NFL 2012 - Drive to Glory

[Alidar Jarok]

tomalak301 wrote:

---

-I kept reading here last night that this call couldn't be reviewed, and people seemed to have an issue with the fact that it was reviewed. Well, I thought all scoring plays this season were reviewable, so it seemed legit to me.

Every play is reviewable, but it's not reviewable for every single thing. For instance, if a ref decides that forward progress is stopped and blows the play dead, you can't challenge that by saying that he was still moving. Likewise, while you can review to make sure the wide receiver caught the ball, you may not be able to review everything in the scoring play.

They didn't change the rules to say that all scoring plays were reviewable, they changed it so every play was in fact reviewed (just not for the things you can't review) even if the coach didn't challenge.

Also, since when was it an official rule that you had to kick the extra point for the touchdown to count. I always thought if you score a touchdown and it's the end of the game, than you don't need to kick the PAT. Before the PAT, it was 13-12, so that's game over right? In OT, if you score a TD, the game is over and you don't have to kick. I was very confused with both those aspects.

I have no idea. Was there time left at the end of the play or was it completely done?

[tomalak301]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

Every play is reviewable, but it's not reviewable for every single thing. For instance, if a ref decides that forward progress is stopped and blows the play dead, you can't challenge that by saying that he was still moving. Likewise, while you can review to make sure the wide receiver caught the ball, you may not be able to review everything in the scoring play.

They didn't change the rules to say that all scoring plays were reviewable, they changed it so every play was in fact reviewed (just not for the things you can't review) even if the coach didn't challenge.

Good god, it's no wonder these referees aren't doing very well. The rule book itself is like it's written by lawyers (No offense to Lawyers, but they do have that reputation). Makes me more angry that these guys didn't get proper training.

[SmoothieX]

He said, don't blame the Refs themselves, blame the NFL and owners. They knew this Lockout was coming and they didn't force a hand by bringing in these guys and giving them proper training.

I agree completely with that. Fuck the league and the NFLRA equally. Last night I was just watching because I like football. I can't even get into the SNF game as I am biased as a PAts fan.

[InklingStar]

Official NFL statement on the controversy:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...headline_stack

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.

The refs made a lot of bad calls in this game, but at the end they made the correct one.

[Yoda]

^ Sure they did

[Enterprise is Great]

No way in hell that was a simultaneous catch. Just look at the fraking pics! Even Mr. Magoo could've seen that. Fuck the Niffle.

[IndyJones]

InklingStar wrote:

---

Official NFL statement on the controversy:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...headline_stack

The refs made a lot of bad calls in this game, but at the end they made the correct one.

I'll stop arguing this point with you after this post because I see we're talking past each other here.

No one is arguing what the NFL Rules book says, just that the play did not occur in the way that the refs ruled that it did. The NFL statement doesn't change that; it just states what the refs ruled was correct based on on they thought they saw. Since we're arguing about what think they saw, that statement doesn't add anything to the "debate".

I've posted a photo where Jennings has the ball in the air before Tate, and I've posted one right after they hit the ground where Jennings still has the ball and Tate obviously still doesn't.

Since you seem to see to think this play very clearly progressed in a way different from what everyone else here saw after numerous replays, from what every talking head saw last night, can you show us a picture in sequence that shows what you're saying?

[InklingStar]

This post does a good job of explaining what I see:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/9/24/...efense-of-a-td

...there is no such thing as degrees of possession. Either one does, both do, or neither does. And as far as any person can tell, "both do" is the only conclusion you can come to with any degree of certainty.

...

Whether Jennings had more possession in the air or not is irrelevant. There is no such thing as possession in the air. Possession inherently implies two feet, a butt, a shoulder, and elbow, a knee, a hip, some body part touching the ground. At the point when it most mattered, when both players hit the ground, both players had an all but equal claim to the ball. Any rolling or twisting or manhandling afterwards is pointless. Once both players hit the ground in a state of dual possession, the play is dead and it's a touchdown.

...

There are very reasonable arguments to be made that it was an interception. When you break it down and go frame by frame, it looks like Jennings probably has more of a claim to it on the ground. Unfortunately, the official whose call it was to make didn't have the luxury of breaking it down frame by frame. He had to make the bang-bang call as he was watching six players go up and come down, all clawing at the ball. It looked to him like it was dual possession as they came down...

I can see how people can call that an interception, but I cannot see how you can make the claim that Tate had absolutely no possession of the ball at that point.

[gblews]

IndyJones wrote:

---

There is NO WAY this is a simultaneous catch. There is no way that the Seattle receiver ever has ANY control of the ball, much less equal control. The defender has the ball pinned to his chest at the end of the play and the Seattle receiver has one hand on the ball (that we can see).

Seattle fans, ask yourself this; if the Seattle receiver had been in Jenning's place and the Pack defender in Tate's place, would you still call this a simultaneous catch?

[gblews]

InklingStar wrote:

---

This post does a good job of explaining what I see:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/9/24/...efense-of-a-td

I can see how people can call that an interception, but I cannot see how you can make the claim that Tate had absolutely no possession of the ball at that point.

By the reasoning in the post above and by yours, all a receiver need do is have his two hands touching a football which is in "possession" of a player who has intercepted the pass and has both feet on the ground -- by "possession", I mean two hands on the ball and the ball pinned to the body -- in order to claim a "simultaneous catch" and retain possession of the ball.

If I were a receiver coach, I would tell all my guys, "look if you see the defender has intercepted the ball, just go touch the football with both hands if you can and you should get the benefit of the doubt".

The play last night sets a real dangerous precedent.

[tighr]

Good questions, and here are some answers:

tomalak301 wrote:

---

I kept reading here last night that this call couldn't be reviewed, and people seemed to have an issue with the fact that it was reviewed. Well, I thought all scoring plays this season were reviewable, so it seemed legit to me.

A ruling on the field must be made prior to a review (ie, you can't review the tape just to make your ruling, you must have an initial call). The officials chose to rule a catch and touchdown on the field, which under the immediate circumstances was probably the right call. Therefore, during the replay review, they must decide if it was indeed a catch. They ultimately decide that it was a simultaneous catch, and thus confirm the ruling on the field of touchdown.

So their application of the rules was entirely correct: when there is simultaneous possession, it goes to the receiver. What the Referee Official thinks he saw was a simultaneous catch. What's at issue is that the catch does not appear to actually be a simultaneous possession, and should have been overturned.

tomalak301 wrote:

---

Also, the replay booth guys are not replacements and they seem to be getting a free pass. Why aren't they being grilled today for what happened. Why Aren't they having a press conference a la Jim Joyce and apologizing publicly for this?

The misconception here is that replay booth officials have decision-making power on reviews. The sole job of the replay official is to alert the Referee on the field that a review must be conducted. They take a look at every single play inside of two minutes and every play that results in a score, and if there is something that is fishy, they call down to the field and request a replay. The booth officials themselves are not making a ruling, nor can they overturn rulings on the field.

When an instant replay review is taking place, the sole responsibility for the ultimate ruling rests on the Referee Official (Mr White Hat), and no one else.

[Starbreaker]

HOLY FUCK

You have to actually be touching the fucking ball to have possession or co-possession. He's holding on a Packer, not a pigskin. That's not a touchdown.

[Timby]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

HOLY FUCK

You have to actually be touching the fucking ball to have possession or co-possession. He's holding on a Packer, not a pigskin. That's not a touchdown.

Bingo:



I can only imagine the official's thought process.

"Um ... the Seattle guy possesses the guy in white who possesses the ball, and possession is nine-tenths of the law. Therefore, by the transitive property, Seattle possesses the ball. Touchdown!"

[archeryguy1701]

tomalak301 wrote:

---

I've been thinking about this (after sleeping on it basically) and I have a few things to ask.

-I kept reading here last night that this call couldn't be reviewed, and people seemed to have an issue with the fact that it was reviewed. Well, I thought all scoring plays this season were reviewable, so it seemed legit to me.

It's a goofy thing with the rules... in the field of play, when there's a simultaneous catch situation, who actually has possession can't be reviewed or overturned. They can decide if there was actually a catch, but they can't reward the ball to one team or the other after making an initial decision. BUT, possession can be reviewed in the endzone. So, there's no reason why they couldn't have overturned it or gave the ball to the defense or anything of that sort.

Also, since when was it an official rule that you had to kick the extra point for the touchdown to count. I always thought if you score a touchdown and it's the end of the game, than you don't need to kick the PAT. Before the PAT, it was 13-12, so that's game over right? In OT, if you score a TD, the game is over and you don't have to kick. I was very confused with both those aspects.

In overtime, you don't have to kick the PAT because it's first to score. In regular time, the PAT still has to happen, even if it's in the closing seconds.

InklingStar wrote:

---

Official NFL statement on the controversy:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...headline_stack

The refs made a lot of bad calls in this game, but at the end they made the correct one.

When was the last time the NFL came out and said, "Yeah, our guys fucked up."? In fact, the way I read their statement was trying to shift focus elsewhere. By saying that the catch was good, but there should have been PI, it was like saying, "The thing you guys are worried about was correct, but they missed this call instead. Fortunately, they've been missing all sorts of calls, so it's not really a big deal, so shut up and keep paying!"

The NFL will never throw their guys under the bus. Don't expect them to start now, especially when "so much" (a whopping $100,000 per owner) is on the line.

InklingStar wrote:

---

This post does a good job of explaining what I see:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/9/24/...efense-of-a-td

I can see how people can call that an interception, but I cannot see how you can make the claim that Tate had absolutely no possession of the ball at that point.

For possession to happen, a player not only has to come down with two feet in bounds, he has to perform a "football move". In this case, falling down constituted a football move. How many times did one or both of Tate's hands stop holding onto the football when they came down? The defender had possession from start to finish, Tate would occassionally have it. The only reason the ball didn't squirt away when they hit the ground was because Jennings never lost his possession.

[InklingStar]

John Clayton is on the local ESPN station now, and he says it was definitely an interception. He says that Tate had the ball, but that Jennings had possession when he landed on Tate and therefore had control. His main criticism is the way the referees did not confer with each other and made contradictory calls.

I still think the right call was made, but I know I'm in the minority. On the other hand, bad calls happen. The Immaculate Reception was an illegal catch according to the rules of the day, but nobody cares about that anymore. Furthermore, the Packers could have ended the game by getting a first down on their last offensive series, or by knocking the Hail Mary to the ground instead of trying for the INT. The controversial call was notable for being the last play of the game, but it was not like the Packers played a perfect game that was stolen by dastardly officials.

EDIT: Clayton just called the play "The Inaccurate Reception." I wonder if it will catch on.