My bad then. When I hear (or read) “there were bad calls both ways”, I assume pointing that out is an attempt to equivalate (is that even a word?) the calls. Sure there were bad calls both ways, but I think the number and actual damage done by those bad calls rested much more heavily against the Packand than the Seahawks.
[Quote=Saint Cad]
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.
[/QUOTE]
We could play that game for every single call for every single game of football. If the refs hadn’t given Rodgers the wrong ball on the 2 point conversion. If the refs hadn’t called that holding in the first quarter. If the refs hadn’t called ticky tack personal fouls. All those things, and hundreds of others that occur in the game, would/could change the ooutcome. Pointing that out is, to me, useless. Yes, the game may have been different. But that doesn’t mean the poor officiating didn’t cost the Packers a win.
Aside from the fact that your keyboard skills were less than optimal for this post, if you go back and read my post that you quoted you will see that I thought Tates right hand was on Jennings arm, not the ball.
So I’m not sure why you would respond with “except right hand came off ball”…it seems like you think my post said the opposite of what I said.
I’ve only looked at the specific rules for simultaneous catch and possession, but from those it makes no sense at all to think catch =possession.
Note that the word ‘possession’ doesn’t appear here.
The NFL (intentionally distractingly) posted possession rules in their comment. Possession is pretty clearly defined as making the catch, then controlling it all the way through landing in-bounds, and enough time to make a football move or whatever the language is.
So any reasonable reading of this is that a catch happens (or control is established) FIRST, then, after landing,etc. the control becomes formal possession. It’s reasonable by the plain language, and reasonable because intuitively we fell that’s right – if someone catches the ball, comes down, and while they’re rolling over on the ground someone sticks their hand it, we all think it’s pretty clear the first guy caught it and deserves the ball.
Of course, the NFL, wanting to cover assess, intentionally made an unreasonable reading of the rule, pretending that the simultaneous catch rule was a simultaneous possession rule, pretty much ignoring the clear second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule. Evidently, they’re happy throwing the on-field referee to the wolves by admitting he blew the OPI call, but they’ll torture the rules to defend the booth review guy.
Ah, well then by all means come back and report what your bitch Schiano thinks about the call if that carries more weight for you than the opinion of the former Vice President of Officiating for the National Football League.
This was what I thought when he was an apologist for the league as well. Since he went to work as an analyst, he’s been much more straightforward and (IMHO) credible.
You might want to slow your roll a bit there champ. Oakminster never even came close to doing what you are pretending to do, absolving the players of all responsibility. In fact, I’m hard pressed to see how you could even conclude that when he actually advocates throwing the players out for throwing punches or even for cheap shots.
They have a rule in place that clearly deals with this situation, but to cite it properly would indeed reflect badly on those who did the video review of the play. So they decide that a mumbling, handwaving explanation is the way to go. Classy, as always.
Well, he sort of touches on one good point, which is that all this stuff about how the replacements are jeopardizing player safety is bullshit. If the players are hitting illegally because they’re less worried about penalties, (1) they’re assholes, and (2) the league should be fining them more.
True, but that’s not contradicting anything Oakminster said. If bunbun came in and said: “hey, players are responsible too!”, it wouldn’t have even been an issue. Instead, he came in, misrepresented what Oak said, and was kinda a Schiano. That was my problem with him, not the point that the players should be blamed also.
I don’t agree with this assumption at all. The fact that “possession” is not used anywhere in that description implies to me that catch and possession are synonyms and not mutually exclusive. You’re assuming that because it’s not mentioned they are mutually exclusive, not sure why you feel you can make that leap.
In the NFLs response they too imply that catch and possession are synonyms and I see no reason to accuse them of linguistic jerrymandering there.