There are 98 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Oddly, the SEA/GB debacle of an outcome could work in our favor...

Originally posted by VANiner:
I just thought about this today...if, and only if, we beat SEA on Sunday, then the BS win that they had over GB in "Hail Mary Gate" will actually help us (assuming we beat AZ - and I cannot fathom us losing to AZ). That would keep us 1/2 game over GB for the #2 seed even if they win out. Had the game actually been recorded as a W for GB (as it so clearly was), then we would need help to get the #2 seed even by winning out.

Of course, this is all moot if we lose on Sunday, because then we would still need help for the #2 seed.

Just found it interesting, since I was so pi**ed when that game happened.


Originally posted by VANiner:
Wow, great point...thanks VANiner.

Hmmm.....
We all know Seattle got a gift win. I'm not concerned with Green Bay. I'd rather put a division opponent out of the playoffs completely.
I don't want any division opponents in the playoffs. We already beat Green Bay in their house and they know it. I want Seattle out quickly.
The bye is great but its not a be-all end-all. Plenty of teams have won the Superbowl and played 4 games to do it.
I keep hearing that that touchception was a correct call, the officials and the league agree. If that is infact the case, how come the replacement refs were replaced just 3 days after.
Nice explanation. I'm a little disturbed that some people didn't get it.
Originally posted by JustMike:
I keep hearing that that touchception was a correct call, the officials and the league agree. If that is infact the case, how come the replacement refs were replaced just 3 days after.

Because the replacement officials were horrible at their jobs.
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by JustMike:
I keep hearing that that touchception was a correct call, the officials and the league agree. If that is infact the case, how come the replacement refs were replaced just 3 days after.

Because the replacement officials were horrible at their jobs.

And it was absolutely the right call, but not because the league "said so" in a statement the next day. All you have to do is understand the rules and watch the play carefully rather than succumbing to your gut reaction that Jennings "seemed" to have "better" possession (which isn't a thing) and rather than blindly accepting everything you heard at the Tuesday morning water cooler--and Gruden's/Tirico's embarrassing rant.
[ Edited by LieutKaffee on Dec 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM ]
Originally posted by gavindirishmen:
We all know Seattle got a gift win. I'm not concerned with Green Bay. I'd rather put a division opponent out of the playoffs completely.
I don't want any division opponents in the playoffs. We already beat Green Bay in their house and they know it. I want Seattle out quickly.
The bye is great but its not a be-all end-all. Plenty of teams have won the Superbowl and played 4 games to do it.


A lot more teams play 3 games and do it. There is a higher probability of being the #1 or #2 seed and winning.
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
The call at the end of the Seattle/Green Bay game was correct.


Try reading the rulebook, watching the slow-mo, and not being a sheep.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

http://lifexinxrewind.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-the-seahawks-packers-finish-was-not-an-interception-and-why-it-would-have-been-called-the-same-by-any-referee-crew/

If you have a moment.


"secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and"

1) If you want to wordsmith the rules, then notice that it says "hands" not "hand". It never says anything about one-handed catches.
Even if you accept one handed catches...
2) It says "secures control", which is obviously a judgement call. There is no way to scientifically determine what "securing control" means. Therefore, simply placing you hand on the football in no way demonstrates proof of any control. The very idea that you can "secure control" a football with one hand while another player has TWO hands (or even ONE hand) on the ball, is, by my judgment, ridiculous at best.

The article then points out examples of individual players making uncontested one-handed catches where they maintained control for seconds after the catch. Those are absurd comparisons. It's like saying, "By placing my hand on top of this boulder, I have proof that I am holding its entire weight with the palm of my hand, despite the fact that the ground is also touching the boulder." vs, "I am holding a rock in my hand with nothing else touching the rock, so obviously I have control."

Then the article talks about how it is a touchdown the MOMENT the Seahawk player has two feet down and nothing else that happens after that matters. This completely ignores the rule below...

"(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."

And this part...
"Some people think Tate moving his right hand off of Jennings for a moment before moving it back for the ball means he lost control. This is not true, as we have seen examples of plays where a player can move their hand off the ball, but it is fine as long as they still maintain control the whole time. Tate always had control with his left hand."

Say wah? "A player can move their hand off the ball"? What if they only had ONE hand on the ball and then moved that ONE hand off the ball? How many hands do they now have on the ball? ZERO. And no, in no conception of the rules does having zero hands on the ball "maintain" anything.
This is the most crucial part of the play, and I love how the article conveniently talks about "frame-by-frame" analysis, but of course does not show any frames of the moment when this occurred.
It also does not show a single frame where he had two hands on the ball. Not ONE frame. There are several frames where Jennings had two hands on the ball.

That being said, it is possible for the refs to miss that type of thing live, but there is no excuse for the replay refs to miss it.

I'm sorry, I'm glad the Seahawks won that game, because it was against Green Bay, but there is no way that call is legit. The rules require a JUDGMENT call with "control", and to think that placing one hand on a ball automatically gives you control, is fallacious.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Dec 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM ]
First of all, that call was BS.

Second of all, the FAIL MARY is indeed allowing the 49ers to walk in with the bye if we beat Seattle this weekend. We'll assume we beat the Cards in Week 17.

If the Packers win their final two games, the FAIL MARY is indeed the difference maker between a week off and a first round game.
Originally posted by BrianGO:
That being said, it is possible for the refs to miss that type of thing live, but there is no excuse for the replay refs to miss it.


The simultaneous catch ruling was not reviewable. Even if all I can get you to admit to is (1) the simultaneous catch thing is a judgment call that could have gone either way in real time, no matter if they are real refs or replacement ones, and (2) that element of the play was unreviewable on replay...

Then you've still conceded that the refs disposed of the game properly.

That said, I disagree with your analysis of who had possession and when, etc. I think all the slow-mos and frame-by-frames in the world show that Jennings can't definitively claim to have had sole possession of the ball with two feet down. Tie goes to the runner; simple as that.

To be honest, when I got into this with numerous people on my FB wall the day after it happened, my argument was slightly different than the one I linked to here--I never tried to make the case that Tate miraculously and instantaneously secured control with one hand. I share your skepticism in that, but I still found these two articles relatively persuasive and the best thing I could dig up on short notice.
The Packers had no business letting the Seahawks hang around that game. The call was definitely botched, but the Packers had 59:55 to prevent that situation from even happening.

The road to the SB goes through us (hopefully). I just dont see Atlanta winning in the divisionals, even with home field advantage.
Originally posted by HudsonValley:
The Packers had no business letting the Seahawks hang around that game. The call was definitely botched, but the Packers had 59:55 to prevent that situation from even happening.

The road to the SB goes through us (hopefully). I just dont see Atlanta winning in the divisionals, even with home field advantage.

Ironically, the botching of calls did play a pretty big role in costing the Packers that game, but it was several calls prior to the most memorable one (which was handled correctly).

Also, not sure what you mean by the Seahawks having "no business" being in that game. It was considered a pretty big upset at the time, but I think subsequent history has shown that the Seahawks D is very legit and many people now consider them a better all-around team and bigger playoff threat than GB. They got to Rodgers, what, like 8 times in that game?
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
That being said, it is possible for the refs to miss that type of thing live, but there is no excuse for the replay refs to miss it.

The simultaneous catch ruling was not reviewable. Even if all I can get you to admit to is (1) the simultaneous catch thing is a judgment call that could have gone either way in real time, no matter if they are real refs or replacement ones, and (2) that element of the play was unreviewable on replay...

Then you've still conceded that the refs disposed of the game properly.

That said, I disagree with your analysis of who had possession and when, etc. I think all the slow-mos and frame-by-frames in the world show that Jennings can't definitively claim to have had sole possession of the ball with two feet down. Tie goes to the runner; simple as that.

To be honest, when I got into this with numerous people on my FB wall the day after it happened, my argument was slightly different than the one I linked to here--I never tried to make the case that Tate miraculously and instantaneously secured control with one hand. I share your skepticism in that, but I still found these two articles relatively persuasive and the best thing I could dig up on short notice.


It was not reviewed? I didn't know that. That explains a lot.

"the simultaneous catch thing is a judgment call that could have gone either way in real time" -- I suppose. But the whole point is whether it was a "bad" call or not. I am not trying to say the refs did anything against their understanding of the rules etc. The refs were afraid to make a tough ruling, so they did the easiest thing and claimed simultaneous possession. "Possession" being the key word, as that is a judgement call. Being a judgement call, I feel it was a bad call. That's all. Bad calls happen, they happen every game, all the time.
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
That being said, it is possible for the refs to miss that type of thing live, but there is no excuse for the replay refs to miss it.

The simultaneous catch ruling was not reviewable. Even if all I can get you to admit to is (1) the simultaneous catch thing is a judgment call that could have gone either way in real time, no matter if they are real refs or replacement ones, and (2) that element of the play was unreviewable on replay...

Then you've still conceded that the refs disposed of the game properly.

That said, I disagree with your analysis of who had possession and when, etc. I think all the slow-mos and frame-by-frames in the world show that Jennings can't definitively claim to have had sole possession of the ball with two feet down. Tie goes to the runner; simple as that.

To be honest, when I got into this with numerous people on my FB wall the day after it happened, my argument was slightly different than the one I linked to here--I never tried to make the case that Tate miraculously and instantaneously secured control with one hand. I share your skepticism in that, but I still found these two articles relatively persuasive and the best thing I could dig up on short notice.


It was not reviewed? I didn't know that. That explains a lot.

"the simultaneous catch thing is a judgment call that could have gone either way in real time" -- I suppose. But the whole point is whether it was a "bad" call or not. I am not trying to say the refs did anything against their understanding of the rules etc. The refs were afraid to make a tough ruling, so they did the easiest thing and claimed simultaneous possession. "Possession" being the key word, as that is a judgement call. Being a judgement call, I feel it was a bad call. That's all. Bad calls happen, they happen every game, all the time.

Yes, that portion of the play was not reviewable. The play was a touchdown, so there was an automatic review, but all they were doing was making sure the ball never hit the ground, etc., that kind of thing. Part of what contributed to the ENORMOUS backlash is the fact that--in addition to 99% of people agreeing with you that the judgment call should have gone the other way--99% of people also seemed to think the purpose of the delay/review was in order to revisit that judgment call. That wasn't what the review was for. The game was sealed and there was no going back the moment the ref raised his hands and was not overruled by the lead official on the field.
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Yes, that portion of the play was not reviewable. The play was a touchdown, so there was an automatic review, but all they were doing was making sure the ball never hit the ground, etc., that kind of thing. Part of what contributed to the ENORMOUS backlash is the fact that--in addition to 99% of people agreeing with you that the judgment call should have gone the other way--99% of people also seemed to think the purpose of the delay/review was in order to revisit that judgment call. That wasn't what the review was for. The game was sealed and there was no going back the moment the ref raised his hands and was not overruled by the lead official on the field.


You have to give the Seahawks credit for making it close enough. The officials are a part of the game, and being able to convince them of something is part of playing the game. So, in other words, the Seahawks WON that game, and it doesn't matter how they did it.