Armchair Quarterback
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 1,198
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.It's one of those things that gets repeated so often that it is accepted as fact. That call always makes the obligatory 'ten worst calls' in sports history whenever a ref/umpire blows a call. Nobody in the media wants to stand up and say 'actually the ref made the right call', because the agenda for those type of lists is to rile up fans who feel their team got jobbed.
Bad rule, right call.
But that message is not going to attract viewers/readers/listeners - the agenda when those lists are compiled is to show how bad refs have screwed up, and spark debate over which call was the worst. Ratings trump honest analysis every time.
He compared the two as blown calls throughout history that teams just have to learn to live with
I haven't heard what Goodell said yet, so it's difficult for me to comment on that part of it. Was he saying that Walt Coleman blew the call against Oakland? Or was he saying that both were perhaps poorly worded rules, and the refs in both cases actually made the right call - even though in both examples that doesn't appear to be the case when you see the replay?
During his press conference, problem is one was a legit call on an actual rule and one was a blown call made by his gang of Division III incompetents and Lingerie League rejects. Does he even know the rules of the game he is commissioner of? He is such douchebag. I can't stand him.
They were both the right call...It was a simultaneous catch by both players.
Great... Pete Carroll is posting here, because nobody else believes it one bit.
A catch requires possession. Tate never had clear possession, just a hand on top of the ball AFTER Jennings had already caught the ball and had completed the catch by maintaining control as his butt hit the ground.
The NFL supported the call becuase
1) Until today they need to keep using those guys and didn't want to undermine them any more, especially since they had asked everyone else to respect them
2) They were in negotiations with the real refs. Admitting just how bad it is would have undermined their negotiations
3) If a video replay was ruled to have been improperly conducted on the final play of a game, and the ruling was based on more video replay showing the on-site replay decision to be wrong (as is the case here), then logically they could be asked why they do not change the outcome of the game, since no game action occurred after the mistake. Changing the outcome of a game a day later is a precedent that they never ever want to set. People would be forever looking for the next instance when this could occur, and that is unthinkable.
This!
I rarely waste space quoting entire posts but the above bears repeating
Great... Pete Carroll is posting here, because nobody else believes it one bit.
A catch requires possession. Tate never had clear possession, just a hand on top of the ball AFTER Jennings had already caught the ball and had completed the catch by maintaining control as his butt hit the ground.
The NFL supported the call becuase
1) Until today they need to keep using those guys and didn't want to undermine them any more, especially since they had asked everyone else to respect them
2) They were in negotiations with the real refs. Admitting just how bad it is would have undermined their negotiations
3) If a video replay was ruled to have been improperly conducted on the final play of a game, and the ruling was based on more video replay showing the on-site replay decision to be wrong (as is the case here), then logically they could be asked why they do not change the outcome of the game, since no game action occurred after the mistake. Changing the outcome of a game a day later is a precedent that they never ever want to set. People would be forever looking for the next instance when this could occur, and that is unthinkable.
Goodell will continue to support the call for reason #3.
I don't remember many of us complaining that time when Tedy basically ripped the ball out of the hands of the receiver who posessed it as they tumbled to the ground because he wanted it more... Of course I believe that was before the replay rules were changed to allow review or challenge of change of possession calls. Not to mention before the advent of twitter.
They were both the right call, there is a reason when the NFL released its letter it did not say it was not a simultaneous catch. It said the play should of been reversed because they missed a pass interference penalty. Just like I stated when this happened before the media and fans got all riled up for blood. It was a simultaneous catch by both players. You can have possession of a ball around someones back or holding it on your helmet it doesnt matter, all that matters is both players came down from the air with possession of that ball in their hands.
Is it unfair? No not really I've seen just as iffy simultaneous catch calls numerous times, they just never ended a game. The media and fans were out looking for blood waiting on any little discrepency to jump down on the new refs.
And I'm no fan of the new refs, they are slow and have a bad understanding of the rules but what most people have been criticising has been there with the old refs. It's just that it was more taboo to come out and say it 500 times on a broadcast.
Go watch the seattle vs pittsburg superbowl game and tell me how much better those refs were? Where was the outrage then?
Anyways back to the point, the call was correct just as the tuck rule was.. it just wasn't popular
Great... Pete Carroll is posting here, because nobody else believes it one bit.
When Bruschi ripped the ball away from Rhodes by the time they got to the ground he had full possession and hopped up with it IIRC. I can hit YouTube from work to confirm but that's my memory of it.