I think it's time to cut bait with this one. You're not going to convince him to give up a lost cause, and pretty much everybody else agrees it was a terribly blown call. I'm more concerned with players getting clocked in the head and fighting with no penalty, to be honest. Blown calls will happen, but somebody is going to get seriously hurt if this keeps up.
SO why is it that every article and every media thing I've seen say different? http://nfl.si.com/2012/09/25/replacement-refs-botch-packers-seahawks-ending/ http://content.usatoday.com/communi...f-disaster-in-seattle/70001064/1#.UGHD-6Tyb4Y https://twitter.com/MaseDenver/statuses/250489188124868608 --- Found this article though that supports your argument. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ements-had-a-hand-in-last-nights-debacle-too/ --- As far as the rulebook goes, you are correct... unless there is something specifically highlighted somewhere about possession not being able to be reviewed. The rule isn't specified as to what can be reviewed in an interception or touchdown. Can they review possession, or do they review that the player actually had control of the ball? That's the real question here. Because obviously if you were able to review the fact of who had the possession, then I'd easily blame the replay official. Anyone with two eyes can see that that was an INT. My guess is that it wasn't reviewable because if it was, it would have easily been overturned. I don't know where this rule is specified.
Why not? He has a hand wrapped around the ball and the ball is not touching the ground. Granted, Jennings' grab probably prevented the ball from dropping to the ground and making it easier for Tate to have a hand under it, but it's not conclusive or clear-cut. How do you know for certain Tate wouldn't have made a one handed grab like the Moss highlight?
It reminds me of the tuck rule, by some crazy arbitrary interpretation of some archaic rule, you can find a way to **** over a defense and make sure you kid is put through college on the strength of some bookie's juice.
I actually had same reaction as kevC to the call. I thought it was clear that Jennings had "more possession" but that they both had "first contact of possession." Whether or not Tate's one-handed-between-Jennings-chest led to an actual possession and at the same time as Jennings is the part up for debate. Do I think the call was right? It's absolutely common sense to not have called it that way. However I side with kevC that it's also not as clear as everyone is making it out to be, particularly if you take the book by the letter (contrary to people quoting the book). Just because Jennings had obviously more possession of the ball does not just disqualify Tate from having minimum qualifying possession of the ball.
THIS. My biggest gripe with this whole fiasco is how all the attention/blame is going to the replacement refs. Even with them, this entire situation still could have been avoided if the NFL allowed its officials to use the technology available to them to the fullest extent. I don't want to hear Goodell give me this garbage about "judgment" calls. You can make judgments by watching replays, too. Officials aren't always going to be in the ideal position to see what needs to be seen. It's mind-boggling that the NFL has the technology to help them and refuses to do it in some circumstances.
If You look at this picture, You would say interception right? You can clearly see the ref's arm raising up for a TD.
why is everyone so amazed? the nfl has always had wacky controversial plays..the tuck, the calvin johnson rule..etc. Does anyone remember that chistmas day game with the 49ers and a houston team that was not the texans? dishman and 49er receiver got to wrestle for the football in the endzone? maybe I'm remembering it wrong, i was 12.
That picture shows Tate with finger tips on the bottom of the ball, Jennings with both hands around the ball, and another Packer with his hand fully on the ball. Jennings has possession in this picture, Tate does not.
Been watching the NFL for 17 years now. I've seen a lot of bizarre **** happen. Never seen a game end like this though.
the tuck rule still wins. a made up rule on the spot and it kept a team out of the SUPERBOWL!!!! this also started the brady/belichek/pats dynasty. that one play changed the nfl universe forever. this is a really bad call in week 3.
It didn't keep us from the Super Bowl technically. It was the divisional round. I still have nightmares about that play and I still can't look at Tom Brady or any Patriots player for that matter without a small amount of rage being kindled up. Vinatieri made a hell of a kick, but that call was so back-breaking. Woodson stripped Brady plain as day, but because he pump-faked 1 second prior its somehow an incomplete pass? Its the same principle as the "catch" last night. If thats what you interpret the rules as, then either you are dead wrong or the rule is completely stupid.
NFL doing damage control as expected with their statement. http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/75958/nfl-statement-on-monday-night-controversy
the tuck rule sucks but are people implying it wasn't an actual "rule" when Hoculi announced it? i'm asking because i've never heard that it was made up.
