Seattle beat Dallas...without a nimrod call.allcat wrote:That call would have been a lot better, if it would have gone against the Cowboys.
Packers / Sea Hawks ???
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
- CatBlitz
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7589
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:27 pm
- Location: B Town
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the griz blew a 22-0 lead.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 19218
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
- Location: An endless run of moguls
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
According to the NFL rulebook it was a simultaneous catch. The Packer may have had a better grip on the ball, but they both had a grip on it and the rule doesn't say anything about one player have a better grip. They both had it and came down with it in the end zone, which means that once the simultaneous catch was made the play was over and it didn't matter what it looked like as they were falling down or when they were on the ground. If you have possession, which by rule the Seahawk did, and you're across the goal line it's a touchdown.
It was obvious pass interference, however the so-called experts and real experts all seem to agree that on a Hail Mary anything goes. That's been the case, apparently, since Drew Pearson pushed Nate Wright down in the last seconds of a first round playoff game to invent the term.
Mike Tirico has no business criticizing the refs. If you listen to his live call of the play he flat out states that they both caught the ball. In general, people in the media and many fans are really looking bad in their attack of the NFL and replacement refs on this one call. The other refs are more knowledgeable and better trained than the replacements, but I doubt that this would've played out any differently had they been on the field and its not like they haven't blown calls before as someone mentioned check out the Seahawks-Steelers Super Bowl.
It was obvious pass interference, however the so-called experts and real experts all seem to agree that on a Hail Mary anything goes. That's been the case, apparently, since Drew Pearson pushed Nate Wright down in the last seconds of a first round playoff game to invent the term.
Mike Tirico has no business criticizing the refs. If you listen to his live call of the play he flat out states that they both caught the ball. In general, people in the media and many fans are really looking bad in their attack of the NFL and replacement refs on this one call. The other refs are more knowledgeable and better trained than the replacements, but I doubt that this would've played out any differently had they been on the field and its not like they haven't blown calls before as someone mentioned check out the Seahawks-Steelers Super Bowl.
MSU - 15 team National Champions (most recent 2021); 57 individual National Champions (most recent 2023).
toM StUber
toM StUber
- catamaran
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:31 pm
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
if you're keeping score, France gave us Burgundy wine, cigarettes, berets, B.O., brie and the Napoleon complex-Bill Simmons
- LTown Cat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5580
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:26 pm
- Location: Lewistown, MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
- LTown Cat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5580
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:26 pm
- Location: Lewistown, MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
This was my thoughts also. Seems more like a rule needs to be updated or revised. Very similar to the infamous "tuck rule" with the Raiders in the playoffs a few years back...TomCat88 wrote:According to the NFL rulebook it was a simultaneous catch. The Packer may have had a better grip on the ball, but they both had a grip on it and the rule doesn't say anything about one player have a better grip. They both had it and came down with it in the end zone, which means that once the simultaneous catch was made the play was over and it didn't matter what it looked like as they were falling down or when they were on the ground. If you have possession, which by rule the Seahawk did, and you're across the goal line it's a touchdown.
It was obvious pass interference, however the so-called experts and real experts all seem to agree that on a Hail Mary anything goes. That's been the case, apparently, since Drew Pearson pushed Nate Wright down in the last seconds of a first round playoff game to invent the term.
Mike Tirico has no business criticizing the refs. If you listen to his live call of the play he flat out states that they both caught the ball. In general, people in the media and many fans are really looking bad in their attack of the NFL and replacement refs on this one call. The other refs are more knowledgeable and better trained than the replacements, but I doubt that this would've played out any differently had they been on the field and its not like they haven't blown calls before as someone mentioned check out the Seahawks-Steelers Super Bowl.
In my mind where the officials blew it was making different calls and not getting together to make the same call.
- catamaran
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:31 pm
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
Jim Daopolis, former NFL official and now NBC sports officiating guru. All scoring plays are reviewed and simultaneous catch/possession is one of the things they can review in the end zone. Anywhere else on the field it is a judgement call and can't be challenged. The reason I mentioned Phil Luckett earlier is that he's the NFL supervisor who was assigned to that game and supposed to be helping the replacements. He's best known as the referee who blew the overtime coin toss during the Pittsburgh Detroit Thanksgiving day gameLTown Cat wrote:Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
if you're keeping score, France gave us Burgundy wine, cigarettes, berets, B.O., brie and the Napoleon complex-Bill Simmons
- LTown Cat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5580
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:26 pm
- Location: Lewistown, MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
Interesting, thanks.catamaran wrote:Jim Daopolis, former NFL official and now NBC sports officiating guru. All scoring plays are reviewed and simultaneous catch/possession is one of the things they can review in the end zone. Anywhere else on the field it is a judgement call and can't be challenged. The reason I mentioned Phil Luckett earlier is that he's the NFL supervisor who was assigned to that game and supposed to be helping the replacements. He's best known as the referee who blew the overtime coin toss during the Pittsburgh Detroit Thanksgiving day gameLTown Cat wrote:Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
That is very interesting. Apparently, that rule is not very well known, because I heard it mentioned several times yesterday that simultaneous possession was not reviewable, with no mention that scoring plays were an exception to that rule. And this play was not reviewed was it, at least not for the simultaneous possession?catamaran wrote:Jim Daopolis, former NFL official and now NBC sports officiating guru. All scoring plays are reviewed and simultaneous catch/possession is one of the things they can review in the end zone. Anywhere else on the field it is a judgement call and can't be challenged. The reason I mentioned Phil Luckett earlier is that he's the NFL supervisor who was assigned to that game and supposed to be helping the replacements. He's best known as the referee who blew the overtime coin toss during the Pittsburgh Detroit Thanksgiving day gameLTown Cat wrote:Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
-
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:54 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
That's exactly what they said on the Monday Night Football broadcast as well. That upon review the only thing that could change would be if Golden Tate landed out of bounds. Simultaneous possession was not something that could be reviewed from the booth.John K wrote:That is very interesting. Apparently, that rule is not very well known, because I heard it mentioned several times yesterday that simultaneous possession was not reviewable, with no mention that scoring plays were an exception to that rule. And this play was not reviewed was it, at least not for the simultaneous possession?catamaran wrote:Jim Daopolis, former NFL official and now NBC sports officiating guru. All scoring plays are reviewed and simultaneous catch/possession is one of the things they can review in the end zone. Anywhere else on the field it is a judgement call and can't be challenged. The reason I mentioned Phil Luckett earlier is that he's the NFL supervisor who was assigned to that game and supposed to be helping the replacements. He's best known as the referee who blew the overtime coin toss during the Pittsburgh Detroit Thanksgiving day gameLTown Cat wrote:Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
Here's the biggest mistake of the night. I'm a WOA (Washington Officials Association) varsity basketball official. Each night there are two umpires and one referee. The referee is usually the one that does the jump ball to start the game. If there is a questionable call or differing calls on the same play as the referee I would confer with both umpires and then make the final call. The same is true in football.The guy with the white hat should have ran down there, conferred with both officials as to what they say and then overruled the official that called the touchdown if he felt it should be overturned. Then the booth can review.
My question is if the Packers threw their challenge flag could something more have been reviewed? I know the Packers used a challenge earlier in the game to determine the spot of the ball. So mabye they were out. I don't know the challenge rules well enough to know if that is the case.
- LTown Cat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5580
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:26 pm
- Location: Lewistown, MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
I don't think you can challenge scoring plays as they are all booth reviewed automatically this year...could be wrong though.Bobcat4Life wrote:That's exactly what they said on the Monday Night Football broadcast as well. That upon review the only thing that could change would be if Golden Tate landed out of bounds. Simultaneous possession was not something that could be reviewed from the booth.John K wrote:That is very interesting. Apparently, that rule is not very well known, because I heard it mentioned several times yesterday that simultaneous possession was not reviewable, with no mention that scoring plays were an exception to that rule. And this play was not reviewed was it, at least not for the simultaneous possession?catamaran wrote:Jim Daopolis, former NFL official and now NBC sports officiating guru. All scoring plays are reviewed and simultaneous catch/possession is one of the things they can review in the end zone. Anywhere else on the field it is a judgement call and can't be challenged. The reason I mentioned Phil Luckett earlier is that he's the NFL supervisor who was assigned to that game and supposed to be helping the replacements. He's best known as the referee who blew the overtime coin toss during the Pittsburgh Detroit Thanksgiving day gameLTown Cat wrote:Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
Here's the biggest mistake of the night. I'm a WOA (Washington Officials Association) varsity basketball official. Each night there are two umpires and one referee. The referee is usually the one that does the jump ball to start the game. If there is a questionable call or differing calls on the same play as the referee I would confer with both umpires and then make the final call. The same is true in football.The guy with the white hat should have ran down there, conferred with both officials as to what they say and then overruled the official that called the touchdown if he felt it should be overturned. Then the booth can review.
My question is if the Packers threw their challenge flag could something more have been reviewed? I know the Packers used a challenge earlier in the game to determine the spot of the ball. So mabye they were out. I don't know the challenge rules well enough to know if that is the case.
-
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:54 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
I wasn't sure either. I guess that makes sense that they are already reviewed so what good would a challenge do.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
So if that is the standard protocol for high school and college sports, why did these guys not do that? All of the replacement officials have worked games at lower levels. It's not like they just pulled some guys off the street to work the NFL games. I can see them missing calls that the regular refs wouldn't, due to the speed of the game. But conferring on difficult calls is SOP at pretty much every level of competition, so that concept shouldn't be anything new for the replacement refs, just because it's the NFL rather than college or high school.Bobcat4Life wrote:That's exactly what they said on the Monday Night Football broadcast as well. That upon review the only thing that could change would be if Golden Tate landed out of bounds. Simultaneous possession was not something that could be reviewed from the booth.John K wrote:That is very interesting. Apparently, that rule is not very well known, because I heard it mentioned several times yesterday that simultaneous possession was not reviewable, with no mention that scoring plays were an exception to that rule. And this play was not reviewed was it, at least not for the simultaneous possession?catamaran wrote:Jim Daopolis, former NFL official and now NBC sports officiating guru. All scoring plays are reviewed and simultaneous catch/possession is one of the things they can review in the end zone. Anywhere else on the field it is a judgement call and can't be challenged. The reason I mentioned Phil Luckett earlier is that he's the NFL supervisor who was assigned to that game and supposed to be helping the replacements. He's best known as the referee who blew the overtime coin toss during the Pittsburgh Detroit Thanksgiving day gameLTown Cat wrote:Where did you see that? It was stated pretty clearly on SportCenter that who caught the ball was unreviewable after the call was made on the field. They could only review that it was in bounds, didn't touch the ground, etc.catamaran wrote:simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewedJohn K wrote:Something that's been lost in all the discussion about the final play of the game last night, is that this could have been easily fixed if only the NFL allowed "mutual possession" to be reviewed for plays like this. It seems to defy all logic that they can review this play for other reasons, but determing who actually had possession of the ball cannot be disputed once the officials on the field have made the call. That stupid rule is at least as responsible for this injustice, as are the officials who made the call on the field. I'm surprised that none of the ESPN "talking heads" have approached this story from that angle. The replacement officials may suck, but in this case at least, an incorrect call could have been remedied simply by expanding the scope of video review to include disputed possession calls such as this.
Here's the biggest mistake of the night. I'm a WOA (Washington Officials Association) varsity basketball official. Each night there are two umpires and one referee. The referee is usually the one that does the jump ball to start the game. If there is a questionable call or differing calls on the same play as the referee I would confer with both umpires and then make the final call. The same is true in football.The guy with the white hat should have ran down there, conferred with both officials as to what they say and then overruled the official that called the touchdown if he felt it should be overturned. Then the booth can review.
My question is if the Packers threw their challenge flag could something more have been reviewed? I know the Packers used a challenge earlier in the game to determine the spot of the ball. So mabye they were out. I don't know the challenge rules well enough to know if that is the case.
- catamaran
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:31 pm
Re: Packers / Sea Hawks ???
about everyone's favorite official
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--new-a ... s-are.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--new-a ... s-are.html
if you're keeping score, France gave us Burgundy wine, cigarettes, berets, B.O., brie and the Napoleon complex-Bill Simmons