The W
Views: 95693711
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.4.14 1559
The W - Football - Seahawks 14, Packers 13 (or: Scab Ref Apocalypse) (Page 3)
This thread has 36 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.04
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
(133 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (63 total)
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.50
Welcome home, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army National Guard! Job well done in Iraq!

Just got back to work after flying home from Seattle. Hoo boy.

Standing on the sidelines for that moment, I can tell you: at first it felt like the 2009 Packers vs. Steelers game at Heinz Field. Then it got REALLY weird.

Hey, remember that "live fan experience" stuff Goodell tried to sell on us earlier? Letting fans see on the JumboTron what the ref sees under the replay hood?

Yeah...didn't happen Monday night at CenturyLink Field.

And then, after the ruling was confirmed and the crowd popped...absolute chaos. It seemed like several minutes before the ref said into his mic "The game is over, the game is over" as he ran off the field.

NOBODY seemed to know what the hell was going on out there (w/ apologies to Coach Lombardi's ghost.)

At that point, I hightailed it up the tunnel to Coach McCarthy's podium...and it was STILL a couple minutes before Packers PR told us that they were sending 11 men back out there for the XP try (Donald Driver among them, 'cause he hadn't taken his pads off yet.)

The Packers didn't see the replay themselves until they initially hit the locker room afterwards...and there were cuss words aplenty, believe you me.

Now, we get that "you didn't see what you thought you saw" statement from the NFL.

Here, you'll find Coach McCarthy's press conference from earlier this afternoon.

Earlier, on his radio show, Aaron Rodgers apologized to the fans, 'cause the NFL won't. Whoa.

This is only gonna get bigger.

(edited by The Thrill on 25.9.12 1903)




NWA Wisconsin...Live, Local Pro Wrestling!
Now on Facebook! And Twitter!

BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28


(edited by BigDaddyLoco on 25.9.12 2031)
MUTigermask
Boudin rouge








Since: 8.10.03
From: Columbia MO

Since last post: 289 days
Last activity: 144 days
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
When will people stop using the "well if they had just played better they wouldn't have been in the position to get screwed" argument? That doesn't change the fact that one team got screwed on the play that ultimately DECIDED the game.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.57


Um...I'm sorry, but I don't see how that squares with the simultaneous catch rule. Here it is again:

    Originally posted by the NFL rulebook (as posted above)
    It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.


Jennings gained control first. I don't see anything in the rule that says word one about who gets his feet inbounds. Jennings had control first, and therefore by rule it is NOT a simultaneous catch. Of course he still needed to get his feet inbounds and hang on to the ball (until his 45th birthday, as Joe Posnanski recently quipped) to complete the catch, but that rule says pretty clearly that if one guy has control first, it isn't a simultaneous catch.

And, yes, the PI should have made this all moot, and yes, I agree with those who say that the officials should never not call a penalty (except maybe something really, really trivial and technical with no effect on actual play) because it's an important spot.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.24


Watch it for as long as it is up. First few seconds is full speed. Seems like a simultaneous catch to me at full speed.

All other replays are at slo-mo and various angles.

If we want to use slo-mo, then there is no simultaneous possession ever because one can touch the ball 0.0001 seconds before the other person. Also, when they land, I can't make out what is going on because the ball is between them.

EDIT:

Everyone has been talking about "Control Of The Ball" and I've been looking at the rule book to see what is considered "Control" or "Possession".

    Originally posted by Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7

    Player Possession
    Article 7
    Item 1: Player in Possession: A Player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds.

    Item 2: Possession of Loose Ball: To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

    The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing).



All I got from that was having "firm grip and control." They both seem to have that.

(edited by Zeruel on 26.9.12 0101)


-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
FuellyFuelly
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30


    Originally posted by MUTigermask
    When will people stop using the "well if they had just played better they wouldn't have been in the position to get screwed" argument? That doesn't change the fact that one team got screwed on the play that ultimately DECIDED the game.

Yeah, that's JimBob the Vikings fan over there chanting this refrain.



Once again, I have blown away my signature's tags and it's up to CRZ to fix them before the entire board disappears. I don't know I continue have to have this green background if I'm not going to properly mantain it!
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 day
Y!:
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
Simultaneous (?) possession
{ Shrunk to 600px width - Ed. }

It can only be considered simultaneous possession if Tate catching Jennings counts.

and another one

Another view, with the arrow added to indicate where the ball is in all of this.

(edited by Sec19Row53 on 26.9.12 0918)

(edited by CRZ on 26.9.12 1311)
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.13
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Watch it for as long as it is up. First few seconds is full speed. Seems like a simultaneous catch to me at full speed.


My initial reaction when it happened live was that it was going to be called a TD. Watching that video I'm more convinced than ever that the guy who screwed this up is the official who called interception.

If you watch that video, you can see that around :15 into they show an angle where the black ref is running in from under the goalposts. It sure LOOKS like his view is, at best, obscured by two other leaping Packers trying to get the ball. Meanwhile, the white ref is standing RIGHT ON THE PYLON WITH A PERFECT VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I would think the standard protocol would've been for the black ref to defer to the white ref in this case, simply due to the positioning each had.

I'm not saying it would've been the correct call, obviously, but at least if the two idiots weren't standing next to each other making entirely different calls it wouldn't have looked SO awful. I think the black ref was reacting to what he saw on the ground in front of him AFTER the play, while the white ref reacted to what he saw DURING the play.

(edited by JayJayDean on 26.9.12 0731)

Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30


    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by Zeruel
      Watch it for as long as it is up. First few seconds is full speed. Seems like a simultaneous catch to me at full speed.


    My initial reaction when it happened live was that it was going to be called a TD. Watching that video I'm more convinced than ever that the guy who screwed this up is the official who called interception.

    If you watch that video, you can see that around :15 into they show an angle where the black ref is running in from under the goalposts. It sure LOOKS like his view is, at best, obscured by two other leaping Packers trying to get the ball. Meanwhile, the white ref is standing RIGHT ON THE PYLON WITH A PERFECT VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I would think the standard protocol would've been for the black ref to defer to the white ref in this case, simply due to the positioning each had.

    I'm not saying it would've been the correct call, obviously, but at least if the two idiots weren't standing next to each other making entirely different calls it wouldn't have looked SO awful. I think the black ref was reacting to what he saw on the ground in front of him AFTER the play, while the white ref reacted to what he saw DURING the play.

    (edited by JayJayDean on 26.9.12 0731)

Did you have a bet on this game, JJD? The happiest teams this week are the Steelers and Colts, who have byes.



Once again, I have blown away my signature's tags and it's up to CRZ to fix them before the entire board disappears. I don't know I continue have to have this green background if I'm not going to properly mantain it!
JimBob Skeeter
Bratwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: MN

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.01
Yes, that WAS coming from the Vikiing fan who has got screwed over more than our share, and for it to happen to the pack, makes me smile.

Looks like it's all about to become moot anyways:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8427652/locked-nfl-referees-return-early-week-sources



Sources: Ref lockout could end soon


Updated: September 26, 2012, 12:03 PM ET
By Chris Mortensen | ESPN

The NFL and the NFL Referees Association made enough progress in negotiations Tuesday night that the possibility of the locked-out officials returning in time to work this week's games has been discussed, according to sources on both sides.

An agreement in principle is at hand, according to one source familiar to talks.

Although league sources said it would take a week to get the locked-out officials on the field, the NFLRA says its 121 referees have been trained on the new rules implemented last season, have already passed physicals or are prepared to pass physicals immediately. New official game uniforms designed by Nike are "hardly an obstacle," according to a source.

Both sides have made concessions on previous sticking points such as a taxi squad of 21 new officials and pension plans that sources say the final meaningful hurdle is, as one source said, "about a little more money."

While league sources say owners who participated in a conference call with commissioner Roger Goodell during Tuesday's talks had instructed the negotiating team to set a firm barrier for the financial settlement, the NFLRA is prepared to accept a new agreement primarily in the form of a "ratification bonus," which would compensate its 121-member union for concessions it is willing to make.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.13
    Originally posted by pieman
    Did you have a bet on this game, JJD?


I don't do that sort of thing. 0

    Originally posted by pieman
    The happiest teams this week are the Steelers and Colts, who have byes.


But wait!






Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 24 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.38
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    If you watch that video, you can see that around :15 into they show an angle where the black ref is running in from under the goalposts. It sure LOOKS like his view is, at best, obscured by two other leaping Packers trying to get the ball. Meanwhile, the white ref is standing RIGHT ON THE PYLON WITH A PERFECT VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I would think the standard protocol would've been for the black ref to defer to the white ref in this case, simply due to the positioning each had.


To be fair, BLACK REF (who must've been recruited from WWE's referee pool) is actually the most experienced member of the crew (deadspin.com).

    Originally posted by Barry Petchesky
    Rhone-Dunn, the back judge who had the best view of the play and initially signaled interception, is the most experienced member of the crew. Formerly a Big 12 official, he worked the Sugar Bowl back in 2007 and arena games since then. Easley, the side judge who overruled Rhone-Dunn, is a banker from California, who has officiated high school and junior college games, both football and basketball. Elliott, the head referee who should have gotten his crew together and asked them what they saw before signaling for a touchdown, is a realtor in Texas, and has worked high school, college, and indoor football.

    This was the same crew for last week's Rams-Redskins game—one that got out of hand, and caused Mike Shanahan to tell reporters, "Never have I been involved in a game like this."


So the guy who should've been the deciding factor was nowhere to be seen the whole time. I'm not sure how much better the regular referees would have been at handling this play, but this was the perfect storm of shame for Goodell.





You wanted the best, you got... the Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"£8.70 for a measly 16 out of your average fag machine." (dMr)

hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.59
Via Jason Lisk of The Big Lead, the 2011 NFL Rule Book has scenarios for potential simultaneous catches:

    A.R. 8.28 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
    First-and-10 on A20. A2 controls a pass in the air at the A40. B3 then also gets control of the ball before
    they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground.
    Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as A2 gains control first and retains
    control.
    A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
    First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball
    before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground.
    Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains
    control.
So, most importantly, it doesn't matter who has what control when they hit the ground. Then the question is do Tate and Jennings control the pass in the air simultaneously, or does the fact that Tate lets go of the ball and then regains control (prior to hitting the ground) mean that Jennings controls the pass in the air prior to Tate. I'm a homer, but I've got to think that Tate letting go means that he controls the ball *after* Jennings.



The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.

Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share. (1-2, T-3 NFC North)
Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share. (6-6, 3rd West Division.)
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.13
Q13 (the local FOX affiliate) has an "exclusive" camera angle in this article.

http://www.q13fox.com/​sports/​football/​seahawks/​kcpq-​seahawks-​capitalize-​on-​lastsecond-​hail-​mary-​pass-​beat-​packers-​1412-​20120924,0,5401209.story

Again...I don't think the back judge had any kind of angle to make a call either way. (Not that THIS angle supports that either way.)

EDIT: Also, that white ref was in PERFECT position to call the OPI on Tate, so there's that, too.

(edited by JayJayDean on 26.9.12 1236)


Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.72
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by pieman
      The happiest teams this week are the Steelers and Colts, who have byes.


    But wait!





Which would make the UNHAPPIEST team the Ravens, since they have to put up with the replacements for an extra game this Thursday. (Well...I guess the Browns would be unhappy, too, but...really, does anybody care about the 2012 Browns?)

EDIT: Then again...

(edited by It's False on 26.9.12 2032)


Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 day
Y!:
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73

At the risk of posting too many times in this thread, I present this from ProFootballTalk, in which the NFL's Rule Book and Case Book both confirm that the call was incorrect.

The relevant portion of the official 2012 rules comes from Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5: “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the officials determined that Tate and Jennings jointly had “possession” when they landed; the question is whether Jennings “gained control” first.

The NFL’s statement likely omitted that fact because the video shows Jennings “gained control” first. This video shows the best angle; Jennings caught the ball with both hands while Tate had only one hand (his left) on the ball. Tate eventually got his right hand on the ball, but after Jennings “gained control” of it.

The league’s most recent casebook, which is posted at NFL.com, specifically addresses this situation at A.R. 8.29, under the all-caps title NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH: “First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.” (Emphasis added.)

Full article here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.94
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53
    The relevant portion of the official 2012 rules comes from Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5: “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the officials determined that Tate and Jennings jointly had “possession” when they landed; the question is whether Jennings “gained control” first.

    The NFL’s statement likely omitted that fact because the video shows Jennings “gained control” first. This video shows the best angle; Jennings caught the ball with both hands while Tate had only one hand (his left) on the ball. Tate eventually got his right hand on the ball, but after Jennings “gained control” of it.

    The league’s most recent casebook, which is posted at NFL.com, specifically addresses this situation at A.R. 8.29, under the all-caps title NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH: “First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.” (Emphasis added.)

Here's the thing. I sure would like to see one of these examples & explanations in the context of action in the end zone rather than at the 40 yard line. Not all rules apply equally to the end zone and the playing field proper.

Also, how do you reconcile these examples with the rule Zeruel quoted earlier in this thread (possession = "a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds")? Seems to me one or the other has to be wrong.

- StingArmy
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 day
Y!:
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
[Apologies to Torchslasher, since I was asked to respond :-)]

The problem I see with Zeruel's citation is he is referencing possession of a loose ball -- and this wasn't a loose ball. Therefore, these two aren't at odds with each other, they just address different times where gaining possession might come into play. On a loose ball, you have to establish yourself in the field of play, or it's illegal touching and not a legal possession. This is possession of a pass by one team or the other. Quoting again from PFT:

Consider the plain language of the rule regarding a completed pass: “A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).”

This isn’t about maintaining control through the act of going to the ground; it’s about who first secured control, whether the players were in the air or on the ground. Jennings first secured control, while he and Tate were in the air.

Here’s A.R. 8.29, with the names of the player’s included: “Jennings controls a pass in the air before Tate, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, Tate and Jennings fall down to the ground. Ruling: Green Bay’s ball. Not a simultaneous catch as Jennings gains control first and retains control.”
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.24
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53

    The problem I see with Zeruel's citation is he is referencing possession of a loose ball -- and this wasn't a loose ball. Therefore, these two aren't at odds with each other, they just address different times where gaining possession might come into play.


They way that I read it is that the rule considers an interception a "loose ball".


    To gain possession of a loose ball that has been... intercepted


The only way a "loose ball" can be intercepted is from a pass that has been caught by the defense. Any other change of possession from the offense is a fumble or loss of downs. Unless I am way off on reading that rule, they consider interceptions "loose"



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
FuellyFuelly
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.94
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by Sec19Row53

      The problem I see with Zeruel's citation is he is referencing possession of a loose ball -- and this wasn't a loose ball. Therefore, these two aren't at odds with each other, they just address different times where gaining possession might come into play.


    They way that I read it is that the rule considers an interception a "loose ball".


      To gain possession of a loose ball that has been... intercepted


    The only way a "loose ball" can be intercepted is from a pass that has been caught by the defense. Any other change of possession from the offense is a fumble or loss of downs. Unless I am way off on reading that rule, they consider interceptions "loose"

Exactly. The way I read the rule, "loose ball" means literally not being held by a player on the field. That means all passes are loose balls as well as fumbles, free kicks, punts, etc. That doesn't match up with the way us fans colloquially use the term "loose ball" but I haven't seen anything in the rules that defines "loose ball" differently.

- StingArmy
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread rated: 6.04
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread ahead: College Footbal Week 6: We all fall down.
Next thread: The W Survival League: 2012.05
Previous thread: Last two playes of first half of ILL-PSU game
(133 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I hope they take into account the WCW record of this two sport superstar.
- The Goon, 2012 HOF nominees announced (2012)
Related threads: Packers sign RB Cedric Benson - RIP the Golden Locks of Clay Matthews - A Debt Is Paid - More...
The W - Football - Seahawks 14, Packers 13 (or: Scab Ref Apocalypse) (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.138 seconds.