MNF - You decide

[DaFace]

On review I don't see how they could conlcude that Tait retained control when (a) his one arm clearly comes off of the ball midair and repositions itself, (b) there are times on the ground where he clearly wasn't holding the football with two hands, and (c) the Packer had the ball clutched to his chest and secured with two hands the entire time.

They can't. This is officially

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

territory now. Blatant misinformation and denial.

[alnorth]

Just noticed this in an article on the negotiations.

The NFLRA offered the compromise of having new officials on a 401(k) plan, with the old officials grandfathered in under the old rules, but the league hasn't accepted that, and the parties remain apart on that issue.

That is one hell of a compromise. I can't believe the NFL isn't even going to give in a little bit.

[Omaha]

my 8th grade daughter NEVER watches football.

She said "The Green Bay guy had the ball first"

Maybe she should ref the next game.

So she missed the OPI, too?

[displacedinMN]

So she missed the OPI, too?

ROFL

I am sure she does not know that is wrong.

[Joe Seahawk]

How about that Seahawk D in the first half! If we can get our passing game going, which is going to be difficult with a young QB and below average recieving corps, we will be big trouble for the NFC

[Joe Seahawk]

Awesome name change! Thanks Mods.. :)

[Backwards Masking]

the winner is Vegas

[Ming the Merciless]

Option C - Offensive Pass interference , Pack Wins (time expired / runoff+ penalty)

[displacedinMN]

the winner is Vegas


Monday night's controversial touchdown call that gave the Seattle Seahawks a 14-12 victory over the Green Bay Packers had an immediate impact for gamblers.

If the Hail Mary pass by Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson would have been ruled an interception by Packers safety M.D. Jennings, Green Bay -- 3½ point favorites -- would have won by five, covering the spread.

Instead, the replacement officials' call that Seahawks wide receiver Golden Tate had possession shifted all those who bet on the Packers to those who took the underdog Seahawks.

"Most of the customers in the sportsbook were not happy with the final call," said John Avello, director of the race and sportsbook at the Wynn in Las Vegas. "The shift was 100 percent. After the (Seahawks) score, all bets were reversed."


The Packers have the NFL MVP while the Seahawks have a stout defense, and neither was any match for the guys in stripes, writes Mike Sando. Blog

Avello's best guess as to how much money was shifted worldwide on the call? $150 million in total bets worldwide.

Jeff Sherman, assistant director of the race and sportsbook at the Las Vegas Hotel, says he estimates that the game shifted $15 million in Nevada alone and also concurs with Avello that the worldwide number, including offshore sportsbooks and in Europe, is worth about 10 times more.

Those who take bets online estimated the shift in money was even greater.

Mike Perry, spokesman for betting site Sportsbook.ag, told ESPN.com his estimate in the money swing on the call at the end of the game is closer to between $200 million and $250 million.

Perry said that 70 to 80 percent of the money on his site was put on the Packers, which is in line with the percentage bet in Vegas. At Mandalay Bay, the sportsbook took in about $500,000 in total bets, with about 85 percent of the money on the Packers.

Oddsmaker Danny Sheridan, who sets the lines for USA Today, had the highest estimate of those surveyed by ESPN.com. Sheridan said Tuesday morning that he believes that $1 billion in total money changed hands with the touchdown call.

While there has been no way to handicap the exact part that replacement officials play in spreads, Avello says that it's not the first time this year that spreads have been altered by bad calls.

"It's the first call that has directly affected the outcome, but there have been many that have affected the outcome or the spread directly," he said.

The call didn't just have an immediate impact on gamblers, it also impacted the Packers' Super Bowl odds. After Monday night's game, the Las Vegas Hotel has changed the odds for the Packers to win the Super Bowl from 7-1 Monday to 9-1 Tuesday.

[NJChiefsFan]

If both players touched the ball simultaneously, it would have been a tie ball and gone to the receiver.

But the defensive back touched the ball first, then the receiver tried to claim possession. In this case, it's an interception.

The ref and replay official got it wrong.

Exactly. Jerry Austin did say its not reviewable though. Even live it was pretty clear that Jennings had well before the "jump ball" event happened. Should have just been knocked down.

[1ChiefsDan]

I was rooting for Seattle, but they definitely benefited from the replacement refs. No way should that have been ruled a TD on the initial call, let alone on review.

Only positive is that it got the two sides back to the bargaining table.

[MagicHef]

Exactly. Jerry Austin did say its not reviewable though. Even live it was pretty clear that Jennings had well before the "jump ball" event happened. Should have just been knocked down.

Well, Jerry Austin is wrong then. The NFL said it was reviewable.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Obviously, the REAL blown call was the OPI no-call.

The argument hinges on what constitutes possession. Is possession determined before it is determined to be a catch, or is it a simultaneous decision. If a player has control over a ball, but lands out of bounds, does he have possession but it's not a catch?

If possession is determined prior to a "catch" then the Packer had possession first, however, if possession is determined at the instant that the ruling is that it's a legal catch (i.e. when he gets the second foot down) then it WAS simultaneous possession, and a TD.

I tend to lean towards the latter based on those parameters, as I think that makes the most sense, otherwise a player could fumble a ball between having possession and being ruled a reception.

[boogblaster]

ya defender shoulda knocked the ball away .. then there would of been a no-brainer .....

[FAX]

Exactly. Jerry Austin did say its not reviewable though. Even live it was pretty clear that Jennings had well before the "jump ball" event happened. Should have just been knocked down.

Actually, it turns out that Austin was mistaken. I was speaking with Mr. Dave about this earlier today.

The NFL released a statement regarding this fiasco in which they confirmed that possession is reviewable in this situation. It was initially confusing to me because they sent the matter to the booth for review and I couldn't figure out why they would review it if there was nothing to review (other than the fact that they supposedly review all scoring plays).

The bottom line is that a lot of people were claiming that the possession aspect of the play was non-reviewable when, in fact, it is ... according to the league.

FAX

[jd1020]

I'm sure if Jennings batted the ball down the refs would have called Defensive PI on #37 for getting pushed in the back.

Free play at the 1... TD... Seahawks win.

[MagicHef]

Obviously, the REAL blown call was the OPI no-call.

The argument hinges on what constitutes possession. Is possession determined before it is determined to be a catch, or is it a simultaneous decision. If a player has control over a ball, but lands out of bounds, does he have possession but it's not a catch?

If possession is determined prior to a "catch" then the Packer had possession first, however, if possession is determined at the instant that the ruling is that it's a legal catch (i.e. when he gets the second foot down) then it WAS simultaneous possession, and a TD.

I tend to lean towards the latter based on those parameters, as I think that makes the most sense, otherwise a player could fumble a ball between having possession and being ruled a reception.

Based on the information in alnorth's post (#248), it would have to be the former.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Based on the information in alnorth's post (#248), it would have to be the former.

reading that, it seems contrary to what we know of the game.

A receiver cannot possess the ball, then lose possession and have a legal catch.

I submit that the receiver has to have possession AT THE TIME OF BEING DOWN to have a legal catch. Therefore, if both players have possession at the time they are down, then it is simultaneous possession.

It cannot be one way for a singular receiver, and different in case of dual possession.

[O.city]

Apparently, it's being reported that some of the officials that were in the lingerie league, were actually disciplined and released from that league for being bad officials.

[pr_capone]

Apparently, it's being reported that some of the officials that were in the lingerie league, were actually disciplined and released from that league for being bad officials.

This was talked about here during the preseason.

[KcMizzou]

Apparently, it's being reported that some of the officials that were in the lingerie league, were actually disciplined and released from that league for being bad officials.Yeah, I heard that. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

In any case, they screwed it up horribly at the worst possible time.

[O.city]

The thing that's more upsetting to me, is the way the NFL is approaching this. Just say, "yeah, they fucked up, they aren't experienced and they fucked up". Instead they are basically insulting the fans with this.

[jd1020]

reading that, it seems contrary to what we know of the game.

A receiver cannot possess the ball, then lose possession and have a legal catch.

I submit that the receiver has to have possession AT THE TIME OF BEING DOWN to have a legal catch. Therefore, if both players have possession at the time they are down, then it is simultaneous possession.

It cannot be one way for a singular receiver, and different in case of dual possession.

WTF?

You can have possession of a ball and not complete a catch because you lost possession after hitting the ground.

Jennings had possession FIRST and maintained possession after he hit the ground.

Tate didn't have possession at any point until after Jennings should have been ruled down by contact. When they were going to the ground Tate wasn't touching any part of the ball. When they hit the ground the only thing Tate was touching was Jennings forearms that were wrapped around the ball. Then Tate started wrestling it out... LOOOOOOOOOOOONG after the play should have been over.

If you fail to understand that then you are completely ignorant.

Exhibit A:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A3nYwK0CQAA6MPl.jpg:large

Pic 2: Nice "possession" Tate... of Jennings forearm.

Pic 3: Tate showing a nice firm grasp of not a damn thing.

Pic 4: Back to possessing the forearm.

Pic 5: About time you started touching the ball... Welp... He's got a hand on the ball, around the body of Jennings, that's wrapped up in Jennings arms and pressed against Jennings chest. Must have been simultaneous possession. Touchdown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KcMizzou]

The thing that's more upsetting to me, is the way the NFL is approaching this. Just say, "yeah, they ****ed up, they aren't experienced and they ****ed up". Instead they are basically insulting the fans with this.Agreed. They're trying to find a way to make make the rules fit what was called on the field.

I don't give a shit about the Packers one way or the other. And in situations like that I tend to root for the underdog. (In this case, the Seahawks) But any football fan who watched that should know that the Packers got screwed.

The NFL trying to explain it away is ridiculous, and frustrating.

[MahiMike]

Who cares? Both teams have been to the Super bowl since my kids were born. Not gonna feel sorry either way.

[FAX]

Well done, Mr. jd1020. Very well done.

Case. Closed.

FAX

[MagicHef]

reading that, it seems contrary to what we know of the game.

A receiver cannot possess the ball, then lose possession and have a legal catch.

I submit that the receiver has to have possession AT THE TIME OF BEING DOWN to have a legal catch. Therefore, if both players have possession at the time they are down, then it is simultaneous possession.

It cannot be one way for a singular receiver, and different in case of dual possession.

It is not different between a single receiver or two receivers. Possession is just one part of making a catch, like getting two feet in bounds. It just also happens to be used to determine who makes a catch when there are two receivers.

Saying that you cannot have possession before completing all the requirements of a catch would be the same as saying that a player cannot have two feet in bounds without a ball in their hands. The catch depends on the possession, not the other way around.

[BigMeatballDave]

The NFL is accepting ZERO responsibility with these officials.

They are their employees and its like they don't care.

Fucking hypocrites.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Would you support a team protesting by Boycotting/striking?
They said on TV, GB shouldn't have even went back out just went to the lockers as a protest.


Lang says Packers discussed extreme measures on flight home

The Packers weren’t happy about the outcome of last night’s game against the Seahawks. How happy weren’t they?

Offensive lineman T.J. Lang told 97.1 The Ticket in Detroit on Tuesday that, during the flight home from Seattle, the players discussed the possibility of going on strike — or simply taking a knee on every offensive snap — until the lockout of the officials ends.

“Whatever it takes, it’s just a total embarrassment to everybody watching the game, the players in the game, it’s not fun to be part of something like that,” Lang told the Valenti & Foster show. “If it keeps going on, it’s going to get ugly. . . . Going into a game worrying about the refs more than the other team, it’s a problem. The NFL, the Commissioner, if they don’t take action after last night. . . . That should be the last straw.”

Lang said he regrets using profanity to express himself on Twitter after the game, but that he believes more people should speak up.

“We were furious, man, as soon as we got into the locker room we turned the TVs on, it was just heartbreaking to have the game taken from us like that,” Lang said, confirming that roughly 20 players were throwing things at the monitor. “We put too much effort, blood, sweat and tears into this game to have it taken from us. . . .

“It was kind of embarrassing to be part of it, everybody was furious, a lot of guys are trying to take the high road, but it’s hard to do when there’s that much emotion into one game. To have the win actually stolen from you? It’s frustrating.”

With no indication that the league has any extra urgency to resolve the lockout, maybe the time for extreme measures from the players is coming. Their union has done plenty of talking, but has taken no action. If the time for action hasn’t arrived, it never will.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/25/lang-says-packers-discussed-extreme-measures-on-flight-home/

[FAX]

The NFL is accepting ZERO responsibility with these officials.

They are their employees and its like they don't care.

****ing hypocrites.

It is interesting to see how they are positioning themselves in light of that debacle.

It's as if they are distancing themselves from the officials. As though the refs are some kind of independent entity and the NFL is merely providing them with a venue or something.

Very strange.

FAX

[KcMizzou]

See... now they're pushing it a bit far. Maybe if you hadn't given up 8 freaking sacks in the first half, and been dominated by the Seattle D... you wouldn't have been in the position to get ****ed at the end.

Make no mistake, they did get ****ed... but they seem to be putting 0% percent of the blame on themselves for getting theirs asses kicked for the other 75% (or so) of the game.

[jd1020]

See... now they're pushing it a bit far. Maybe if you hadn't given up 8 freaking sacks in the first half, and been dominated by the Seattle D... you wouldn't have been in the position to get ****ed at the end.

Make no mistake, they did get ****ed... but they seem to be putting 0% percent of the blame on themselves for getting theirs asses kicked for the other 75% (or so) of the game.

Why should they put blame on themselves for losing the game when they ****ing won the game?

Guarantee that if the refs called that an INT they would be talking about those 8 sacks in the first half.

[DaFace]

Would you support a team protesting by Boycotting/striking?
They said on TV, GB shouldn't have even went back out just went to the lockers as a protest.


Lang says Packers discussed extreme measures on flight home

The Packers weren’t happy about the outcome of last night’s game against the Seahawks. How happy weren’t they?

Offensive lineman T.J. Lang told 97.1 The Ticket in Detroit on Tuesday that, during the flight home from Seattle, the players discussed the possibility of going on strike — or simply taking a knee on every offensive snap — until the lockout of the officials ends.

“Whatever it takes, it’s just a total embarrassment to everybody watching the game, the players in the game, it’s not fun to be part of something like that,” Lang told the Valenti & Foster show. “If it keeps going on, it’s going to get ugly. . . . Going into a game worrying about the refs more than the other team, it’s a problem. The NFL, the Commissioner, if they don’t take action after last night. . . . That should be the last straw.”

Lang said he regrets using profanity to express himself on Twitter after the game, but that he believes more people should speak up.

“We were furious, man, as soon as we got into the locker room we turned the TVs on, it was just heartbreaking to have the game taken from us like that,” Lang said, confirming that roughly 20 players were throwing things at the monitor. “We put too much effort, blood, sweat and tears into this game to have it taken from us. . . .

“It was kind of embarrassing to be part of it, everybody was furious, a lot of guys are trying to take the high road, but it’s hard to do when there’s that much emotion into one game. To have the win actually stolen from you? It’s frustrating.”

With no indication that the league has any extra urgency to resolve the lockout, maybe the time for extreme measures from the players is coming. Their union has done plenty of talking, but has taken no action. If the time for action hasn’t arrived, it never will.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/25/lang-says-packers-discussed-extreme-measures-on-flight-home/

That would be insane, but I can't blame them for being livid. I would have criticized the move if the NFL had come out and admitted that multiple things were wrong in that game, but them coming out and actually defending the simultaneous possession ruling makes it pretty clear that this needs to end and soon.

[KcMizzou]

Why should they put blame on themselves for losing the game when they ****ing won the game?

Guarantee that if the refs called that an INT they would be talking about those 8 sacks in the first half.I agree they did.. and it has to be frustrating as hell. But you'd think one guy on that offense would say, "We're better than that. We shouldn't have let it come down to that." That's all. :shrug:

[jd1020]

What gets lost in the whole situation is how bad that entire final drive was for the refs. Horrible call after horrible call capped off with one of the worst calls ever.

[DaFace]

See... now they're pushing it a bit far. Maybe if you hadn't given up 8 freaking sacks in the first half, and been dominated by the Seattle D... you wouldn't have been in the position to get ****ed at the end.

Make no mistake, they did get ****ed... but they seem to be putting 0% percent of the blame on themselves for getting theirs asses kicked for the other 75% (or so) of the game.

I see where you're coming from, but (as overused as it is) it's a problem with the integrity of the game. If a team loses a game because they were kicking the winning field goal and a bolt of lightning zaps the ball from existence mid-flight, they deserve the loss. But if they lose because of very clear and very preventable human error, that's not a part of the game, and they deserve to win. That changes everything.

[BigMeatballDave]

But you'd think one guy on that offense would say, "We're better than that. We shouldn't have let it come down to that." That's all. :shrug:

I could agree with this had Tate ACTUALLY caught that ball, and didn't push off.

[O.city]

If only it had happened to the Cowboys, Jerry might have had the stadium demolished.

[jd1020]

I think Snoop said it best on First Take. He said "if you can't overturn the call then why are you looking at the replay?"

Shame the replacements didn't know that in the event of an endzone play that possession can be reviewed and overturned.

[O.city]

Didn't the NFL have someone up in the box, for situations like this? Couldn't that person have said "Yeah, you can review it"?

[FAX]

You make a good point, Mr. KcMizzou.

But if you look at it another way, they had to fight back and overcome all those sacks and that Seahag defense. That's got to take a lot out of you.

Then after all that, to see your hard work and determination and resolve stolen in a split-second and right before your very eyes as though it were your innocent, little, infant baby snatched up in a shopping mall by some disgusting, filthy, lice-infested, deviant sex offender? My God, man. Have you no heart?

FAX

[FAX]

Didn't the NFL have someone up in the box, for situations like this? Couldn't that person have said "Yeah, you can review it"?

Hell, the one NFL guy they had in the broadcast booth didn't even know that.

What a mess.

FAX

[KcMizzou]

It'll be interesting to see how they respond.

[jd1020]

Didn't the NFL have someone up in the box, for situations like this? Couldn't that person have said "Yeah, you can review it"?

The head ref didn't even ask for what the call on the field was. I doubt he asked if he could review the play for possession.

That was the fastest review of one of the more blatant controversial calls ever.

[FAX]

The head ref didn't even ask for what the call on the field was. I doubt he asked if he could review the play for possession.

That was the fastest review of one of the more blatant controversial calls ever.

They review every scoring play (supposedly), so they probably just looked at the monitor, looked at themselves, and said, "Whatever."

FAX

[KcMizzou]

The head ref didn't even ask for what the call on the field was. I doubt he asked if he could review the play for possession.

That was the fastest review of one of the more blatant controversial calls ever.Confirm it for the home team, and GTFO

[CoMoChief]

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPnDzW.jpg&h=kAQFfVhG8&s=1

[BigMeatballDave]

:)<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w4rP_KZnvaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DaneMcCloud]

Didn't the NFL have someone up in the box, for situations like this? Couldn't that person have said "Yeah, you can review it"?

Phil Luckett

[DaneMcCloud]

How can this thread still be going? How can there be any dispute?

[BigMeatballDave]

Phil LuckettOMG I thought you were joking until I looked it up.

LMAO

[FAX]

How can this thread still be going? How can there be any dispute?

You just got here, Mr. DaneMcCloud, so the disputing is just beginning.

Besides, when is there never a dispute around here? We even have disputes on Steak and BJ day, for crying out loud.

I once saw a Planeteer dispute with himself for over an hour.

FAX

[DaFace]

Pretty interesting comments from Aaron Rogers on his podcast today. It's long, but he's pretty level-headed, but blunt about it.

http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=71&c=1191&f=742171

[jd1020]

How can this thread still be going? How can there be any dispute?

This thread can still be going the same way this play is going to be talked about til at least Sunday on every football related website/sports channel/radio station.

[Joe Seahawk]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/532159_4693355134733_499391194_n.jpg

[Frazod]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/532159_4693355134733_499391194_n.jpg

LMAO

[NJChiefsFan]

Well, Jerry Austin is wrong then. The NFL said it was reviewable.

Wow. I didn't watch/listen to any sports today aside from the Yankee game. I turned it off after Austin said after the game it wasn't reviewable. If the call itself wasn't terrible enough, what did the video official see?! That's even worse then the call. I know everybody knows this but this is news to me and the rock I just came out from under. Austin and the video official making the old refs part of the joy in this situation too. Nice to see.

[Dylan]

The league should have admitted they made a mistake. It's what the NFL has done in the past when officials blew a call that cost a team a game they should've won.

It happened to the Giants in the playoffs - 2002 playoff game between the Giants and 49ers. Final score 39-38. One day later, the NFL admitted its officiating crew made a mistake. Giants in their 38-35 loss to the Packers in December 2011.

The Packers are not the first team to have a game decided by a bad call and they won't be the last. It's an ever growing list.

Excerpt: League admits to two touchdown errors in Sunday night game

October 25, 2010

Sunday night’s Vikings-Packers game contained enough layers and wrinkles to justify 100 different items.

The availability of replay review is no substitute for getting it right in the first instance. On two separate occasions with scoring plays on the line, the officials got it wrong. Referee Scott Green simply botched the replay review.

And all three calls worked against the Vikings that lost by four points.

Per Judd Zulgad of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, coach Brad Childress said on Monday that the league office has informed him the call had been blown.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/25/league-admits-to-two-touchdown-errors-in-sunday-night-game/

[CoMoChief]

http://i.imgur.com/PnDzW.jpg

[FAX]

ROFL

FAX

[ExtremeChief]

http://allfacebook.com/files/2012/09/TouchdownCeltics.jpg

[acesn8s]

The league should have admitted they made a mistake. It's what the NFL has done in the past when officials blew a call that cost a team a game they should've won.

It happened to the Giants in the playoffs - 2002 playoff game between the Giants and 49ers. Final score 39-38. One day later, the NFL admitted its officiating crew made a mistake. Giants in their 38-35 loss to the Packers in December 2011.

The Packers are not the first team to have a game decided by a bad call and they won't be the last. It's an ever growing list.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/25/league-admits-to-two-touchdown-errors-in-sunday-night-game/We should bring those guys back.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

It is not different between a single receiver or two receivers. Possession is just one part of making a catch, like getting two feet in bounds. It just also happens to be used to determine who makes a catch when there are two receivers.

Saying that you cannot have possession before completing all the requirements of a catch would be the same as saying that a player cannot have two feet in bounds without a ball in their hands. The catch depends on the possession, not the other way around.

That's my point. Many of you are saying GB had possession first, so it was an INT. It's not an INT until it's a legal catch, so the GB player needed sole possession AND to be down if it is an INT.

If he did not have sole possession at the point he was down, it is a TD.

[Reerun_KC]

The league should have admitted they made a mistake. It's what the NFL has done in the past when officials blew a call that cost a team a game they should've won.

It happened to the Giants in the playoffs - 2002 playoff game between the Giants and 49ers. Final score 39-38. One day later, the NFL admitted its officiating crew made a mistake. Giants in their 38-35 loss to the Packers in December 2011.

The Packers are not the first team to have a game decided by a bad call and they won't be the last. It's an ever growing list.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/25/league-admits-to-two-touchdown-errors-in-sunday-night-game/

Showing evidence of the "regulars" screwing up royally isnt relivant to these discussions.

Sorry, the replacements are bad, regulars are good /NFL fan

[htismaqe]

Showing evidence of the "regulars" screwing up royally isnt relivant to these discussions.

Sorry, the replacements are bad, regulars are good /NFL fan

Showing the regulars screwing up ISN'T relevant.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Trying to draw upon moral relativism is stupid and childish.

[Amnorix]

Phil Luckett


Wow, I remember him being in several controversial calls and my memory based on just hearing his name was "bad official". Based on his Wikipedia entry, however, it seems he was right in all those controversial ones (and/or was just relying on another ref, so it wasn't his fault), and that the famous "refs screwed up the coin toss, it was JEROME BETTIS who screwed up and/or tried to cheat!


Controversies

Luckett has been known for officiating several controversial games.

Thanksgiving 1998
The first was an overtime coin toss on November 26, 1998 between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Detroit Lions at the Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan. The referee microphone only picked up Pittsburgh captain Jerome Bettis calling "tails."[2] The toss was "tails", and Luckett called the Lions as the coin toss winners. Bettis insisted that he had called "tails", and Luckett insisted that Bettis had called "heads-tails," meaning that Bettis said "heads" first. The Steelers argued the call to no avail and Bettis denied Luckett's claim. The Lions scored a field goal on their first possession of the overtime to win the game.
Within a week, the game tape was enhanced, and Bettis is clearly heard saying "hea-tails." A sideline microphone enhancement also clearly had Bettis telling Coach Bill Cowher that (Bettis) had said "hea-tails."[2] According to NFL rules, a team's first call is the one the referee will use.


Vinny Testaverde
The second was a late touchdown scored by Vinny Testaverde of the New York Jets against the Seattle Seahawks on December 6, 1998 at The Meadowlands in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Testaverde attempted a quarterback sneak on 4th down in the final minute of the game and although television replays clearly showed the football did not cross the goal line, head linesman Earnie Frantz ruled that Testaverde had scored (in fact, the only part of Testaverde that did cross the line was his helmet). At the time, the NFL did not use instant replay to review officials' decisions. Luckett, as the head of the officiating crew that day, received bad publicity despite not actually making the erroneous ruling. The call would be cited as a major reason why the NFL reinstituted instant replay the following season. The ruling is alleged to have helped cost Seahawks a chance at a playoff berth and cost head coach Dennis Erickson his job.

The Music City Miracle

The third was the Music City Miracle play during the 1999 Playoffs between the Buffalo Bills and Tennessee Titans on January 8, 2000 at Adelphia Coliseum in Nashville. A lateral pass (by rule, a backward pass or pass parallel to the line of yardage it was thrown from) thrown by Frank Wycheck to Kevin Dyson enabled Dyson to run 75 yards for a game-winning touchdown. The Bills claimed that the pass was actually a forward pass, and thus an illegal play that would have virtually clinched the game for the Bills. Instead, Luckett, after checking the replay, ruled the pass was thrown parallel to the 25-yard line, thus making it a legal lateral pass. The NFL gave the reason for the call was that replays showed no clear proof that the call on the field was bad. NFL Films, with computer assistance, later concluded that the pass was, once and for all, a lateral.

[MagicHef]

That's my point. Many of you are saying GB had possession first, so it was an INT. It's not an INT until it's a legal catch, so the GB player needed sole possession AND to be down if it is an INT.

If he did not have sole possession at the point he was down, it is a TD.

According to the rule book alnorth posted, when player A gains possession first, but player B gains possession as well before player A completes the catch, it is not joint possession, it is a catch by player A.

[Brock]

According to the rule book alnorth posted, when player A gains possession first, but player B gains possession as well before player A completes the catch, it is not joint possession, it is a catch by player A.

Yep. For the thousandth time, this was not a simultaneous catch.

[Joe Seahawk]

Uh -OH. I'm starting to sip the kool aide. Might have actually been a legit simultaneous possession after all! Tate has his feet down with partial possession.. :eek:

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/seahawks/Tatetouchesdown.jpg


The NFL's statement on the play notes that "a player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch."

Those elements are satisfied when a player:
•"Secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground."
•"Touches the ground inbounds with both feet or any body part other than his hands."
•"Maintains control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."

The league also cited the rule governing a simultaneous catch.

"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers," the rule reads. "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control."


<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23823733&freewheel=69016&sitesection=kcpq' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>

[BigMeatballDave]

Yes. That pic CLEARLY shows simultaneous possession.

Especially since we can't even see the ball.

[007]

Why are we still talking about this?

[DaneMcCloud]

Why are we still talking about this?

Joe's been around long enough to deserve his 15 minutes.

Love the new user name.

LMAO

[Joe Seahawk]

Yes. That pic CLEARLY shows simultaneous possession.

Especially since we can't even see the ball.

If you watch the video i just posted, it looks like Jennings is trying to pry the ball away from tate as they hit the ground, why would he be doing that if Tate didn't have at least partial possession? You must remember it is not a catch until your feet hit (clearly Tates feet hit first, see pic)

I can see why they didn't reverse the call on the field. the push off was obviously clearly missed, but I suspect it's rather common on those hail mary's

[Joe Seahawk]

One last thing for the doubters.. WTF, If i'm going to have this user name I might as well live up to it.

http://lifexinxrewind.wordpress.com/

[Joe Seahawk]

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/seahawks/Tatetouchesdown.jpg


According to the rule book alnorth posted, when player A gains possession first, but player B gains possession as well before player A completes the catch, it is not joint possession, it is a catch by player A. You don't posess the ball until you have satisfied the elements of posession.

Those elements are satisfied when a player:
•"Secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground."
•"Touches the ground inbounds with both feet or any body part other than his hands."
•"Maintains control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."

Tate achieves the elements of posession first, therefore it's a TD. simple as that see pic above.

[blaise]

Just stop. They got the win; you don't need to keep acting like it was legit.

[007]

Just stop. They got the win; you don't need to keep acting like it was legit.

:LOL:

[jd1020]

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/seahawks/Tatetouchesdown.jpg


You don't posess the ball until you have satisfied the elements of posession.

Those elements are satisfied when a player:
•"Secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground."
•"Touches the ground inbounds with both feet or any body part other than his hands."
•"Maintains control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."

Tate achieves the elements of posession first, therefore it's a TD. simple as that see pic above.

GTFO.

Go back to the post where it stated from the rulebook that possession is not determined by having to touch the ground.

On your way out, look at the still of the initial catch made by Jennings and take a gander at Tate's hands.... Yup.... They aren't even touching the ball. They are touching Jennings forearms.

[BigCatDaddy]

The Seahawks got a gift W. Just enjoy it man. It's better then being the screwy.

[Phobia]

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/seahawks/Tatetouchesdown.jpg


You don't posess the ball until you have satisfied the elements of posession.

Those elements are satisfied when a player:
•"Secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground."
•"Touches the ground inbounds with both feet or any body part other than his hands."
•"Maintains control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."

Tate achieves the elements of posession first, therefore it's a TD. simple as that see pic above.

The way this seems to be used is Green Bay is being punished because their player achieved more air or timed his jump differently than Tate. I don't think that is the "spirit of the rule". There's no race to jump, catch and reach the ground with both feet first. That is ridiculous. You're right, you are drinking the koolaid.