There are 127 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

More proof that NFL refs are very biased in calling games.

Originally posted by ChipDouglas510:
I would be willing to bet that according to you Golden Tate actually did catch that ball vs GB and it was a terrible offensive pi called in your superbowl loss, right?


I think the Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous. I think the ref that called no catch couldn't see what the f**k was going on.
And let's not talk about Superbowl XL. I think even most SF fans would agree that Seattle got hosed on several calls. They should have still fought back and won the game though. No excuses. (I will however hate the Steelers until my dying breath, or we eventually beat them in a SB).

[ Edited by maporsche on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM ]
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 28,427
Originally posted by maporsche:
I think the Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous. I think the ref that called no catch couldn't see what the f**k was going on.
And let's not talk about Superbowl XL. I think even most SF fans would agree that Seattle got hosed on several calls. They should have still fought back and won the game though. No excuses. (I will however hate the Steelers until my dying breath, or we eventually beat them in a SB).


I agree that there were some bad calls in the Super Bowl - but you lose all credibility when you claim that Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous.
Originally posted by maporsche:
I think the Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous. I think the ref that called no catch couldn't see what the f**k was going on.
And let's not talk about Superbowl XL. I think even most SF fans would agree that Seattle got hosed on several calls. They should have still fought back and won the game though. No excuses. (I will however hate the Steelers until my dying breath, or we eventually beat them in a SB).


I see it as simultaneous catch, so by those rules, Tate had it. However, there is no doubt Tate committed the offensive PI. BUT since it was not called, there is no grounds to review it. On top of that a lot of refs themselves even say on a Hail Mary play outside of ridiculous PIs (usually defensive) they let the play, play out. So...yes Seahawks should have loss due to non-call of offensive PI. Yes, Seahawks should have won (and did) due to simultaneous catch (there are a ton of pics/video analysis on the catch proving it was simultaneous) rules combined with most refs not calling offensive PIs during hail mary plays.

Results: Our home win streak is 13 or 11 if you refuse to consider the Packers game a win, either number is still something to be proud of. Packers still won their division, and they got absolutely stomped by you guys last year leaving most to believe even if they had HFA they still would have lost. You guys still won the division last year, so it's not like our win over the Packers prevented that. So bottomline outside of the home win streak number, the win last year means NOTHING. I think that's why Packers and Seahawk fans in general just don't care about it anymore.

Generally I don't complain about calls. There are bad calls (and non-calls) ALL game and in EVERY game. I see them as a wash. It just becomes a lot more noticeable for one that cements a win/loss. But if you overturn that particular bad call/non-call, you have to overturn all of them. And you may end up with the same result in the end.

Thats my 2 cents.
Originally posted by 4ML:
I agree that there were some bad calls in the Super Bowl - but you lose all credibility when you claim that Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous.

I think a Seattle fan is always going to view that as a simultaneous catch (and no doubt a lucky lucky break). That being said, I wish it never happened.
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 28,427
Originally posted by maporsche:
Originally posted by 4ML:
I agree that there were some bad calls in the Super Bowl - but you lose all credibility when you claim that Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous.

I think a Seattle fan is always going to view that as a simultaneous catch (and no doubt a lucky lucky break). That being said, I wish it never happened.

How can you call it simultaneous when it's clearly not? One can be an objective fan. That was clearly an INT.

That being said...I'm glad it happened. It gave Niners a home game against GB.
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by maporsche:
Originally posted by 4ML:
I agree that there were some bad calls in the Super Bowl - but you lose all credibility when you claim that Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous.

I think a Seattle fan is always going to view that as a simultaneous catch (and no doubt a lucky lucky break). That being said, I wish it never happened.

How can you call it simultaneous when it's clearly not? One can be an objective fan. That was clearly an INT.

That being said...I'm glad it happened. It gave Niners a home game against GB.

the packers losing to the vikings in week 17 is what gave us the bye. that seattle game was week 3, even though gb got the short end of the stick the bye was still theres if they wanted to beat the vikings.
Originally posted by 4ML:
How can you call it simultaneous when it's clearly not? One can be an objective fan. That was clearly an INT.

Tate touches the ball first with his left hand. Has (simultaneous) possession and both hands on the ball when he touches the ground (also first). Maintains both hands on the ball throughout the entire play all the way down to the ground.

A catch = possession (at least 1 hand on the ball) AND both feet on the ground inbounds (as opposed to in the air).

Simultaneous catch.


If the GB player would have just batted the ball down like they've been trained to do since HS this wouldn't even be an issue.
[ Edited by maporsche on Nov 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM ]
Originally posted by crabman82:
the packers losing to the vikings in week 17 is what gave us the bye. that seattle game was week 3, even though gb got the short end of the stick the bye was still theres if they wanted to beat the vikings.

Exactly.

Try arguing with GB fans about that little fact though. They had 13 weeks to 'recover' from that 1 play.
[ Edited by maporsche on Nov 19, 2013 at 1:37 PM ]
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 28,427
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by maporsche:
Originally posted by 4ML:
I agree that there were some bad calls in the Super Bowl - but you lose all credibility when you claim that Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous.

I think a Seattle fan is always going to view that as a simultaneous catch (and no doubt a lucky lucky break). That being said, I wish it never happened.

How can you call it simultaneous when it's clearly not? One can be an objective fan. That was clearly an INT.

That being said...I'm glad it happened. It gave Niners a home game against GB.

the packers losing to the vikings in week 17 is what gave us the bye. that seattle game was week 3, even though gb got the short end of the stick the bye was still theres if they wanted to beat the vikings.

Fair point. Still not close to being a simultaneous catch. That was an awful call.
Originally posted by 4ML:
Fair point. Still not close to being a simultaneous catch. That was an awful call.

I wouldn't be b***hing if they'd called it a 'no catch' either.

I think it was a close call.
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by maporsche:
Originally posted by 4ML:
I agree that there were some bad calls in the Super Bowl - but you lose all credibility when you claim that Tate catch was close enough to be called simultaneous.

I think a Seattle fan is always going to view that as a simultaneous catch (and no doubt a lucky lucky break). That being said, I wish it never happened.

How can you call it simultaneous when it's clearly not? One can be an objective fan. That was clearly an INT.

That being said...I'm glad it happened. It gave Niners a home game against GB.

the packers losing to the vikings in week 17 is what gave us the bye. that seattle game was week 3, even though gb got the short end of the stick the bye was still theres if they wanted to beat the vikings.

Fair point. Still not close to being a simultaneous catch. That was an awful call.

cant stand either team so i didnt really care
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 28,427
Originally posted by maporsche:
Originally posted by 4ML:
Fair point. Still not close to being a simultaneous catch. That was an awful call.

I wouldn't be b***hing if they'd called it a 'no catch' either.

I think it was a close call.

Gotta agree to disagree. But...Seahawks are legit this year. Hopefully, we can put up a good fight against your team in a few weeks.
man f**k the NFL, I hope someone comes out with a rival league where they allow players to play the game like it should be played.
Originally posted by susweel:
man f**k the NFL, I hope someone comes out with a rival league where they allow players to play the game like it should be played.

usfl starts next spring, not sure on their rules though
Originally posted by boast:

BOOM!
End of discussion.