Just so you know, the words you quoted are from Jim Daopoulos, a longtime official and officiating supervisor for the NFL (now with NBC). I’m pretty sure he may know the rule, perhaps even better than you.
IIRC the absolute minimum number of players is 7 offensive players on the line if scrimmage. So the Seahawks could have performed the conversion with 7 linemen and snapped the ball to nobody, resulting in a fumble then dead ball?
What would happen if the Seahawks refused to take the field for the conversion? Would it be considered a Seahawks forfeit of the game?
ETA: I believe by rule and the video I’m looking at that it was a touchdown. What I really hope is that the NFL goes step by step with freeze frame and technicalities (a la Tuck Rule) explaining that despite laypeople’s definition of “simultaneous” that by rule it was a touchdown. The absolute worse thing the NFL could do is say “It was ruled a touchdown. End of discussion so fuck off.” If another angle shows that Tate did not have control of the ball as he landed, then I’d even be happy with “They fucked up but the NFL does not change the results of games.” because a) The NFL has always held that position before and b) this was not the only bad call that changed the game.
You could not be more wrong, every official i have read and heard and seen has said that is in no way a simultaneous catch. I heard Larry Fitzgerald say it was an interception, I have seen former players all say it was an interception. The only people trying to justify it as simultaneous are Seahawks fans,
And Brandon Browner should be getting a big fine, IMO. Definition of a dangerous cheapshot.
Why wouldn’t the Seahawks take the field? “Guys, I need 7 (or 11) of you on the field immediately so we win. If not, we forfeit a freak win and we’re 1-2.”
You know what, you’re right and I stand corrected. I was going on “possession” but apparently
That being said, I’m a Seahawks fan and after what I’ve seen over the last 5 years, please do not expect me to accept any Appeal to Authority in regards to an official knowing the rules. 
As I pointed out earlier, if any team “deserves” to get the benefit of horrible officiating, it’s the Seahawks. After that Super Bowl fiasco, I figured the NFL owed you one. Why it had to come against the Packers, though, I don’t know.
Was that the hit on an unsuspecting Jennings (I think?) away from and at the end of a play?
The Seattle OL hit after the play on the Packer DL who threw a punch in retaliation wasn’t much better. Seattle looked awesome in a lot of ways but they showed a propensity for a dirty style of play too.
Aw, what the hell… dirty play winners for the week:
- Denver
- Seattle
- Tampa Bay
No reason. I’m just throwing out a hypothetical wondering what the rules are.
Because Brett Favre.
The more I think about it, yeah, it would have been worth a try. The crews they have working these game just might have given them those points.
They still might.
And those who are paying attention to the actual rules.
Which actual rules make this a valid reception?
The requirements for simultaneous possession were met.
Yeah, no.
Roger Goodell, is that you?
So NFL official statement. Goes at length about how the simultaneous possession WAS reviewable, but everyone totally got it right, and then quotes rules so as to blur any distinction between ‘possession’ and ‘catch’ (even though the rulebook says ‘simultaneous catch’ and makes it clear that it’s catching that matters, not ‘gaining possession’ in the sense of landing in-bounds, etc.). Oh, and by the way, NFL admits this should have been moot, because, yeah that was OPI. Sorry Packers, we’ve got a lovely parting gift for you. But really, our referees got at least half of the play right!
Raise your hand if you think, had the call gone the other way and there was controversy, the NFL would have quoted the exact same rules and again explained how the decision was absolutely correct.
Somebody should have been ejected after that. I probably would have ejected just Browner if Jennings had not gotten up and charge/tackled him. After they wrestled to the ground, both of them were throwing punches, so I’d have tossed them both.
The relevant rule is this one:
The second sentence makes it abundantly clear that the call was incorrect.
It’s apparently the case that, whereas video review can be used to decide whether a receiver did or did not retain possession of a catch, it cannot be used to decide whether or not the standards for a simultaneous catch were met - thus once the bad call had been made it could not be overturned. Why this sort of thing should not be reviewable is hard to say.