Seahawks Packers Game Thread

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Granpa Simpson could do better. Mr. Magoo could do better without his glasses.

[Cowboyz1]

I feel better now about the game.

 

 

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmn, One of the most beautiful things these eyes have every seen........What the hell were we taking about anyways.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Cowboyz1

[Cowboyz1]

I'd like to see one of you do any better.

 

 

All they had to do what call a conference. Go over to the side look each other in the eyes and ask everyone what they saw. Calm the f down and make a good call. Instead they panicked lost total control of the game and half arsed the call. Rookie move plain and simple. They're doing the best they can but that's the problem, they're just not ready for this level of game. The best they can will never be good enough for this level of game.

[stevegrab]

All they had to do what call a conference. Go over to the side look each other in the eyes and ask everyone what they saw. Calm the f down and make a good call. Instead they panicked lost total control of the game and half arsed the call. Rookie move plain and simple. They're doing the best they can but that's the problem, they're just not ready for this level of game. The best they can will never be good enough for this level of game.

 

 

Exactly. And as I posted in another thread, then the ref got buzzed and went to review it without even talking to the guys on the field who made the initial ruling. Total ameture hour.

 

Of course repl ref is just a troll, so we should probably just ignore them.

[Replacement Referee]

All they had to do what call a conference. Go over to the side look each other in the eyes and ask everyone what they saw. Calm the f down and make a good call. Instead they panicked lost total control of the game and half arsed the call. Rookie move plain and simple. They're doing the best they can but that's the problem, they're just not ready for this level of game. The best they can will never be good enough for this level of game.

 

 

First off, his breath stinks, and I wasn't interested in a conference. He was waving his hands above his head, which to anyone who is an official knows, is to indicate that he agrees 100% with my great call. Also, I couldn't look him in the eyes, because he suffers from the handicap of being cross-eyed, and he is very self conscious about it. I hope you feel bad now !!! I called the TD, as by my view it was a simultaneous catch by 5 players. Jennings and Tate were actually touching it, but, 3 other players could see that Jennings and Tate were touching it, so, by rule, as far as I remember, that constitutes simultaneous possession. Just so you know, Mr. Smartypants, 3 of the guys with possession were from the Packers, but, as we all know, if it is possessed by an odd number of players for any given team, you must subtract by 2. Therefore, it was correctly ruled a TD for Seattle by me, and there is clearly no need to pay those old referees. We've got this.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Replacement Referee

[Replacement Referee]

I don't know how much clearer this can be. Look at this picture. I'm confidently calling the TD, while my cohort, who completely respect my authority, is pointing at me and saying, "Yep, my boys got it right. Touchdown." His other hand is pointing towards the crowd, as if to say, "Quiet !!! We are working here !" We are united, and we've got this.

 

We got it right

Edited September 26, 2012 by Replacement Referee

[Medal of Honor]

I'm a Seahawks fan that was at the game. I saw it full speed and definitely thought it was a TD. I saw the replays on TV and thought it may be an interception - probably. Then I remembered "oh yeah, posession is when your feet hit the ground. Since when do we declare a catch in the air?"

 

Then I saw this and knew it was a TD, actually. http://fullimpactfootball.com/2012/09/27/are-you-sure-it-wasnt-a-td/

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm a Seahawks fan that was at the game. I saw it full speed and definitely thought it was a TD. I saw the replays on TV and thought it may be an interception - probably. Then I remembered "oh yeah, posession is when your feet hit the ground. Since when do we declare a catch in the air?"

 

Then I saw this and knew it was a TD, actually. http://fullimpactfoo...-it-wasnt-a-td/

 

 

When I saw that it made it even more definitive for me that it was not a catch.

 

The live action film, and the stills immediately upon both players hitting the ground have been very clear about Tates right arm and hand. When Jennings, in the air, has both hands on the ball we knew that Tate's left arm was up in Jenning's chest, but it was somewhat unclear to me whether he got his left hand on the ball or whether he was able to keep his arm up in there as they came down. We knew, however that Tate's right hand was first on Jennings forearm, was raked out as he tried to strip the ball, and then was thrown back in across Jennings chest and arms as they landed with Tates wrist clearly on Jennings forearm and his hand past the ball, the point of the ball being approximately at Tates wrist bone and Tates fingers extending perpendicularly away from the ball. What I have never seen clearly was what Tate's left arm and hand were doing as they landed. It was possible that it was under the ball, pinned, along with the ball, to Jenning's chest. Since I have seen one handed catches I sort of allowed that one hand wedged in there might be some sort of possession, though I did not think so.

 

What I now see in the still pic trying to demonstrate when Jennings feet touch down is Tate on his butt. I also get to see his left arm clearly for the first time. I see where his elbow is in relation to his body, and I see his forearm extending towards Jennings. I do not see the ball, nor Tate's hand, but being familiar with the human body I am aware that Tate's forearm is not the necessary three feet long to have his hand centered on Jennings chest where it needs to be for him to have had that hand in the catch. This confirms for me that Tate is beginning the process of re-digging that hand towards the already caught ball. It confirms for me that his hand was not in place as the play concluded.

 

I am glad I got a chance to see that perspective.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders

[Azazello1313]

What I now see in the still pic trying to demonstrate when Jennings feet touch down is Tate on his butt. I also get to see his left arm clearly for the first time. I see where his elbow is in relation to his body, and I see his forearm extending towards Jennings. I do not see the ball, nor Tate's hand, but being familiar with the human body I am aware that Tate's forearm is not the necessary three feet long to have his hand centered on Jennings chest where it needs to be for him to have had that hand in the catch. This confirms for me that Tate is beginning the process of re-digging that hand towards the already caught ball. It confirms for me that his hand was not in place as the play concluded.

 

I am glad I got a chance to see that perspective.

 

 

you can't see the ball. I think your assumptions about where the ball "needs to be" are speculative and unfounded. also, check the video linked in keg's story. one thing you see clearly from the second they hit the ground and even before, is jennings pulling, torqueing, twisting with all his strength, trying (unsuccessfully) to dislodge the ball from tate's grasp.

[stevegrab]

you can't see the ball. I think your assumptions about where the ball "needs to be" are speculative and unfounded. also, check the video linked in keg's story. one thing you see clearly from the second they hit the ground and even before, is jennings pulling, torqueing, twisting with all his strength, trying (unsuccessfully) to dislodge the ball from tate's grasp.

 

 

Yep that is true. But that alone does not prove Tate had the ball, and would hopefully not be a deciding factor for the official on the field to believe that Tate had possession. Especially since in some pics/videos we saw it appears Tate has his arms/hands around those of Jennings, which could help explain why Jennings could not get the ball away from Tate.

 

Anybody (on either side) that believes this is a simple call, with indisputable evidence is not being objective. Especially when you consider the ref on the field had to make the call without super slow mow, reverse angles, and blown up pics.

 

Keg posted a pic in another thread in response to my statement that the ref who called TD was out of position and shieled from the play, which was supposed to prove that was false. The picture didn't show when I clicked that link, so I'm not sure what it proved. I just mentioned the mising pick in the post below

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/topic/386746-nfl-official-statement-on-final-play-of-gbseattle-game/page__st__75#entry3737587

[rajncajn]

Yep that is true. But that alone does not prove Tate had the ball, and would hopefully not be a deciding factor for the official on the field to believe that Tate had possession. Especially since in some pics/videos we saw it appears Tate has his arms/hands around those of Jennings, which could help explain why Jennings could not get the ball away from Tate.

 

Anybody (on either side) that believes this is a simple call, with indisputable evidence is not being objective. Especially when you consider the ref on the field had to make the call without super slow mow, reverse angles, and blown up pics.

 

Completely agree here and in fact I think that may be part of the reason why he ruled it a TD. Difficult call any way you look at it, but I have to believe that if a real ref were in the game he would have known to get himself into a better position to make the right call and at the very least had conversed with the other officials before making a call if he never got a clear view. I think that's part of what makes this whole thing so nuts is that despite it not being such an obvious on-field call, he seemed to come to a conclusion without even thinking about it first. In fact, when he looked at the other official it looked almost like he thought the other official was starting to raise his arms for a TD and just went along with that call after seeing the two wrestling for the ball on the ground.

[stevegrab]

Completely agree here and in fact I think that may be part of the reason why he ruled it a TD. Difficult call any way you look at it, but I have to believe that if a real ref were in the game he would have known to get himself into a better position to make the right call and at the very least had conversed with the other officials before making a call if he never got a clear view. I think that's part of what makes this whole thing so nuts is that despite it not being such an obvious on-field call, he seemed to come to a conclusion without even thinking about it first. In fact, when he looked at the other official it looked almost like he thought the other official was starting to raise his arms for a TD and just went along with that call after seeing the two wrestling for the ball on the ground.

 

 

Yep then the ref went to review the play, and never talked to the other officials first about what they saw. Something that should be done even if both refs clearly signaled TD (which they did not), or INT. I think its pretty important to understand the ruling by the ref on the field before going to look at video to decide whether to overturn it or not.

[acbvegas]

LOL the NFL is kinda like that employer that bounces a check then apologizes then the next week won't respond on an email about an overdue raise. LMAO

[Azazello1313]

Yep that is true. But that alone does not prove Tate had the ball, and would hopefully not be a deciding factor for the official on the field to believe that Tate had possession.

 

I dunno, seeing one guy desperately trying to wrench possession away from another guy....to me that's a pretty good indication that both buys have a pretty solid grasp on the ball. which of course is the very definition of dual possession.

 

Anybody (on either side) that believes this is a simple call, with indisputable evidence is not being objective. Especially when you consider the ref on the field had to make the call without super slow mow, reverse angles, and blown up pics.

 

which has been my point since the play happened. it was a very close call on the field, with a pretty good case to be made for either possible ruling. as such, it probably should not have been overturned on review. in all, even though it got all the attention, it wasn't even among the 10 worst blunders those refs made in that game alone.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Azazello1313

[stevegrab]

I dunno, seeing one guy desperately trying to wrench possession away from another guy....to me that's a pretty good indication that both buys have a pretty solid grasp on the ball. which of course is the very definition of dual possession.

 

 

 

which has been my point since the play happened. it was a very close call on the field, with a pretty good case to be made for either possible ruling. as such, it probably should not have been overturned on review. in all, even though it got all the attention, it wasn't even among the 10 worst blunders those refs made in that game alone.

 

 

My point is the fact that Jennings cannot get the ball free from Tate's grasp is not visual proof. Tate could have been hold Jenning's arm, hand, etc. and not the ball. And the appearance would be similar, Jennings trying to rip it away from Tate.

 

I think the reaction of the announcers, the replacement refs fiasco, and the initial Have to agree here they screwed up the call made it a bigger deal than it really was. Prime time coverage, last play, the missed PI call, etc. I'm still curious how widespread the general belief is today (4 days later) that it was a TD and not an INT. I don't watch ESPN much, or listen to sports talk. But since the refs have come back I haven't heard anymore about the catch (Tuesday it was everywhere, 24-36 hours later nothing).