Packers-Seahawks debacle
Quote: NFL.com
When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:
Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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.
Full Article Here
For me the applicable bit (in bold) is why it should have been ruled no-TD. I admit that my knowledge of the game is limited. Only started watching non Superbowl games last season.
------------------------------
NFL STATEMENT ON FINAL PLAY
OF GREEN BAY PACKERS-SEATTLE SEAHAWKS GAME
In Monday's game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks, Seattle faced a 4th-and-10 from the Green Bay 24 with eight seconds remaining in the game.
Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.
While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.
When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.
Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
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.
The result of the game is final.
--------------------------------------
Or, again quoting Deadspin, "In conclusion: fuck you."
So, replay CAN be used to determine possession in the end zone. And they still screwed it up.
Quote: MoscaIn the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
Since this happened in the end zone, wouldn't this seem to say that not only did the refs get the initial call wrong, but blew the chance to overturn it on replay, which they were allowed to do, as well?
Quote: WizardSince this happened in the end zone, wouldn't this seem to say that not only did the refs get the initial call wrong, but blew the chance to overturn it on replay, which they were allowed to do, as well?
Pretty much. So they blew not only the pass interference call, they blew an easy opportunity to correct an obviously incorrect call.
Quote: WizardSince this happened in the end zone, wouldn't this seem to say that not only did the refs get the initial call wrong, but blew the chance to overturn it on replay, which they were allowed to do, as well?
Quoting Profootballtalk.com,
Quote:Under normal circumstances, the decision would be made exclusively by the referee. Now, with the non-replacement league supervisor in the replay booth along with the non-replacement replay official, the procedure has been, we’re told, blurred a bit, allowing the replacement referee to get input from the folks who otherwise would be saying, essentially, “Figure it out, Hochuli.”
If the non-replacement replay official and the non-replacement league supervisor didn’t tell the replacement referee to overturn the call, the non-replacements deserve a lot of the blame.
Make no mistake about it. This one could have been overturned.
So yeah, they blew it, especially if the league supervisor in the replay booth didn't clue them in to the right call.
Quote: Michael SilverDramatic as it may sound, it's quite possible that history will look back on Tate's illusory jump-ball touchdown as the moment the NFL jumped the shark.
Great quote.
From http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--seahawks-rb-marshawn-lynch-stunned-at-replay-of-controversial-final-play-monday-night.html
Quote: WizardQuestion: Does NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have a "nuclear option" to overrule the replay officials, and say it was "no touchdown" the next day?
Id guess not. Once the game is officially over, thats that, right or wrong.
Quote: WizardQuestion: Does NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have a "nuclear option" to overrule the replay officials, and say it was "no touchdown" the next day?
On the Colin Cowherd show a provision that would allow this was referenced. In may opinion Goodell won't as it will set a dangerous precedent, but if there was ever a time to do so, it would be here ... last play, nothing that would be affected afterwards (other than an estimated hundreds of millions in bets, lol).
Quote: buzzpaffSeattle won, Case Closed. Whine somewhere else .
I second that emotion. In a few weeks there will be other calls to whine about. Not the first so-called "bad call" to affect a game and won't be the last.
Quote: buzzpaffSeattle won, Case Closed. Whine somewhere else .
I second that emotion. In a few weeks there will be other calls to whine about. Not the first so-called "bad call" to affect a game and won't be the last.
How many other bad calls along the way would have had a different game result. More than 1, that's for sure.
Not the ref's fault Green bay could not put the game away when it mattered. Can't wait till the whiners start complaining about a coach's stupid play call next week.
SEATTLE WON !
Quote: WizardQuestion: Does NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have a "nuclear option" to overrule the replay officials, and say it was "no touchdown" the next day?
He does. He can do virtually anything 'in the best interests of the game'..... But it would be a HUGE error for him to reverse the outcome. There have been other errors throughout sports that cost teams games, and if you open that door, the floodgates will be open....
As far as the money, most are saying the 3 million is 'nothing' to the NFL, but then the groundskeepers want an extra million, the ticket takers want an extra million, the security guards want an extra 2 million, etc.... I think right now the refs get around $10,000 per game, and want more.... How much should a ref make per game?..... I don't know but it sounds to me like they are already offered a fair amount.... How many of the forum members make $10,000 on a Sunday, or a week, or even a month?
Quote: SOOPOOHow many of the forum members make $10,000 on a Sunday, or a week, or even a month?
I'd bet a larger-than-average percentage of forum members make $10,000 a month. Aren't you a physician?
And I've had the occasional $10,000 week. I've also had the much more-occasional $0 week, and $0 month -- such is billable work.
Quote: SOOPOOHe does. He can do virtually anything 'in the best interests of the game'..... But it would be a HUGE error for him to reverse the outcome. There have been other errors throughout sports that cost teams games, and if you open that door, the floodgates will be open....
As far as the money, most are saying the 3 million is 'nothing' to the NFL, but then the groundskeepers want an extra million, the ticket takers want an extra million, the security guards want an extra 2 million, etc.... I think right now the refs get around $10,000 per game, and want more.... How much should a ref make per game?..... I don't know but it sounds to me like they are already offered a fair amount.... How many of the forum members make $10,000 on a Sunday, or a week, or even a month?
And surely the refs can decide to withdraw their labour if they so which... or the NFL can offer what they feel is fair. If the price is "wrong" for one side, either can walk away. And that's is what has happened. It's not about what is "a good amount" to you or me, but what they can be paid via the market.
New Jersey might be onto something by prohibiting Football with the replacement refs... If Texas, Penna, Ohio, and Calif. join in, the Commish will rue the day.
Hank Stram to a nearby sideline official circa 1968," You know what NFL means?, It means Not For Long if you keep makin calls like that!"
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Luckily no one can dispute that Seattle was the better team !
Quote: WizardQuestion: Does NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have a "nuclear option" to overrule the replay officials, and say it was "no touchdown" the next day?
Not according to the NFL: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066178/article/nfl-roger-goodell-didnt-have-power-to-change-td-call?module=HP11_hot_topics
Basically, he can't undo bad calls. It sounds like the "Unfair Acts" clause would be more appropriate for things like the bribing of officials. Then again, that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules, so maybe the commissioner has the right to interpret that clause however he wants.
Quote: NFL.com Unfair Acts Clausehas sole authority to investigate and to take appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures if any club action, nonparticipant interference, or emergency occurs in an NFL game which he deems so unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of a game
I agree with Axiom. Would be to me something outside the usual parameters of a game, for which bad calls are unfortunately not.
Quote: CroupierI agree with Axiom. Would be to me something outside the usual parameters of a game, for which bad calls are unfortunately not.
Yes it would have to be for a rule violation...not a "judgement call" like the one Monday night.....Like for example if a team had the ball on their opponents 10 yard line with 8 seconds left and was down by 2 and was kicking the game winning field goal...and there was a false start...and the officials didn't enforce the 10 second run off for an offensive penalty and the they were able to kick the game winning field goal after the 5 yards was marked off....the commissioner COULD go back and give the other team the win.....
But even then I SERIOUSLY doubt he would do it...would set a precedent they don't want to set...
Evidently, another online book had previously refunded after Adam Scott choked on the last four holes of the British Open and after the Manny Pacquiao decision, so there was some precedent. Brick-and-mortars aren't likely to follow suit.
Quote: FarFromVegasIt looks like sportsbook.ag is refunding to Packers' bettors, but only that tiny fraction from outside the U.S. and the refund is in the form of a site credit.
Evidently, another online book had previously refunded after Adam Scott choked on the last four holes of the British Open and after the Manny Pacquiao decision, so there was some precedent. Brick-and-mortars aren't likely to follow suit.
That seems very odd. When you place the bet, you place it knowing that the game is subject to the decisions of the assigned officials.
Quote: slytherThat seems very odd. When you place the bet, you place it knowing that the game is subject to the decisions of the assigned officials.
I would guess they do it for the press it generates. USAToday article
Watch a hockey game or a soccer match ? Talk about 2 rotten choices !
Quote: buzzpaffWatch a hockey game or a soccer match ? Talk about 2 rotten choices !
Different strokes for different folks. I was just pointing out that things could be worse.
We like to complain about replacement refs, the "N.ew F.airy L.eague" contact rules, disdains, disapprovals, disappointments, and disgusts.
But we still have the best football on the planet, with great coverage, entertaining 10s of millions of people. It's just now, things got a little intersting...er.
I can get over hockey, and do so every week when I step out on the ice. But I severely resent missing Don Cherry. Without him, my life lacks color. (Really, his suits are the only thing powerful enough to make it past my colorblindness) ;)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/sep/26/d-las-vegas-casino-refunding-losing-packers-bets/
Or any of my gay friends for that matter.
You sure wouldn't be able to call yourself FACE for long...
Quote: WongBoI would love to see you call someone in the NFL a fairy,
Or any of my gay friends for that matter.
You sure wouldn't be able to call yourself FACE for long...
Crikey!
Fairy in mythological terms (I am an RPG and JRPG gamer) is a being of good will and peace. 1970's football is that of warriors. 2012 football is that of fairies.
I use it in slang to describe someone who participates in a game of warriors that whines, cries, and/or carries on like a baby (as I see in the new NFL). If I knew of a football player who was gay, I'd refer to him as...gay, or, more likely, by his name.
Edit: And if ever I meet Tom Brady, I will address him as King Fairy of the Princess Fortress, guaranteed.
(among many other reasons) (and let's not pretend you were referencing mythological faeries)
I just don't think it is acceptable, and I don't care when certain members whine about political correctness.
Quote: PokeraddictThe D is refunding Packers bets. This seems like just free press. What percentage of those tickets ended up in the garbage or were from tourists? I suspect virtually all of them.
What does that do for the precedence everyone spoke of? I agree that it is probably a PR move, for reasons you stated. I wonder if it'll come back to haunt them...
Quote: sodawaterThere's actually a series of NFL/Direct TV commercials where football players dress up and appears as fairies!
LOL yup. Deion is definitely a fairy. AMAZING CB, but completely avoided contact at all cost.
Quote: WongBoI just bristle at the use of homophobic slang, as it is one of the leading instances of bullying of kids in the U.S.
(among many other reasons) (and let's not pretend you were referencing mythological faeries)
I just don't think it is acceptable, and I don't care when certain members whine about political correctness.
I get it. But too much passion can be a bad thing. In this case, here's a guy who's taken the pro-gay side on nearly every WoV issue, have and has had numerous gay friends, has a gay girlfriend, and you just insinuated he would incur physical violence over your misunderstanding of his use of a word.
What other reference could I have been making? Fairy is not my general parlance for gay. In reference to sports, it's any player who is many parts fancy and few parts grimey. Deion Sanders was a fairy. Tom Brady is a fairy. James Harrison is a warrior. Ronnie Lott was a supreme badass. If you get scared on a cross route, stop running, and miss the catch - fairy. If you take a vicious shot to the face like Deion Branch vs Ed Reed last week and come up with the catch - badass. Just my opinion. Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It may have come to have a slightly less direct meaning, but I still maintain it is offensive to a lot of people.
A llot of people use the word fag around and to their friends without considering it's history either.
Do you think that the use of the N word is ok because a lot of young guys use it to mean "guy"?
A lot of older balck people and African American people find it offensive because of its history.
In my world, if I wouldn't use a word in a job interview, I just wouldn't use it among people I don't really know.
But hey, it's a free cowntry.
Do you.
