It only took three weeks for the scab officials to decide a game

TJ Johnson Sep 24, 2012 11:53 PM

Reggie Bush just tweeted it best:

These refs gotta go I'm sorry

The Packers and Seahawks battled for several hours tonight only to watch the scab officials make two different calls on the last play of the game, which was a Hail Mary that was clearly intercepted by Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings. Unfortunately for the Packers, the scabs decided to give the reception (and the touchdown) to Golden Tate of the Seahawks. Worse, the call stood after the review (which never should have been reviewed to begin with, we should note). In short, the Packers got screwed.

Hey, at least it wasn't the Broncos that got jobbed.

I'd wager that this sort of thing might bring Roger Goodell to the negotiating table, but that would require the lapdog to quickly place a call to his masters, Kraft and Jones. Jones is too busy taking care of his gay cowboy situation.

Did the officials rule correctly on the last play of the Seahawks' 14-12 victory over the Packers?

I’m glad we had this talk. Now, vaya con Dios, Brah.

Agree, disagree, just like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter so I can quit my day job.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion is right or valid. That's nice that you came to the conclusion on your own, but other valid points beyond your initial consideration should also be incorporated in to your thought process as you continue to learn.

In any case, your opinion is wrong.

The Packers receiver had possession. Tate got possession AFTER the packers receiver had possession, as clearly indicated by Tate's right hand coming off the ball and back on while the Packer receiver maintained possession.
The rules clearly state that a simultaneous catch can NOT occur AFTER one player already has possession.

That's really all there is to it.

Posted by BottomfedBuddha on 2012-09-25 12:25:49

Yes, the Packers got jobbed, and at least it wasn't the Broncos . . . if you don't recall the fumble and the phantom holding call in the Falcons game, both which effectively resulted in point swings . . .

Posted by AZDynamics on 2012-09-25 11:16:09

There have been fewer of the "no definitive evidence" reviews in recent years (I think they've been directed to go ahead and make the decision under the hood, or possibly just due to the use HD video for reviews). But the real refs were pretty good at supporting each other. If the ref was in position to make the call, the others are going to trust that he made the right call. That's how it should be when you're working on a team of experienced professionals, in any job.

Posted by Hercules_Rockefeller on 2012-09-25 10:47:59

I'd use it as an opportunity to reach a fair agreement and get back to work. These guys are undoubtedly valuable, but if they're not fair enough in reaching an agreement, the NFL will better protect itself over the long-term by training more than an additional pool of back-ups. If they come in fairly, though, they may just secure their worth for a much longer period of time.

Posted by AndrewR4488 on 2012-09-25 09:03:02

If I was leading the referees union, I'd double every single request I'd ever made. Possibly the best advert for organised labour I've ever seen :)

Posted by Mike Birtwistle on 2012-09-25 08:24:57

Hey tunesmith,
The video review, as they said during the game, could not determine which player caught the ball. The only point of the review is to determine whether it was a complete or incomplete pass. Clearly the ball never touched the ground, so they had to rule that the call on the field was correct. They were never looking at TD vs. INT.

I agree that the replacements are analyzed with a fine-tooth comb and that, as a result, people across the country are quick to come to conclusive judgments against their rulings. But I don't think that is the case here. Yes it was a tough call, but it wasn't the right call.

As I said before, the biggest problem here is that two officials made different calls at the same time, on ruling a touchback and one ruling a touchdown. In that situation, normally the crew chief (white hat, head official, etc.) comes in to discuss before the play is conclusively decided. But I just don't see how you can think it Jennings didn't demonstrate control first. That doesn't mean that he needed to possess the ball the same as in the Calvin Johnson scenario. It means that if one player demonstrates control first, i.e., by bringing it into his chest with both hands on the ball first, then it should be ruled in his favor.

Posted by AndrewR4488 on 2012-09-25 08:14:19

I had Packers -4 bet....so basically the refs cost me money directly as they were up by 5 at the time.

Posted by TDot_Bronco on 2012-09-25 06:59:31

I agree with you on this. You have to slow this right down and it is not clear cut. For me both have their hands on that ball at stages in the process. This would be a tough call for the most officials.
Full blown over reaction to this.

Posted by Steve Williams on 2012-09-25 03:51:50

People are way too quick to judge on this one. It's an extremely tough call. Leaving aside the pass interference, which is never called on the last play of the game (see Denver/San Diego last season when we got screwed by it, see Denver/NY Jets last season when NY got screwed by it), you have two players going up at the same time. Tate's left hand never left the ball. Jennings had both hands on the ball, but did not demonstrate possession before Tate's other hand got on the ball. Tough call on whether it was simultaneous, and simultaneous goes to the offense. It went to video review, with not enough evidence to overturn. We'll see what happens over the next couple of days, but I don't think it's so clear-cut that Jennings demonstrated control/possession before it was simultaneous. The rules say that the second player cannot gain control after the first player gained control, but I don't think it's clear that that is what happened.

Beyond that, I think it's hilarious that one of the toughest referee scenarios you can imagine had to happen to the replacements at the end of MNF. This is a funny season.

But, the real storyline isn't the incompetence of the refs - it's about the *perceived* incompetence of the refs. That's not going away, even when the refs make a good call. (If y'all think everything would be hunky-dory had the refs ruled it an interception, you're dreaming.)

BTW, did Clay Mathews really share Goodell's phone number or was that a joke? Wow. That's the real miscalculation here - Goodell seems to have seriously underestimated how much this farce can undermine his own authority, and thus the integrity of the game. There's a chance for some serious long-term damage remaining even if the real refs start tomorrow.

Posted by tunesmith on 2012-09-25 03:40:14

The problem with AndrewR4488's point is that even thought the Packer had both hands on it at first, he hadn't demonstrated possession yet. By the time possession would have been demonstrated, I think Tate had both hands on the ball.

Posted by tunesmith on 2012-09-25 03:28:29

I just looked at the 'good' footage courtesty of the NFL channel and there's no doubt whatsoever that it was not a catch by the WR. Golden Tate's right hand comes off the ball completely and that's the only hand he has on the ball initially. The rule, which is also shown on the program, makes it clear that it should not have been ruled dual possession.

Posted by colinski2 on 2012-09-25 03:18:47

I view it this way: there are instances in which both the DB and WR catch the ball simultaneously but the WR is behind the DB and has his arms wrapped around him. It's an absurd body position to make a catch, but it is consistent with what happens when another player attempts to get his hands on the ball.

My own interpretation of the rules is that dual possession should only apply when a catch has met the criteria for a legal catch, and not merely getting your hands on a ball, which is similar to what often occurs after a fumble, and unseen to fans under the pile. The final body positions of the two players say all we need to know. The real problem is that the officials are so slow to disentangle players, and this allows all kinds of shenanigans as players attempt obtain possession after the play has ended.

Posted by colinski2 on 2012-09-25 02:56:34

My bad.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 01:38:03

TJ Lang ‏@TJLang70

Fuck it NFL.. Fine me and use the money to pay the regular refs.

Posted by magster on 2012-09-25 01:37:37

AndrewR4488 I think that is my bad. In my original post, I mistakenly called the GB DB "Manning", of which I think they have a guy named Manning at Safety. But I corrected it a little later, and changed it to M.D. Jennings, who was the DB in question."
Or, maybe it is some sort of inside joke about Manning...lol

Posted by Lorenzo Pruitt on 2012-09-25 01:31:49

Tate should have been called for offensive pass interference, he pushed his defender to the ground to gain separation. If that call had been made, possession would not have mattered, Seahawks would have had to try again, from further back

Posted by mikewyd on 2012-09-25 01:23:35

Alex: Why do you keep calling him Manning? Joke I don't get?

Posted by AndrewR4488 on 2012-09-25 01:19:06

That's what the latter part of the rule refers to, Alex. Or, at the very least, it should have been ruled "no catch."

Posted by Bob on 2012-09-25 01:14:44

Sure, but Manning pretty much had majority control the whole way.

Tate barely got an arm in there and ended behind and underneath Manning.

It's clearly not a simultaneous catch.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 01:10:19

Yahoo Sports Blogs has the rule on Simultaneous Catch.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/...

"Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneous 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 control."

Posted by Bob on 2012-09-25 01:05:38

Goodell is the owners' puppet. He has zero power to end this thing.

"Clearly everyone's going to keep watching anyways."

And that's why the owners won't buckle.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-09-25 00:59:08

I normally get my weekly schadenfreude from the poor saps @ Cleveland Frowns, but this is worth a look.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-09-25 00:54:39

Zo, you are very right about the purpose of this site and equally right about being entitled to your opinion. That's all.

Posted by AndrewR4488 on 2012-09-25 00:52:15

And, of course, we're all leaving aside the absurdly blatant two-handed shove. I think most football fans could have made the offensive pass interference call from the opposite end zone.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-09-25 00:51:05

AlexXSmith I'm sorry to imply that is what you said. I know you didn't call me a jerk, it was just a general thought of that type of person.
The call and play not be very defensible, but from my point of view, I guess I just saw things differently than what many others saw. It helped that it didn't happen against the Broncos; otherwise, I may have just bought a $399 discus.

Posted by Lorenzo Pruitt on 2012-09-25 00:50:49

Tate never had possession, Manning had it the whole way.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:48:57

The post game thread on acmepackingcompany.com is kind of entertaining to me, Magster the Sadist.

Posted by magster on 2012-09-25 00:48:49

Well, Tate's possession definitely seems inferior to Jennings, so you do raise a good point re: the left hand. But by the time they both hit the ground it was more equal, if not completely equal.

Posted by JD40 on 2012-09-25 00:48:27

Best argument so far: "Jaime Begley So if I'm holding a sandwich and someone puts a hand on it, according the refs, I have to give that person my sandwich. Yeah, that makes sense."

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:48:09

Another wrinkle: if the order of possession matters, there is further argument in support of Mr. Tate's TD because it appears that his feet were on the ground first -- possession first, or at the very least dual possession. If and only if the issue is instead the order of control, perhaps interception. But that seems thin.

I'm not sure what I like least. Watching these refs, or hearing Trent Dilfer use the phrase "protect the shield" -- twice because of my use of the dvr to ensure my significant other witnessed this event in excruciating detail prior to retiring for the evening.

Posted by JD40 on 2012-09-25 00:45:30

Zo, not calling you a jerk, just saying that no matter what someone will argue a point that isn't very defensible.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:45:11

The Packers should definitely boycott the next game if the real refs aren't back, right? Just refund all the fans (it's in Lambeau), tell them not to show up, and not play the game? I think that's what it'll take to get Goodell to cave, unfortunately. Clearly everyone's going to keep watching anyways.

It just gets worse and worse every week. The real refs miss calls, but the real refs would have deferred to the official with the best view of the play (who ruled INT, and if he had been a real ref he wouldn't have backed down from his call), not to the one who ruled TD despite having no angle or sightline to the ball, period.

Posted by penguinman831 on 2012-09-25 00:44:02

AndrewR4488 I do expect some friendly discourse. It just seemed like AlexXSmith was stating that I was just some d-bag that was dissenting just to be different. I honestly believe it was the right call, and I'm open to everyone telling me how wrong I am, but I left DP and MHR to come here cause I was under the assumption we were smarter and more mature than the posters on those sites. (MHR less so, but it has turned sour there.)
AlexXSmith No worries, man. ANd just like I stated above, I am very open to discussion, but I'm not just "being different just to be a jerk", if you will. I think it was a good call, given the circumstances.

Posted by Lorenzo Pruitt on 2012-09-25 00:39:46

Sucks for the Packers, but some team had to take a bullet for the league to move the owners off their position, and the union could not have hoped for a better situation than a blown call on a game deciding Hail Mary on Monday Night Football. Hopefully this lockout is over this week.

Posted by magster on 2012-09-25 00:35:50

Yahmule When they were in the air, I agree. Even for a moment on the ground, maybe. But, and this is my critical point, when the refs showed up to the scene, Both players had two hands, and Tate had his left arm between Jennings and the ball. They even had a replay that showed Tate's left arm was clearly between the ball and the DB. That made it simultaneous possession, and the rules state the passer's get the ball when it is simultaneous.
That is all I saw, and how I came to my conclusion.

Posted by Lorenzo Pruitt on 2012-09-25 00:35:35

Nah you didn't invite argument with the hashtag, but you are posting on a blog and as such are engaging in a comment forum. So you should expect responses to your opinion.

Posted by AndrewR4488 on 2012-09-25 00:34:57

I guess you can make a case that Tate's right hand is also contacting the ball at a certain point, but it appeared to be on the DB's arm more than anything.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-09-25 00:34:54

Tie goes to receiver when neither gains possession first. But possession isn't one hand barely lodged between the DB's chest and the ball, which was held with both hands by the DB from the catch to the ground, after which Tate put his other hand on the ball to fight for possession. Regardless, two officials called it differently without discussing, neither of which was the white cap.

Posted by AndrewR4488 on 2012-09-25 00:32:41

Given that the Packers are owned by the fans, essentially, what are the chances Packers "ownership" files a protest against this?

Just thinking out loud, but legal action from Packers "ownership" is probably wishful thinking.

Posted by Bob on 2012-09-25 00:32:27

First off, I don't give a damn about arguing. I have my view point, my opinion of the event, and that is it. I stated as such in my comment. You, and I'm sure a vast majority here, have a different view of the call. I watched the play unfold, and after the replays from all different angles, I came to my own conclusions.
But, you know, if you don't like my opinion, feel free to just breeze by my comment.
(p.s. I may have invited argument with my hashtag, but that was more of a general feeling that I was in the minority when it comes to the play.)

Oh, and I go by Zo...I just signed in with my fb acct. I don't know how to change it to Zo, but that is my name, dude.

Posted by Lorenzo Pruitt on 2012-09-25 00:31:04

Beyond that, the WR having one hand on the ball while the defender has two hands on the ball, clutched to his chest, does not constitute dual possession.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-09-25 00:30:02

Just saying, but I thought a tie always went to the receiver. If Tate's left arm/hand is between the ball and any part of Jennings's chest, and his right arm is also on the ball, and they both went down this way together before they hit the ground, does that not constitute a basis upon which to signal TD? That doesn't rectify the pass interference fiction of course. Not a fan of the replacements mind you, just throwing that out there. As an aside that runs counter to certain leanings, I choose not to deploy the term scab because I just can't bring myself to think of these refs as taking the proverbial food from the table of the proverbial working man. Respectfully submitted of course, and thanks much for the awesomely rendered analysis concerning the awesomest team on the planet.

Posted by JD40 on 2012-09-25 00:27:11

The WR tackled the defender Lorenzo.

Lorenzo just goes to show there is always ALWAYS someone willing to make an argument, no matter how silly.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:25:07

https://www.facebook.com/photo...

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:23:08

I disagree. The Packers DB caught the majority of the ball in a forest of arms, but when they came down to the ground, Tate had his left arm between M.D. Jennings and the ball, and fought with him till the refs came over. Once they finally arrived on the scene, the catch was simultaneous, which always goes to the offense. It was basically like a fumble recovery; no one knows who got the ball until the refs show up. If the refs were right there from the get-go, maybe it is a different call.
Seahawks win, bro. The refs are awful, no doubt, but this was a good call.
#letthehatebegin

Posted by Lorenzo Pruitt on 2012-09-25 00:14:37

I mean, I just don't even know what to say. This is worse than the Montreal Screw Job. Unreal.

Posted by Xtreme212000 on 2012-09-25 00:14:28

http://www.facebook.com/photo....
clear picture that green bay has the ball.

Posted by Troy Fairclough on 2012-09-25 00:13:45

Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKing One of the great disgraces in NFL history.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:11:32

Un-freaking-believably bad call.

Posted by AlexXSmith on 2012-09-25 00:08:46

It only took three weeks for the scab officials to decide a game

Did the officials rule correctly on the last play of the Seahawks' 14-12 victory over the Packers?

Offseason 2013 Features

A post-draft look at the Broncos’ cap situation

Denver Broncos 2013 undrafted free agent signings

Denver Broncos 2013 free agency tracker

Denver Broncos 2013 draft choice tracker

All Draft Features

It only took three weeks for the scab officials to decide a game

Did the officials rule correctly on the last play of the Seahawks' 14-12 victory over the Packers?

Related

Offseason 2013 Features