2012 NFL Season Thread

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It doesn't matter if the ball was up against his chest, really. If Tate had at least one hand gripping the ball is all that matters. Again, it does not matter who had "more control."

As to the players thinking one way, that's an authority of the many fallacy. It mean mean something, but it doesn't mean that the call was necessarily wrong as the rules are written. It may mean that the call was wrong as the rules are understood.

Or, apparently, the back of one forearm

[Chump]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Probably because when something as insane as this happens, it looks like there is something a lot more sinister going on (Bribery).

The NFL is lucky that most people are talking about incompetence and not the uglier alternative, which is just as likely to occur with these replacements.

I don't know if you watched the game but the refs we're clearly incompetent, not crooked. Tons of bad calls went against both teams including a few that went against Seattle on the Green Bay touchdown drive.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ha, you're ridiculous. Look at the position of Tate's arm. Unless he has some sort of superpower you're basically arguing that he established control with the back of his forearm.

Either you're being a contrarian intentionally or you're highly qualified to be an NFL replacement official.

The picture is after the play ended, and Jennings is rolling over. Look at the preview picture on the video at this link. Link.

That picture is quite a bit before the picture you are refering to, and the play is already dead is the picture I just posted. Tate has one hand in the area where the ball is, and we know from various other replays that his other arm is the one that has been touching/grabbing the ball the whole time - and again from replays, we know is probably gripping the ball at that point.

The picture that Rubecube posted is really irrelevant to the discussion. That picture is at least a roll of Jennings after the play is dead, according to NFL rules.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

Or, apparently, the back of one forearm

I'm not argueing that Tate certainly hand a hand with grip on the ball. But it's not likely that Tate only had the back of a forearm.

[troutman]

Why were there only two Hawks fighting five Packers for the ball? Gruden talked about SEA needing to "flood" one area of the end zone.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why were there only two Hawks fighting five Packers for the ball? Gruden talked about SEA needing to "flood" one area of the end zone.

On any play like this, the Offence can only have 5 players in the end zone total (11 total minus 5 linemen minus 1 quarterback), whereas the defence can have 11 players in the end zone.

The quarterback obviously has to stay back to throw the ball, and the linemen cannot cross the line of scrimmage on a passing play until the ball is thrown, or they will receive a penalty.

[valo403]

Rhone-Dunn, the back judge who had the best view of the play and initially signaled interception, is the most experienced member of the crew. Formerly a Big 12 official, he worked the Sugar Bowl back in 2007 and arena games since then. Easley, the side judge who overruled Rhone-Dunn, is a banker from California, who has officiated high school and junior college games, both football and basketball. Elliott, the head referee who should have gotten his crew together and asked them what they saw before signaling for a touchdown, is a realtor in Texas, and has worked high school, college, and indoor football.

http://deadspin.com/5946169/the-pack...are-those-guys

At the end of the day the biggest gripes I have are that the crew didn't get together to make the call, they just sort of went with a split decision and then said 'I guess Touchdown wins in that case' and more importantly, the fact that these clowns are even in a position to be deciding these games.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why were there only two Hawks fighting five Packers for the ball? Gruden talked about SEA needing to "flood" one area of the end zone.

Because the Seattle QB Wilson blew the play call and called the wrong thing. As a result there were only a couple Hawks there after Wilson reversed field to get away from pressure.

Wilson's play-call in the huddle on the fourth-and-10 was supposed to send three Seahawks receivers to the left corner of the end zone (where he ultimately threw the ball). But instead, he called a “Waggle” play in which he rolls right and multiple receivers run short, underneath routes.

Writes Silver: “Some Seahawks ran the play Wilson called, while others ran the one he was supposed to have called. Whatever -- after he rolled right, drifted back to his left and planted at the 39-yard line before unleashing his high pass to the end zone, it all worked out in the end.”

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/ey...eahawks-huddle

[PIMking]

Well you're taught every time to BAT THE BALL DOWN not try to catch it on a hail Mary attempt. That's what the idiot gets for trying to pad his stats

[toonmaster]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Reading the Rulebook and watching the replay again this morning, I still think that you could interpret the play as a simultaneous catch. I say this after thinking last night that it was the incorrect call. The rule book says:



I think what is argued is that Jennings gained control of the ball first, so it shouldn't be a simultaneous catch. However, looking at the replay, Tate had one hand on the ball at the very same time, and that hand never comes off the ball. We obviously know that a player can have control of the ball having only touched the ball with one hand (a one handed catch happens all the time). There is nothing in the rule that says anything about one player having "more control" than the other player. Jennings certainly has "more control" of the ball than Tate, but that doesn't make any difference according to the rule book. They both catch the ball at the same time (Jennings with both hands and Tate with one hand) and both maintain control until they are both down by contact in the end zone.



The rules talk about in control of the ball, but there is no definition of what "control" is in the rule book. Again, we can't say from the rule book that Tate doesn't have control just because he only has one hand on the ball. The rule talks about whoever has control first, but in this case, both players have control at the same time, and it matters not who has "more control." Neither does it matter who wrestles the ball away from the other after they are both already down by contact.

Really it comes down to the definition of control, which we don't have. I don't think anyone can say that Tate absolutely did not have control of the ball. He has a grip of the ball with his right hand throughout the whole play.

As I said in my post last night (and I wavered on what I thought of the play after that), Simultaneous catch is such a gray area. The way the rules are written, I think that you can argue that anytime an offensive player gets at least one hand on the ball, you have to call the play at least a simultaneous catch (provided that that one hand remains on the ball until the end of the play) I don't see how it matters if a defender has two hands on the ball and even has it tucked, as long as the offensive player has one hand gripping the ball, and that one hand gripped the ball at at least the same time as the defender's hands, it has to be a simultaneous catch.

A simultaneous catch ruling cannot be reviewed (is that confirmed?), so I don't know how the play could be considered a wrong call. Niether does that make it the right call, but I can't come to the conclusion after watching the replay closely this morning, and looking at the rules, that the WRONG call was made.

Of course, all of that doesn't excuse missing the obvious offensive pass interference. But that wasn't called, and is non reviewable.

The bolded sections is where I disagree with you. Tate is only able to get control of the ball because his arm/hand is part of Jennings control of the ball. I don't believe Tate ever has control of the ball until he goes to ground with Jennings and is able to wrap the cluster where his one arm has already been trapped within Jennings basket. I don't believe Tate ever demonstrates possession and control prior to, or simultaneous possession with Jennings. I don't think you can say Tate has possesion of the ball with his one hand. I think you can only say he is touching the ball with one hand, which does not demonstrate possesion or control.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The fact that the biggest, most egregious thing to happen in that play, the insane pushoff Tate got, is not being discussed as much as the actual catch itself seems peculiar to me. I think while the evidence is pretty damn strong Tate didn't have simultaneous possesion, its not 100% clear, whereas that pass interference call is about as blatantly obvious as can be.

I've already mentioned it but I think that even the regular refs may not make that call. PI is almost never called and certainly not against receivers.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

http://deadspin.com/5946169/the-pack...are-those-guys

At the end of the day the biggest gripes I have are that the crew didn't get together to make the call, they just sort of went with a split decision and then said 'I guess Touchdown wins in that case' and more importantly, the fact that these clowns are even in a position to be deciding these games.

Yup, certainly, the officials should have talked amongst each other before making a ruling. In general, the worst thing about the replacement officials is that coaches and players are intimidating them into making bad calls, and like you say, not getting together to make sure they are correct before making crucial, yes questionable judgement calls. Being inexperienced at this level means that the officials should be doing that more often, but it seems like they are doing it less often. Extra timeouts, challenges, etc, all could be avoided with the officials talking to each other more. One ref might miss a rule, but it's unlikely that all of them together would miss the same rule.

Either way, getting big calls wrong isn't just limited to replacement refs either. The 2003 Playoff game between San Fransisco and the NY Giants was decided by a botched last play reffing call, as just one example. Other games have been decided by botched calls that weren't quite the last play of the game, but certainly decided the outcome of the game.

Even on Sunday night's game, New England was called for pass interference in the last minute (thankfully it was a legitimate call). had that penalty been called, but happened to be completely wrong as so many other pass interference calls have been this year, that call would have essentially have decided the game. If that was an incompletioin, it would have been 4th and 9, setting up Baltimore for a 52 yarder to try and take the lead (NE still would have had time to try to get a FG of thier own. The penalty nearly guaranteed Baltimore Victory - giving them the chance to kick a 95+% chance FG on the last play of the game. If that call had been a bad one, we would have been hearing as much about that call as the call yesterday.

Even yesterday's game, Green Bay scored their go ahead TD in the fourth quarter on a drivev that should have been ended (at least GB would have been facing 4th and 2 and midfield) if not for a Bogus PI call.

As much as it seems easier to overturn a call on the last play of the game, every play in the game is equally as important.

[Senator Clay Davis]

^^While I agree you really never see offensive PI called on a Hail Mary, how often do you in plain sight see the WR shove the CB to the ground? And not just out of nowhere, but as the ball was coming towards them? That the refs weren't even focused on that area is pretty alarming.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

I've already mentioned it but I think that even the regular refs may not make that call. PI is almost never called and certainly not against receivers.

I've read mixed - most say that while in a Hail Mary situation like that it is rarely called, in cases where it is as blatant as that it usually would be called. So shoving and jostling in the middle of a pack isn't called, but a blatant shove in space under where the ball is about to land is a bit too much to let go.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I've read mixed - most say that while in a Hail Mary situation like that it is rarely called, in cases where it is as blatant as that it usually would be called. So shoving and jostling in the middle of a pack isn't called, but a blatant shove in space under where the ball is about to land is a bit too much to let go.

Blatant stuff like last night should always be called, but like you say, shoving and jostling both ways is going to happen on plays like that. When it's likely happening both ways, calling it one way or the other penalizes one team unfairly, and calling both gives the offence another play, which isn't fair to the defence. The only other option is calling nothing, which is what happens most of the time.

[troutman]

Hawks fans would trade it all for the bad calls that jobbed them out a Superbowl vs. PITT (and those were the regular refs).

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by troutman

Hawks fans would trade it all for the bad calls that jobbed them out a Superbowl vs. PITT (and those were the regular refs).

I don't think anyone expects any of the refs to be perfect. But every week there have been more, bigger mistakes, and while some of those may be coming from the increased focus on their work, the sheer number of mistakes with time outs, ball spots, and lack of consistency is making it difficult to watch.

You used to be able to watch a game and based on the play and when the flag was thrown you had a good idea of the call. This year it feels like a crap shoot.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Well you're taught every time to BAT THE BALL DOWN not try to catch it on a hail Mary attempt. That's what the idiot gets for trying to pad his stats

Common misconception, lots of hail mary plays are designed to capitalize on players attempting to bat the ball down, MSU beat Wisconsin on one last year. If you can bat the ball into open space then sure, do that, but in that situation batting the ball down could well have resulted in an easy catch by a Seahawk.

[valo403]

http://www.replacementgoogle.com/

[M*A*S*H 4077]

^that is great