Talk amongst yourselves
Click here to buy PDF version
Need help on FanDuel or DraftKings? Purchase a subscription from the website that specializes in daily fantasy.
well, Will, I don't think we know the half of it. I am pretty sure that it was the same referee that called the bogus PI on Shields, which would have resulted in a 3rd and 30+ situation and effectively ended the game, who also signalled TD on the Jennings Interception. If this wasn't naive America and instead every other country in the world, the only relevant question is who paid the ref off? And the sad thing about rhe farce Roger Goodell and 31 owners have created is that I know it is entirely possible that this ref was on the take.
And oh by the way, the league so concerned about the players' safety allowed Greg Jennings to get cold-cocked by Browner-- and no call, of course-- a la jack Tatum. utter, utter corruption. Goodell has been permanently stained by this-- he will be lucky to keep his job.
Eh, if the ref is on the take to have the Packers lose, he gets the job done well before the end of the game. Tim Donaghy didn't wait until the 4th quarter to assure the fix.
I recall a regular season game, also involving the Packers if I'm not mistaken where a regular ref twice awarded clear simultaneous possession to the defense, and that was CLEAR SIMULTANEOUS possession. The regular refs make calls like this too, just nowhere near as many of them, and the key is that they have credibility, so if they make a bad call now and again, we give them a mulligan and move on.
Agree 100% with this. The joint possession call was, I think, debatable. But I think it's a stupid rule that's almost always debatable -- possession is never truly "simultaneous." I was annoyed that the ESPN guys kept inaccurately saying Tate only had one arm on the ball, when he actually had both arms and was also cradling it, albeit less securely than Jennings. Jennings caught it "first" but that was while they were in the air, and when players go the ground during a reception possession isn't determined until they're on the ground. By that time, both players did have both arms on the ball. I think the right call in the cosmic justice sense was an INT, but the simultaneous possession rule mucks everything up. Either way, however, that call was not nearly as egregious as some of the other calls/non-calls in that game and throughout the weekend.
He had possession clearly in the air, but since this was a leaping play where he went to the ground the Calvin Johnson "completing the catch through the ground" comes into play.
Thanks Darth Goodell, you cloaca.
Velvet Sky fan
Here's an image I found elsewhere showing the Seattle "TD". More like 99% possession.
Do you have a link to the video which that is from? I don't know when that still shot was taken (was it after the catch was established and the play was over?) or even if that hand is Tate's.
Its a picture of a picture. Looks like a cell phone pic of a paused DVR'd copy of the TV broadcast.
I found a gif here: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1427801/hailmar2_medium.gif
That's Charly Martin's hand sticking up - it's a right hand so it can't be Tate's. It looks like both of Tate's hands are on the ball. And the shot comes from well after they were on the ground, when Jennings tried to pull away from Tate, after the play was already over.
The Problem is, the guys lying on the ground don't tell nothing.
Jennings got his hands on the ball, then landed on one foot. And honestly, I am not entirely sure what happened before the second leg or other body parts of Jennings hit the ground, because based on my understanding of the rules only that completes the catch.
So what if Tate got both hands on the ball during that span before his butt touched the ground?
Honestly, I am not sure what happened, but the catch/INT thing is not as clear cut as some have put it.
Anyone read this?
Article3 Item5: Simultaneous Catch.
If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.
This is after they've landed and Tate lost his group because the corner rolled over. Not really as compelling an angle as it looks. There were better angles shown on TV that demonstrate that Tate got possession second, I think.
Simultaneous possession means both players obtain possession (more or less) simultaneously, not one guy catches the ball and another one puts his hands on it later.
Jennings' job was to catch the ball, not to keep anyone else from subsequently grabbing it.
>>Jennings' job was to catch the ball...
Jennings was robbed, but his job is not to catch it, but to keep Tate from catching it. By going for the INT, he made it possible to get robbed. If he knocks it down, the game is over.
I believe over the last couple of years the Titans, on both sides of the ball, have shown us the dangers of trying to knock the ball down.
Seattle and Green Bay are my two favorite teams and I'm just totally bummed out by the ending of this game. As much as I wanted Seattle to win the game, this result isn't right. I'm convinced Jennings intercepted that ball and this should be a Green Bay victory. I agree the DPI on Shields was a bad call. I'm not sure about the roughing the passer on the Green Bay interception because I don't know how long a QB has protection from being hit below the waist.
It was only a matter of time before the replacement officials decided a game and I don't see how anyone can deny they decided this one. I just wish it hadn't involved my two favorite teams. Hopefully, this will provide the incentive for the NFL to get the real officials back on the field.
In the whole second half there were so many calls that were blown. Calling PI on nothing on both sides, nothing holds, then not seeing late hits. The whole game was so horrible, an embarrassing product.
Don't think I'll be able to watch next week. No dignity in continuing to consume Goodell's product.
If there is any notion I could banish, it would be the crazy idea that Roger Goodell is doing anything that his 32 employers don't want him to do. If this lockout is intolerable, it is the intolerable outcome engineered by Robert Kraft, Jerry Jones, Paul Allen, The Green Bay Packers Executive Committee, etc., not Roger Goodell.
I honestly don't care whose money the pocket comes out of. I'm done.
31 Owners, Will. Packers Executive Committee is off the reservation now, I'm sure. I'm boycotting watching the Saints game at Lambeau on Sunday after I hear the first "goodell sucks" chant-- which won't take long. Then I plan to enjoy the rest of the Sunday.
I think it's misleading to say that the refs decided the game. It implies that that final call was the only point of contention, which couldn't be further from the truth. I think a more accurate way to describe that last half is that they *invalidated* the game.
Given how much uncalled holding Green Bay got away with, and the bevy of truly inane calls Seattle got away with, none of the results after the start of Green Bay's TD drive seem at all valuable or predictive. And that's a damn shame because up until that point this was an incredibly exciting game.
I understand what you're saying and probably agree with most of it. I'm not sure if I can explain what I mean any better, but I'll try.
Your points about the other bad calls and the bad no calls are valid. But, the problem is if some call had not been made or some no call had actually been made, then the game would have been completely different from that point forward. It would no longer be the game we just watched and there is no way anyone can say what would have happened going forward from one of those theoretically changed calls.
What we have, in this case, is a potential scoring play occurring on the last play of the game where a successful score causes the lead to change hands. Since I believe the correct ruling should have been a Green Bay interception, then I have to believe that the officials decided the game. Perhaps "changed the outcome" would be a more accurate way to say it, but within the context of sport usage I don't think my original use of decided was egregious.
I think if you really look at what you're saying, you'll realize you're assigning meaning to "decided/changed" here that no argument can really sustain. Every call is ultimately subjective (by virtue of referees being subject to things like point-of-view and perspective, etc.) refs are deciding or changing the game every time they make a call - even if it's one that everyone agrees is right.
I'm not saying that there's no meaning to refs making calls, just that the idea that refs can decide or affect the outcome of a game is almost tautological.
I just... I just can't comprehend this. If this game ends up being the difference in whether Green Bay makes the playoffs or not...
“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”
Not just the Pack...it affects the entire NFC playoff picture, since it looks like Seattle is going to be in the hunt.
Let me spit into wind for a moment.
First let's get the following point straight. Simultaneous possession is a Boolean construct: there either is or is not simultaneous possession. There's none of this "so-and-so had more of the ball" bs that the announcers were throwing around.
Now, as I saw it, Tate got both hands on the ball at the top of his jump, as did the DB. This is clearly simultaneous possession. One of Tate's hands clearly came off on the way down. The other remained on the ball. The DB had both hands on the ball the whole time. Does the one hand that came off negate Tate's claim to simultaneous possession? I don't know but it seems reasonable to think so.
I certainly don't have a problem with people questioning the call; it's one the countless gray areas in the NFL's carefully written rules. I do have a problem with anyone claiming the officials are clearly incompetent clowns. If you know for an irrefutable fact the answer to the question posed in the previous paragraph, or even IF there is an answer as the rules are presently written, then well done. You truly are a student of the game. If you don't, then quit with the rending of garments.
Like I said above, the immediate call on the field wasn't even close to being the worst call I've ever seen; it isn't even in the top 20. How the league doesn't have, in these odd circumstances with replacement refs, 16 guys upstairs who know the rules inside and out, with the complete power to overrule any call on the field, is beyond my understanding.
The greatest problem of the refs is NOT WHAT they call, but HOW they call. People do note believe in those refs. And this happens also because this guys were thrown in there and left on their own.
Agreed, Will. This would have been a crazy call for the regular refs to make - even the best of them. The call itself is no indictment of the replacements (don't worry, there is plenty of evidence to convict, though).
Yep, I don't have a lot of sympathy for scabs, but beat them up over the right things. Lots to choose from, as you point out.
Such as the phantom roughing call against GB, the phantom DPI call against Chancellor, and the truly hideous DPI call against Shields where Rice had a handful of face mask at the end of the play. Not to mention that one play where they first called the penalty on the the wrong team, then got the team right and the number wrong, and a later wrong-number call... Plenty of mistakes; as adrenaline starts to wear off, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the final play wasn't one of them. And at least if it was, it wasn't egregiously so.
How can you all say that? Even if it was simultaneous possession, the OPI was egregious and, well, offensive.
But I still think it was an interception.
FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!
Yeah, that's what I'm asking, exactly. Define "simultaneous" under the rules, then we can howl over the officials. I myself do not know the answer, and it bugs me because it really affects how I feel about this outcome.
Actually, Tate didn't get both hands on the ball--ever. His left hand was barely on the ball while his right was on Jennings' arm. This was not a case of simultaneous possession. I don't see how anyone can argue it.
Jennings had both hands on the ball with the ball against his body before Tate got his first hand on it. The replay clearly shows that. Tate eventually got both hands on the ball and tried to pry it from Jennings and probably succeeded after they were both on the ground. But as soon as Jennings elbow, knee, or butt hits the ground with him in possession - which did happen - the play is over. Taking the ball away after the play is over does not give you possession.
yes, this is what I think is clear in the replay - there is no simultaneous possession. Jenning caught the ball and went to the ground before Tate had it.
ask Calvin Johnson about going to the ground with the ball
The TD call is closer, IMHO, than has been discussed. Jennings has not possession until he touches the ground. And I saw the play zillions time and still don't know if Tate holds the ball before or after Jenning's foot landed.
I enjoyed this, saw it on Twitter, but can't remember from who; "If you’re holding your baby & I walk up and hug it, according to the NFL replacement refs, you have to give me your baby."
The baby is offense's!
So THAT'S where babies come from! Thanks!
Doesn't continuation factor into all of this? If it were just Jennings involved in the play, he'd have to possess the ball all the way down to the ground and through any sort of rolling over. Here, he loses sole control of the ball to Tate even before the two touch the ground, which under continuation would seem to create a simultaneous catch situation. (The continuation rule is listed in the "Completed/Intercepted Pass" section of the NFL rulebook, so I assume it applies not just to complete/incomplete calls.)
Good question. This play is a uniquely chewy cluster of fk. The ref problem is getting mixed up in the whole thing, but the play is simply a situation the league is not well-prepared for.
I don't think that continuation is relevant. The rule for simultaneous catch says "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control." And "control" is not an entire catch, it is only the first element of a catch. A completed pass occurs when a player:
"(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(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"
So if the defender gets control of the ball in his hands while he is in midair, and then a receiver also gets control of the ball in his hands, and then they land on the ground and both maintain control of the ball, then it is a catch by the defender who had it first (for an interception) and not a simultaneous catch.
One thing that's been lost in all of this discussion is the official that called the TD made a different mistake. Apparently, it's rare for OPI to be called on a Hail Mary play, but Tate's two handed shove of a GB defender that knocked that guy two yards away from the ball seems to me to be the exception to the rule that the officials should call. Had that OPI been called, we wouldn't be having this possession discussion at all.
I've never, not even once, seen a regular ref make that call correctly, in decades of Hail Marys, so I'm not going to hold some replacement to a higher standard.
I tried to come up with a memory of OPI being called on a Hail Mary, but couldn't. I suspect your football memory is better than mine.
I understand your point. I still think I'd rather be talking about the "first ever" OPI on a Hail Mary than the discussion we're having.
Also, my belief that it was an interception is based solely on former official Gerry Austin's comments during the broadcast. I really want to hear what Mile Pereria has to say about the call.
Given that Tate only has two hands on the ball, at most, momentarily, before one hand clearly being off the ball, and not coming back into contact until everybody was lying on the ground, I just can't see any reasonable way that could be called simulteaneous possession. The way replay is used in the NFL, however, has always been a mess. This is just the most glaring example.
As you of course know all too well, the original Hail Mary (to Drew Pearson in the playoffs against the Vikings) was so controversial because of the uncalled OPI.
I just hope that the level of scrutiny officiating is under continues when the regular refs are back, because advocacy journalism fails to be an idealistic pursuit once it becomes selective. There's a reason the media is at an all-time low in esteem in the pew surveys
Oh, I think you'll get your wish. I know everyone is acting like if only the regular refs were here we'd have no more of these problems. But I don't know about you, it seems to me like b*tching about the refs is routine during every week of every year. The lockout has created even more of a focus on referee errors, but whining about calls is one of the country's pastimes and should endure whoever is out there wearing the stripes.
Watching the play... possession is possession. Looked to me like the defender had possession and Tate stuck his hands in trying to get lucky. I've seen this called an interception most of the time by the regular officials. Possession is not necessarily the same thing as a completed catch which is possession plus two feet.
Notable simultaneous catches in 2011:
Miles Austin - Antonio Cromartie (Austin wrestled the ball away on the ground)
Seattle - Dallas, Week 9: Pereira commented to say that he thought it was a simultaneous catch, but this was ruled an interception (officials on the field disagreed).
2011, Miami Virginia Tech
Some in 2010:
Week 8, Jets-Packers
After reading about those I'm not so sure the regular officials got these calls as consistent as I'd say.
After watching it again and again and again... I've now got reasonable doubt that it was a "clear interception".
1) The ball hits the defender high near the face mask. If he possesses it at this point, he'd be able to maintain control of the ball up high, cradling against his helmet.
2) Coming down, Tate is able to get his left hand on the ball, wrestling it from potentially (notice, potentially) defender possession to joint possession.
3) He's able to get enough of his hands and arms around the ball that the official who comes down is convinced enough its a simultaneous catch, which goes to the passing team.
If the Packer was able to possess it than how come the ball went down from his face and "came out" when Tate got his hands on it? Because he didn't control or have possession.
I'm with Will Allen on this one... but again, this is a call that happens maybe 2 times a year.
How does the Refpocalypse effect DVOA? Is there the possibility that DVOA is less reliable because of it?
Absolutely, in three ways.
DVOA is founded on two principles about football, and a belief about DVOA itself:
good play -----> net scoring (good play leads to scoring and preventing scores)
good play -----> future good play (good play is predictive of future good play)
good play ------> DVOA (good play results in a good DVOA)
Bad/random officiating weakens all three of those links.
LLOLOLOL @ Goodell
As a Packers fan, my take is obviously biased. (If you want to read a Seahawks' fan take, read above in the thread.)
Now, I feel the first half was played well by both sides, and ref'd correctly. There was nothing that was ridiculous to the point of complaining. I think everybody can agree with that.
However, the second half was like watching a completely different game. Poor calls on both sides, blatant fouls going missed (Browner trying to go all Miami-face-eater on Jennings), the k-ball on the 2-point conversion, and of course the final play.
None of those things would have mattered if the Packers played better, and that is an issue the team needs to sort out. I think that will be the Packers organization response to this game going forward. It needs to be. The defense put on a great performance, and if their offense can even have half the production of last year, this team could be among the best in the NFL at the end of the season.
Specifically to the last play, as many people say, simultaneous possession is the big issue here. Do I think Jennings had full control and Tate had full control TOGETHER at some point? Yes. That was a very short moment. If Tate had been trying to control that ball on his own, he would have lost it. That is the crux of the play. He was forced to use Jennings' body to secure possession, and that essentially defaults his actual possession. There was no continuation for Tate. And I agree that even the normal refs could have missed that.
My biggest problem with the call is that there was no conference. The back judge and the side judge stared at each other before making separate calls. It was almost as if one asked with his eyes "Was that a touchdown?" and the other answered with his eyes "Yes, it was an interception." They agreed on "Was that a ________?" with "Yes, it was a/an ________." Fill in the blanks with two different words, and that causes the mass confusion. That is what bugs me most about the call.
Also, I can take from all of this that Golden Tate is a scumbag.
FWIW, pretty good screencap that proves it was not a Tate catch or simultaneous possession or whatever:
No that's actually a fairly irrelevant screen cap that came when they were on the ground after the play would have already been over. For it to have been an int, Jennings needed possession in the air and then land with two feet (or some other body part) in bounds and then Tate's contact would have ruled him down by contact when they went to the ground. The play was over, either way, by the time that screen cap was taken.
To be clear I think it was an int, and I think it was clear Jennings had the ball first and controlled it to the ground as Tate tried to get it, so it was an int, but I've seen the screen before and it's not helpful.
It seemed to me that the most obvious call on the play for the officials would simply have been to penalize Seattle for offensive pass interference, which was horridly blatant and do a do over. I think that would have made the whole issue moot and allowed the scab refs to escape the situation.
(Reposted from a different thread...)
I've watched the video now several times, and I can see that the ruling of simultaneous catch is certainly plausible. Remember that possession is not secured until both feet touch the ground. The defender 43 leaped into the air, caught the ball but 81 certainly looks like he could have his hands on the ball by the time 43 gets his left foot down. There are no camera angles which show the ball, so we don't know for sure. But, when 43's left foot hits the ground (0:49 of this video http://youtu.be/n5L7O3PWICs ) 43 is lying on top of 81, and it certainly appears that they both have their hands/arms on the ball. Thus, it is a simultaneous catch and a touchdown.
2 notes though: 1. 81 clearly got away with pass interference which would have negated the TD and ended the game. 2. 43 is an idiot for trying to catch the ball. In that situation, an incomplete pass wins the game, so he could have just knocked the ball out of bounds.
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties