcome of the game, only acknowledge that a mistake was made. However I don't think they will do that this time for the replacements for exactly the reasons you stated.

That's my point all they can really do is say yeah sorry we blew it we will try to do better the next time.