The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:McCarthy should file a formal complaint against the league over the final play....a play that was solely responsible for the Packers losing the game, a play where the wrong call was clearly made and it's indisputable, a call the league cannot defend.

That's where you're wrong.

Deadskins wrote:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 of the NFL rulebook discusses a simultaneous catch.

"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both 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," the rule states.

The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... le=HP11_cp

OK, that last line means that the refs didn't have the option of overturning the call. Obviously, that is a stupid rule. They should just make everything reviewable. You should even be able to challenge calls that were not made. The goal of replay is to get the calls right, isn't it? You still only have two challenges, so it wouldn't slow the game down any.

The regular refs have made game costing blown calls too, in even more important games (the Tom Brady tuck rule comes to mind), and the league defended those calls. Several years back the 49ers were given a game saving call against the G-strings in a playoff game, and the league issued an apology, but that was little consolation to the G-strings (I did like that one ). These things happen, so I don't see where this really changes anything. They need to fix the replay system, so that any aspect of any play can be reviewed.

Remember when Troy Aikman looked downfield and when he didn't find an open receiver spiked it and they gave him the spike instead of intentional grounding?

I remember Deion Sanders being sprung for a game winning punt return by a blatant block in the back right in front of the ref that was never called. And the Thanksgiving game where our receiver had his shirt pulled over his shoulder pads on a PI in the endzone that was never called. It always seemed like Dallas was the beneficiary of those bad calls, and non calls.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Any argument about the scab officials being as good as the regular officials dies with that play if nothing else

No one has argued they are now "as good." So you're arguing with no one.

But people have said that there isn't a significant difference between the two, which is equally as untrue.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:Gamblers beware: don't lose your $$$ to these refs.

I feel sorry for those who LOST money on this game...

The more bonehead play was by Jennings than the refs. Had he not gone for the ego interception and just knocked the ball down, it was game over. Going for the ego in a crowd invites a simultaneous catch opportunity. While I agree it was a bad call, it only happened because Jennings made even a dumber play to set it up.

There was a prominent game last year where a DB knocked down a ball on a Hail Mary . . . into the hands of a WR for the touchdown. Jennings had more than one Seattle WR below him, so there was probably as much risk in knocking down the ball as there was going for the INT. I don't think his move was a "boneheaded" or selfish play at all.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Any argument about the scab officials being as good as the regular officials dies with that play if nothing else

No one has argued they are now "as good." So you're arguing with no one.

But people have said that there isn't a significant difference between the two, which is equally as untrue.

Well, again unless someone wants to dispute me on this, I think I'm the most extreme in that regard and I don't agree with that characterization. I said they were as good as the regulars this week ... until the last two minutes of the game and they completely lost control of it. I tore them apart last week for sucking. I said the first week that they made some bonehead calls, but so do the regular refs. Deadskins gave a pretty good laundry list of their blown calls the first week. He's also given a pretty good laundry list of the regular officials blown calls.

I would agree with your statement, I've said there isn't a significant difference between the two ... for periods of time. However, to eliminate that qualification is a major, major difference between that and the statement without the qualification.

I'va also argued they will get better with more classroom time and experience, which will help them maintain control of games. They are also going to have to crack down on teams that try to play like the Rams did thinking they won't do anything about it, which so far they haven't. I also said since we replaced them all at once, there are going to be bad choices all at once and they have to replace them. At that point, I don't think there will be a major difference. However, again, eliminating that and saying I'm saying there is no significant difference now is just not true.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:McCarthy should file a formal complaint against the league over the final play....a play that was solely responsible for the Packers losing the game, a play where the wrong call was clearly made and it's indisputable, a call the league cannot defend.

That's where you're wrong.

Actually, it turns out he's right:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... aking_news

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

The play is reviewable. They just reviewed it and determined that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call:

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

I agree with grampi that it should not have been upheld. You might disagree and say that it was in fact a simultaneous catch, but the fact is that the play was reviewable and could have been overturned.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:McCarthy should file a formal complaint against the league over the final play....a play that was solely responsible for the Packers losing the game, a play where the wrong call was clearly made and it's indisputable, a call the league cannot defend.

That's where you're wrong.

Actually, it turns out he's right:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... aking_news

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

The play is reviewable. They just reviewed it and determined that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call:

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

I agree with grampi that it should not have been upheld. You might disagree and say that it was in fact a simultaneous catch, but the fact is that the play was reviewable and could have been overturned.

That's fine, but that's not what I said grampi was wrong about. I said the NFL could and, in fact, would defend that call, and you just provided the evidence.

ACW wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:How could this have happened, you ask?

1. refs are totally incapable and intimidated
2. had they made the RIGHT call - they all would have been scalped by the fans
3. Can we say: Home Field Advantage?


It AIN'T right guys.......it JUST AIN'T RIGHT....!!!

We didn't get that home field advantage from the exact same officiating crew.

They reffed the Rams game, not the Bengals game.

So we did get the home field treatment.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:Gamblers beware: don't lose your $$$ to these refs.

I feel sorry for those who LOST money on this game...

The more bonehead play was by Jennings than the refs. Had he not gone for the ego interception and just knocked the ball down, it was game over. Going for the ego in a crowd invites a simultaneous catch opportunity. While I agree it was a bad call, it only happened because Jennings made even a dumber play to set it up.

There was a prominent game last year where a DB knocked down a ball on a Hail Mary . . . into the hands of a WR for the touchdown. Jennings had more than one Seattle WR below him, so there was probably as much risk in knocking down the ball as there was going for the INT. I don't think his move was a "boneheaded" or selfish play at all.

We're going to have to disagree on that, and completely so. That his spiking the ball was as dangerous as trying to catch it in a crowd when he loses the tie is unfathomable to me. That you have an example of one play is to me the logical equivalent of the story where one person got thrown clear of the car before it exploded, so not wearing a seatbelt saved their life, ergo it's as dangerous to wear one as not wear one. And on that play, there was no one below him. There were arms reaching for the ball, but no bodies. Spike = game over, Packers win.

The way I see it, if you can catch the ball, that means no one else is going to. To say there might be a simultaneous situation is "to me the logical equivalent of the story where one person got thrown clear of the car before it exploded, so not wearing a seatbelt saved their life, ergo it's as dangerous to wear one as not wear one."

Deadskins wrote:The way I see it, if you can catch the ball, that means no one else is going to. To say there might be a simultaneous situation is "to me the logical equivalent of the story where one person got thrown clear of the car before it exploded, so not wearing a seatbelt saved their life, ergo it's as dangerous to wear one as not wear one."

You can reach one arm to knock far further then you can reach two hands to catch. You seriously don't think the odds of a simultaneous catch (which you lose since you're defense) are a lot higher in a crowd? Certainly on that play, there was no chance the O caught the ball if he spiked it down.

No, I don't. I could see maybe batting it out of bounds behind him, but typically, making the catch is just as safe as knocking it down.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:McCarthy should file a formal complaint against the league over the final play....a play that was solely responsible for the Packers losing the game, a play where the wrong call was clearly made and it's indisputable, a call the league cannot defend.

That's where you're wrong.

Deadskins wrote:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 of the NFL rulebook discusses a simultaneous catch.

"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both 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," the rule states.

The rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can't review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... le=HP11_cp

OK, that last line means that the refs didn't have the option of overturning the call."


Here's where you're wrong. There was no simultanious catch...at no time did ANY Seahawks player have two hands on the ball, or any way, shape, or form have control of the ball...Jennings was the only player who did....Tate never had more than one hand on the ball which was clearly shown in the replay...so the NFL has no evidence to back their argument....

And yet they still made that argument.

I'm going to say something that a lot won't like or agree with. That call could easily been made incorrectly by the regular refs and it isn't even close to the worst officiated game or play I have ever seen.

I remember Bailey getting a pick in the endzone, then the WR put his hands on the ball much later than Tate did, Champ held on to the ball and the refs still gave the WR the TD.
Remember Kordel Stewart ruining out of the back of the end zone then catching a TD against the Colts in the AFC Championship, even though the ref that was standing over a yard out of bounds had to move out of Slashes way.
How about a Skins, Cardinals game in the late 90s were the refs were so bad that Dave McGinnest(sp?) the Cards HC credited the refs for the win in his post game press conference. That was the game where Matt Turk punted a ball that was blocked by the Cards, another Cardinal made made contact with it past the line pasts scrimmage, making the ball a live ball, the Skins recovered the muffed punt and the ball was given back to Arizona. The reason they said, Turk "fumbled" the ball and didn't every punt it. They reviewed the play and since you couldn't actually see Turk make contact with the ball (but you could clearly see the ball didn't hit the ground) they said they couldn't over turn the play. That was just one example of 4 or 5 plays during that game that was blatantly incorrect in the favor of the Cardinals. Again, the Cards HC said, "Thank God for the refs or we wouldn't have won that game!".

I could go on for hours. The normal refs are just as capable of being incompetent as the replacements. To me the biggest difference is the total lack of control the scab refs have over game management and player/coach interaction. Thay had been horrendous. The refs have lost any control they ever had.

But as far as calling the game (other than not knowing the length of a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty or when to do a ten second run off (regular refs have screwed that up too)) these refs are just like the normal refs. It wasn't the replacement refs that got the overtime coin flip wrong in a Steelers game or allow a Touchdown to be reviewed AFTER the Skins (and Browns) had already run another play (the extra point)

I'm going to say something that a lot won't like or agree with. That call could easily been made incorrectly by the regular refs and it isn't even close to the worst officiated game or play I have ever seen.

I remember Bailey getting a pick in the endzone, then the WR put his hands on the ball much later than Tate did, Champ held on to the ball and the refs still gave the WR the TD.
Remember Kordel Stewart ruining out of the back of the end zone then catching a TD against the Colts in the AFC Championship, even though the ref that was standing over a yard out of bounds had to move out of Slashes way.
How about a Skins, Cardinals game in the late 90s were the refs were so bad that Dave McGinnest(sp?) the Cards HC credited the refs for the win in his post game press conference. That was the game where Matt Turk punted a ball that was blocked by the Cards, another Cardinal made made contact with it past the line pasts scrimmage, making the ball a live ball, the Skins recovered the muffed punt and the ball was given back to Arizona. The reason they said, Turk "fumbled" the ball and didn't every punt it. They reviewed the play and since you couldn't actually see Turk make contact with the ball (but you could clearly see the ball didn't hit the ground) they said they couldn't over turn the play. That was just one example of 4 or 5 plays during that game that was blatantly incorrect in the favor of the Cardinals. Again, the Cards HC said, "Thank God for the refs or we wouldn't have won that game!".

I could go on for hours. The normal refs are just as capable of being incompetent as the replacements. To me the biggest difference is the total lack of control the scab refs have over game management and player/coach interaction. Thay had been horrendous. The refs have lost any control they ever had.

But as far as calling the game (other than not knowing the length of a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty or when to do a ten second run off (regular refs have screwed that up too)) these refs are just like the normal refs. It wasn't the replacement refs that got the overtime coin flip wrong in a Steelers game or allow a Touchdown to be reviewed AFTER the Skins (and Browns) had already run another play (the extra point)

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:Gamblers beware: don't lose your $$$ to these refs.

I feel sorry for those who LOST money on this game...

The more bonehead play was by Jennings than the refs. Had he not gone for the ego interception and just knocked the ball down, it was game over. Going for the ego in a crowd invites a simultaneous catch opportunity. While I agree it was a bad call, it only happened because Jennings made even a dumber play to set it up.

There was a prominent game last year where a DB knocked down a ball on a Hail Mary . . . into the hands of a WR for the touchdown. Jennings had more than one Seattle WR below him, so there was probably as much risk in knocking down the ball as there was going for the INT. I don't think his move was a "boneheaded" or selfish play at all.

You mean this one from 2 years ago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlvOUG8nuZ4
Gus Johnson FTW!

ACW wrote:You mean this one from 2 years ago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlvOUG8nuZ4
Gus Johnson FTW!

By down, I meant towards the ground, not the other "down." Thanks for the video!

Any argument for patience with the scabs is gone.

The reaction is too strong everywhere and deservedly so.

The NFL 32 dwarfs and Ginger Hammer are looking for a hole to hide. They wanted an incompetent performance which changed the outcome of the game and they clearly got it last night.

ACW wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:Gamblers beware: don't lose your $$$ to these refs.

I feel sorry for those who LOST money on this game...

The more bonehead play was by Jennings than the refs. Had he not gone for the ego interception and just knocked the ball down, it was game over. Going for the ego in a crowd invites a simultaneous catch opportunity. While I agree it was a bad call, it only happened because Jennings made even a dumber play to set it up.

There was a prominent game last year where a DB knocked down a ball on a Hail Mary . . . into the hands of a WR for the touchdown. Jennings had more than one Seattle WR below him, so there was probably as much risk in knocking down the ball as there was going for the INT. I don't think his move was a "boneheaded" or selfish play at all.

You mean this one from 2 years ago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlvOUG8nuZ4
Gus Johnson FTW!

Yes, that's the one I had in mind. I also remember the Skins having something like that happen, and ARE was the beneficiary (though he didn't end up scoring, and it was only half-time).

If Kazoo can give me more than 1 or 2 examples of Hail Mary passes where the defender either went for the catch which allowed the offense a TD, or a "simultaneous" catch happened, then I will change my mind. But this is the first I've ever heard of a simultaneous catch on a last-play Hail Mary, and I'm just not aware of any attempted INTs that you could say resulted in a TD.

Normally people say DBs are selfish if it's 4th down and they go for the pick instead of the knockdown. I do buy that argument, because it has to do with field position. But I don't buy the idea that going for the INT is riskier because a simultaneous catch is possible (which is like the seat belt example) or that it's led to game-winning TDs. I suspect the odds of a mishap with either strategy are probably about the same.

And for the record, I hate Gus Johnson's style of announcing. He's everything that's wrong with American pro sports commentary, though Joe Buck might actually win that award if I was the one handing it out.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ACW wrote:You mean this one from 2 years ago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlvOUG8nuZ4
Gus Johnson FTW!

By down, I meant towards the ground, not the other "down." Thanks for the video!

This is a bad argument. If you showed me a case where a DB failed to get the INT and the WR scored a touchdown, I could just as easily say "By 'interception,' I meant actually catching the ball, not letting the receiver catch it. Thanks for the example!" The question is what strategy is best to pick, not whether one strategy is successful when it's successful.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

ACW wrote:You mean this one from 2 years ago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlvOUG8nuZ4
Gus Johnson FTW!

By down, I meant towards the ground, not the other "down." Thanks for the video!

This is a bad argument. If you showed me a case where a DB failed to get the INT and the WR scored a touchdown, I could just as easily say "By 'interception,' I meant actually catching the ball, not letting the receiver catch it. Thanks for the example!" The question is what strategy is best to pick, not whether one strategy is successful when it's successful.

That isn't an "argument," It's a video. My argument was the part before. I'm going more from basketball, which was my primary sport playing, but you try to catch the ball in a crowd and there are hands everywhere trying to grab it. To say catching the ball in a crowd is as easy as knocking it down ... in my experience ... which is what I have to go on, is unfathomable to me.

Second, stand up, turn your shoulder, and stick one hand out and see how far you can reach to knock down the pass. Now, hold both arms out and hold your hands as if you are going to catch the ball and see how far you can reach.

Third, watch the video of the play, I saw it on espn. He was on a mission to do one thing, prevent the O from catching it. Clearly had he reached out and knocked it down (the real down, not the one in the video), game over.

That's my argument, I'm not doing research which won't change experience and observation anyway.

If the defender DEFENDED the ball and deflected it away from the wr- game over, and NOT left in the hands of the refs. Scabs or no, you NEVER leave it up to the refs, umps, or judges. Not in any sport imo.

I've heard the point about knocking the ball down rather than attempting to catch it. And that's a reasonable contention ... but under the circumstances, just another diversion from the main points.

1) the blatant offensive pass interference on Shields should not have been missed. That flag ends the game, irrespective of who "caught" the ball.

2) Jennings caught the ball, then Tate tried to wrestle it away ... it was not a simultaneous catch by any stretch of the imagination, though I will accept the notion that it is much less obvious at real time speed ... slow motion is a luxury the officials only enjoy when a play is reviewed.

3) this leads to the rules and guidelines governing instant reply and review. They are in desperate need of change. If the goal is to protect the integrity of the game, and ensure the proper calls are made, then every aspect of the play should be subject to scrutiny, and these "judgement calls", or calls that were not made cannot continue to be exempt from challenge and non-reversible under replay rules, and certainly not on scoring plays and inside 2 minutes where all calls are reviewed.

The error is rather glaring in my opinion when the claim is made that this "simultaneous catch" scenario is not subject to review and reversible due to it being a "judgement call". Fact is, most calls are "judgement calls". Is is not a judgement call relative to spotting the ball, which is subject to review and re-spotting the ball according to what replay video shows? And under the automatic review process which is in place on scoring plays, should not every aspect of the activity be reviewable?

This game is a perfect example of the flaws in the process. Clearly the video shows unquestionable offensive pass interference that had game outcome implication, and it's the arbitrary nature of the rules governing replay that prevents the correction of that obvious error that would have reversed the outcome of the game.

The entire situation is an affront to common sense as well as the integrity of the game.

The only drama missing here is a facebook picture of the TD signaling official wearing a Seahawk jersey, while mowing his lawn.

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:If the defender DEFENDED the ball and deflected it away from the wr- game over, and NOT left in the hands of the refs. Scabs or no, you NEVER leave it up to the refs, umps, or judges. Not in any sport imo.

But this is the nature of ifs, ands, and buts. If he had swatted the ball down, and it bounced off another player's shoulder pads and landed in the awaiting arms of another Seahawk receiver .... then everyone would be saying ... "he should have caught the ball".

Fact is, the blatant nature of that "shove" Tate gave Shields is really the issue in my opinion. That should never have been missed, and that would have rendered all else moot.