Feel free to play the equivalence game. I won’t argue that there were some bad calls that went the Packers way too, but I think it’s pure rationalization and, frankly speaking, bullshit, to try and pretend the bad calls somehow equalized over the game.
This is great, but is there an NFL definition for what a “catch” is in this scenario? I don’t think there is. Catch may well be equivalent to possession according to the rule book. I don’t know.
There’s no equivalence. But that doesn’t mean that the Packers would have won a well-officiated game. We have no idea who would have won a well-officiated game, because it would have unfolded in a completely different fashion than the real game.
Same thing in the Pats/Ravens game. I have no clue who would have won that game if the guys who committed penalties had been called for them, and the guys who didn’t commit penalties hadn’t been. No clue whatsoever. Would’ve liked to have seen that game, because it would’ve been a superb match.
And that’s the real problem. While the Packers have the best claim to saying, “We lost our game because of this specific bad call,” a whole bunch of teams have legitimate claims to, “We might have won our games but for these objectively horrible calls.”
Not saying you shouldn’t feel robbed, because you absolutely should. But had there been good officiating, your team might not have even been in a position to be robbed by a bad call on the final play, and we’ll never know whether because they would have been further ahead, or if they would have been behind.
True. None of which changes the fact that the Packers lost that game because of very, very poor officiating
True. None of which changes the fact that the reason the Packers lost that game last night was very, very poor officiating.
One of Tate’s arms comes out of the pile as he hits the ground while Jennings still has the ball on his chest. There should be no simultaneous possession at that point if Tate’s only got one hand on the ball. It isn’t a matter of “I’m still touching it”, but the official call of the ref was that it was a Seattle TD based on simultaneous possession, so there you go.
That’s probably true, but correct some of the earlier calls and the later ones wouldn’t have happened. There was a dodgy pass interference call on Kam Chancellor that converted a third down on what turned out to be the Packers’ touchdown drive. Without that, they punt; then it’s Seahawks up by one, and about seven minutes left. The whole rest of the game would have played out differently.
The refs missed the offensive pass interference on Tate on the final play, but did they also miss a call on the Packers? The defender hit Wilson just after he threw. The camera is following the ball so you don’t see the hit clearly, but it looked like a potential leading-with-the-helmet, roughing-the-passer call.
And if the crew hadn’t made up a roughing the passer call that negated an interception, the Packers likely have never had to worry about the final drive at all. We can do this “what if” all day.
Yep, for two yards. And there was a dodgy DPI on Shields on the Seahawks penultimate drive that took them from 1st and 25 at their own 43 to 1st and ten at the Green Bay 25. For every bad call that Seattle suffered, there was a call with worse consequences for the Packers. Again, if you want to play “what if”, you may. But don’t try and tell me that somehow the bad calls all evened out. But for the piss poor officiating, the Packers would have won.
Now you’re reaching. Badly. The Packer player was within a yard of Wilson when he released the ball and it looks like his helmet never came anywhere near Wilson’s head. And, even if I pretend that was an illegal hit, it would have given the Seahawks one more shot at the end zone. The bad calls on the final play gave the Packers a loss. Again, there were bad calls against Seattle, but there were far more and with far worse consequences, against the Packers.
The use of the word “control” in the quoted rule doesn’t admit this interpretation.
Actually, I’m making the assumption that he “caught” the ball at the top of his leap. Which indeed he did - and clearly sooner than anything that could be considered a catch by Tate. So the requirement for a simultaneous catch was not met here, which means the second part of the rule kicks in.
Which rules?
You know, Omni … I kinda see your point here. While I originally thought this picture was clear evidence, now I realize it’s not so cut and dried. Looking at it, it is really, really hard to tell who’s got which hands where. Watching the replay is similarly confusing. It’s just hard to tell exactly what’s going on.
But when I apply common sense, I have to say this. If Tate indeed was reaching around Jennings’ body to have one hand on the ball … in other words, he’s holding the ball against Jennings’ chest … can that in any way be construed a catch? Or even possession? I’m no expert, I admit, but just common-sense wise, that doesn’t seem to be right. Can you be considered to have simultaneous possession if your hand is holding the ball against the other player’s body? It just seems weird. Maybe by rule, the NFL’s statement today was right, and the call was correct. I doubt it, but there’s a lot of strange mojo going on in that cluster.
That said … the biggest problem I have had with the officials over the first three weeks has been their almost complete lack of control over the game. The pacing, keeping the coaches in check … it’s practically nonexistent. Last week’s Falcons-Broncos game was ridiculous. Those coaches were just out of control, and the officials couldn’t stop them. You can also see the style of play getting more and more ragged and pushing the envelope over the first three weeks. They’re seeing how much they can get away with, and they’re finding out it’s a lot. Letters and edicts from the NFL office aren’t going to make much difference in that. The officials have to be in control out there, and they are simply not. That’s the big danger to the game. The fact that a dodgy call ended up deciding the outcome of a game is just the cherry on top.
Did you see where my post started with “that’s probably true”?
But for the bad call on the last play, the Packers would have won. Take out all the piss poor officiating and nobody knows how it would have ended.
I agree. I’d always thought that throwing a punch = automatic ejection. I’ve seen more punches thrown in the first three weeks of this season than I have in the last several seasons combined. I have not seen anybody get thrown out. Hell, if Ndamukong Suh stomps on somebody’s head this year, it will probably be called offsetting penalties. Or maybe a personal foul against the stompee. Or maybe a balk.
He might get a delay of game for making them stop the clock while the stompee is carted off.
This is the best angle I’ve found, slow it down and go frame by frame between 14 and 16 seconds
I think it was actually closer than most people realize because all of the other angles were hard to see what was actually going on. This is what I see in this video:
-
Jennings appears to get both hands on ball while in the air, much higher up than Tate
-
Tate gets left hand on ball but right hand appears to be on Jennings arm, not the ball
-
Tate hits the ground first, if his right hand was on the ball that would be possession (right?), with only 1 hand on the ball I assume that is not possession (but I’m not sure about this)
-
Then the rest happens
That angle was generally closer to the angle of the ref that called the TD (compared to the other guy)…I think he wasn’t as crazy wrong as many are saying, but it does appear to be the wrong call.
I don’t know that he’s a very fair source. His school’s reputation is likely to suffer if anybody notices who trained this jackass.
I’d say they gave him a proper evaluation.
Remarkable thing about last night’s blown calls. The Roger’s led offense benefited from some blown calls early in the game and still failed to score more than 12 points. Meanwhile if the defender had just knocked the ball down instead of trying to make the ESPN high-lights, the whiny Packers would have still won. Replacement zebras blew the call but the Packers did plenty to lose the game and the tweats and etc. from various Packer Players make them look, well whiny.
Hamlet
No one is playing the equivalence game or justifying the Seattle victory. There were bad calls both ways. I even pointed out where Seattle should have had 30 yards in personal fouls that were never seen and the OPI was obvious in the final play. I pointed out a non-call on a DPI in the final drive but also that the Packers got jobbed with a phantom roughing the passer.
My point is that with so many bad calls and non-calls both ways during the game, it is really unfair to say Seattle should have lost and the Packers should have on on the basis of that one play because in a properly officiated game who knows how it would have turned out.
Well, there is one call we know what the effect on the final score was.
Except at succumb second mark tate’s right hand clearly come of the balk while jennings clearly had possession.