Reviewing the posted rules again, as far as the rules go, ‘control’ is clearly something that you can have even without a complete/intercepted pass (otherwise how could you possibly need to ‘maintain control’ throughout some period beforer achieving a completion?), and in fact is clearly something you can have while in the air (as the rule implies that gaining control and touching the ground can happen separately). Together with the second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule, the only sane reading is that if a player gains control of a pass while in the air, then an opponent also gains joint control before hitting the ground, and the first player maintains control after hitting the ground and having enough time for a football move, then the first player is awarded the catch.
However, I don’t think I gave the NFL enough credit when I described their thinking before. What I think they were trying to do is find a way to throw a bone to the outraged public, while also being able to avoid the horrible precedent of overturning a game result after it was complete (or even questions about whether a result could or should be changed). Therefore, they found a completely unreviewable call to admit was wrong, while maintaining that the reviewable call was correct (again, despite the clear language of the rules).
Until the Seattle game I was really enjoying the replacement refs. I liked the big hits and physical play, it reminded me of real football from years ago. I could have gone without some of the imaginary flags that were called but for the most part the receiver and DB battles were amazing.
I actually agree - I noticed how many fights between the receivers and DBs should’ve been called as per normal NFL procedure but I didn’t actually object to them. I’d rather see the game called in the more hands-off way that we’ve been seeing - assuming you could seperate that from the general incompetance and stunted game flow.
Did anyone sense a some-franchises-are-more-equal-than-others vibe from the way this all played out? There were comments on SportsCenter, and other places, about how some owners have more clout to influence the negotiations than others. And this wasn’t just a bad call. This was a bad call against The Packers, those storied stalwarts of Vince Lombardi and Lambeau Field.
If the situation had been exactly reversed, with Green Bay winning on a disputed catch, does anybody think the uproar would have been the same?
No, I didn’t see that at all. And upthread, you can find people arguing that Green Bay was actually worse off because they don’t have a billionaire owner who could give the NFL hell over this botch job.
I heard those arguments, as well. There seem to be two sorts of inequality at work. One is financial/political, the clout within the NFL, which I usually hear with regards to Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft. There’s also the tradition/emotion aspect, which favors teams like the Packers.
You didn’t answer my final question; do you really think the reaction would have been as extreme if the situation had been reversed? Personally, I think it would have increased pressure for a settlement with the refs (but whether it would have happened as quickly as it did is hard to say), but I don’t think it would have been round-the-clock coverage quite so much if it had been the same call made against the Seahawks.
I thought my answer made it clear I don’t think it mattered which teams were involved. Any Monday night game that ended like that would have caused an uproar. Excepting Packer fans, I have not seen a single reaction to this fiasco that made me think ‘You’re only saying that because it happened to the Packers.’
