By the way. Whose job is it to go under the hood and make decisions about these types of plays during the normal review? That would be the referee (dumb, but that is an argument for another day). To disparage a guy w Austin's credentials in order to advance your argument is silly.

More like having an Out and a Dead Ball signal by 2 umpires. Safe would have been if the BJ had signalled touchback.

I don't see two different calls. I see one stop-the-clock signal, and a TD signal. As Jeff notes previously, they don't use the stop-the-clock signal on touchbacks.

This is the football equivalent of one official raising his hand and the other going straight to the player control signal.

So, you are saying both officials had a TD?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't know what the other official had, and don't see how anyone does.

You could be right. I've only had one close TB interception, and I didn't use the stop the clock signal; but mine was close to an incomplete as the defender was running out of bounds.

While I don't think this is quite the "blarge," it does seem like it's close. If anything, it seems the one official wants to talk about it.

BTW, I've seen the white hat on these replacement crews use the stop clock mechanic on touchbacks more than once this season.

When I saw the BJ use the stop clock mechanic last night, it communicated change of possession to me.

And, that is the issue I have with the way the play was managed by the two covering officials.

They clearly looked at each other before either gave a signal. I wish a reverse camera angle were available for us to see if they said anything to each other in that brief moment. Anything at all would have been good..."I have a touchdown, what do you have?" Instead, they gave two different signals which only invites confusion and opens the crew up to even more criticism.

I've seen guys stop the clock before a TB signal. Can't recall if it's NFL or NCAA.

I believe he said, "I have a touchdown, you call it dead," and the other guy said, "Ok."

Without getting into a long argument on that...I totally disagree. OK, one point to make...not saying the call was correct, but since when do officials make a call based on what is going to cause less "water cooler" discussions?

How irresponsible of him to try and enjoy his retirement ;)

I have seen the "stop the clock" signal used before the TB signal on TBs before...I must admit, I'm not sure how the regular officials do it, or what the correct NFL mechanic is, but I have seen it. I have never seen 'time out' before someone the signaled TD. With the two officials giving different signals, it is pretty obvious they had different calls (either that or the deep wing had a TD and the BJ wanted to talk about the call before making it). It looks really really bad to have the two signals, but it does not make the call wrong. I just means they need to at least get on the same page before someone goes up with a signal. As we used to say on our crew, touchdowns are forever.

I don't think that was the point, I think that if they both went up with the same call, it would have been less of a talking point...I don't really agree, I think that even if the regulars called this it would be a huge discussion point today.

Jerry Markbreit is on WSCR Chicago right now; calls it an "obvious interception." No real deep analysis of the play, though. :-)

Agreed, I thought that he was anticipating a huddle.

No NFL official is signaling time-out before he signals a touchdown. It's time-out and touchback or touchdown.

Besides the clear and obvious OPI, IMO, that's an interception and touchback...the DB gains control of the ball first and subsequently the WR.

On the OPI, I agree.

On the catch, I'm just not so sure. It looks like Tate has his hand in there from the moment the ball arrives. As crowder noted, there's no distinction with SP on who has better possession.

I'm not positive either way on this, but if the flag is down, it doesn't matter.

Is OPI loss of down in the NFL?

Fair enough. If that is true, then it answers my question. Nonetheless, two different signals still "looks" bad and invites *unecessary* criticism of the crew, imo.

Yes, they will still get criticized for the call, however, if both officials signal TD, there is less confusion and just looks better. Shows the crew is effectively communicating in pressure situations. That (at some level) counts for something in my book. Maybe it doesn't matter to anyone else. And that's ok, I guess.

If GB bats the ball down to the ground or OOB instead of trying to catch the ball, more than likely same would be true.... Nobody would be talking about this right now.

Part of the problem was the announcers (yeah, big shock)....

The not the BJ signaling time out and they said "that is what you signal before touchback. He is signaling an interception." Ummm, no.

Ten yards from the previous spot. No loss of down, but the clock had expired. No untimed down.

OPI in the NFL is a 10 yard penalty from the previous spot. An offensive penalty on the last play of the game does not extend the game and the game should have been over.

From the NFL:

Joint possession IS reviewable in the end zone and not reviewable in the field of play. And they just agreed with the officials not overturning the call with the video evidence provided.

NFL supports decision to not overturn Seahawks' touchdown - NFL.com

Not really surprising

He has a hand in there...but I've never seen that considered enough for possession...especially when it comes to joint possession. Compare that to the DB who clearly has control of the ball with two hands on the ball. Seemed pretty evident to me.

That is what I took out of this signal is the BJ felt they would discuss the play because he did not have possession either way. I think he gave the signal most of all out of surrender as he did not seem to have anything. I think he was just trying to find the ball and saw players on the ground with their hands on it.

Actually not sure how the BJ could see anything as there were other players in his way. And when I hear people ask him to be somewhere different, I am not so sure about that perspective at all. The BJ stays mostly in the middle of the field and would not have time on a deep play to get far over without getting in the middle of the play. I think people are just being nitpicky on this issue if they really think that a BJ is going to be in any better position. His goal is to stay on the end line and make sure someone is not touching the line and help if that is a factor.

Peace

The problem is you cannot have possession (which is the only word the rulebook uses) off the ground. You only have possession when you come to the ground. I just think the Seattle player got it first and hit the ground first with both feet and on his back before the GB player got both feet down. It might not be pretty, but that is the rule in this case.

And I would love to jump all over this to say, "See they screwed up." Unfortunately I think I have to have some integrity and support them when they get a rule right and they clearly have not gotten many right over the last few weeks.

Peace

I agree with everything they said. Although the "OPI should have been called" part flies in the face of them saying a few years ago that shouldn't be called in that situation.

Which is contrary to what Gerry Austin stated on ESPN last night.

With regards to joint possession with both players in the air, I believe I should have used control of the ball. You're right that he doesn't have possession of a loose ball...he's going to have to complete the "process of the catch" for that to happen. One can gain control of a loose ball before he has possession of it though. Whose feet hit first though does not matter if a player gains control of the ball before the other a la A.R. 8.28 and 8.29.

It could be a recent amendment to the rule...cause it's not the first time I've heard that said before. In fact, I want to say I've heard a referee give that announcement..even with the catch.

Announcers keep saying the same thing... but we should not. There is no such concept as "better control" or "more control" - there is either Control, or NO Control. Given that Tate had the ball in a hand solidly enough that Jennings couldn't wrench it from him even with both hands. If Tate comes down alone with that ball, we ALL call it control and a catch. He has control of the ball when they come down - simultaneous possession is the correct call.

Not the first time that's happened.

Absolutely.

BTW, are you the next to change your name. :D

Peace

And that's just where we differ. I don't believe simply having his hand in there constitutes control. He doesn't have complete and firm control of the ball IMO. IMO, the DB has two hands on the ball and demonstrates complete and firm control of the ball. At best, IMO, one could argue the WR got control of the ball after the DB already had control.

Actually the last sentence is what I believed happened. The problem for the defense is he did not have possession first.

Peace

Yes. I have seen officials give the "stop clock" signal immediately followed by the "touchback" signal. The back judge obviously wasn't signalling a touchdown since he gave the "stop clock" signal, so he had something different than the guy who signaled touchdown.

I agree. I just don't see how the Seattle WR had control/possession of the ball in the same way the Green Bay DB did. I still think this call was awful and the mechanics were awful.

Are you trying to say that Tate came back to the ground first and "completed the process of the catch" before the DB did? Seems to me that the since he controlled the ball first, assuming he completes the process of the catch, he goes to who gets it first...regardless of if the second player returns to the ground first.

Just as the Green Bay DB puts both hands on the ball on the way down, Tate's right hand grabs the GB DB's arm/wrist. His left arm is out of the picture, but it would be impossible for him to have that hand on the ball because of where it is. As they hit the ground, Tate sticks his right hand on the ball while the GB DB still has it clutched to his chest.

I just don't buy it.

You are not going to signal a TD if you do not have a TD. That means that if he cannot tell, he is not going to give a signal. That is basic stuff in 7 man mechanics as his line was not threatened (meaning no one crossed or touched the line) and if he cannot see any catch, he is not going to rule anything. All he can do is offer some information, but he only should be signalling a TB if he has one and that was not his signal. And to say "I have seen a TB signal after a stop clock signal" is irrelevant because he never gave any TB signal by all accounts. If it was me, I would probably have done a similar thing if I wanted to discuss the situation. I probably would have been doing this earlier, but that is only based on seeing the video. But if he had a TB and only a TB, then he would have come up with that signal. But I do not think he even saw the completion of the catch and that is why he did not signal anything that said he had a TD or TB.

Peace

I am not asking you to buy anything. Just stating that you cannot have a catch completed until you come to the ground. Again that is the part of the rule many do not seem to want to deal with, but mention all these other non-factor issues like how many arms are on the ball. How many arms on the ball mean nothing in any catch, that is obvious if you watch much football.

Peace

What do you mean?

LOL!!!

Peace

I thought I was the only one in the world that thought that. And I didn't even think it was all that close, but I didn't know the NFL rule for sure.

Had this happened in an NCAA game and I was the calling official, I would have ruled it a TD.

He really did screw this up. It's one thing for the idiotic talking heads and football jocks on ESPN to screw this up; it's entirely another for an established veteran official - one that's supposedly an assigner as well - to get up there and blow it. He's supposed to know this stuff; I imagine that's why ESPN hired him.

OK Welpe, you are next. Names are falling like flies around here. :D

Peace

In High School this 100% would have been called a TD as you cannot have possession until you hit the ground. Again, I don't know the NFL rule nuances such as control vs possession and what not, so I am not qualified to talk about the ruling on the field.

But in HS 100% a TD.

BTW, the guy that was the Back Judge, he is a former Big 12 and Arena Football League Official. That is the kind of guy that actually gets hired in the NFL as the Arena League was often used as a training ground for NFL prospects and current NFL officials.

And the formation was set to the opposite side of the field with trips, so I want to know where he else he was supposed to be located?

Peace

Pretty sure that OPI would have been called in most HS games!

I disagree as most jump balls a lot of things happen and with 5 officials? I am not so sure about it being called or seen.

Peace

Purposefully towards that area of the end zone to get into a better position to officiate the back of the end zone and help the other official as soon as he sees the ball going in that direction?

I can't understand why A.R. 8.29 seemingly is ignored by those who think it was legitimately a touchdown--including the NFL brass today, although I understand they may have a bit different agenda in all this.

He was on the end line the entire time. Again, do you have some reference that suggest he should be any other place? He does not have to be on top of the play to call the play. Actually closer is almost never better.

Peace

In a one-on-one jump ball, you're absolutely correct, it would be called, almost every time. (I say "almost", because... you know, sometimes it's blown.)

We would all like to think that the end-of-game situations don't permit action that would otherwise be inexcusable. The argument could be made that Jennings "played through" Tate on his way to attempt the catch, and that that should be called also.*

Given the options, I think holding the flags for everything except malicious or flagrant fouls in that situation is the preferred philosophy... until players start getting too violent, in which case the league will hopefully provide an intelligently crafted memorandum.

*I only have the 360i SD feed to watch the game on at home, so I couldn't tell a LOT of things until I looked on the computer screen. But someone in my office brought that up.

I didn't say "closer is better", rather, move "purposefully in that direction". And, I agree that standing on top of the play is rarely better. Being too close removes angle and perspective. That said, the BJ did end up in the back pocket of the play (which may have been warranted). My question is: why wouldn't he be moving purposefully in the direction of the play as soon as he saw the ball going that direction? I don't know if he should be according to NFL officiating mechanics, so I'd like to know why if he isn't to be moving that direction at that time. Seems like better perspective would give opportunity to present better information to the calling official that signaled TD. Am I way off with that line of reasoning?

edit: I just looked at the youtube vid of the play again. The BJ is breaking, rather quickly I might add, to be in position to rule and/or give info. Nicley done.

This still does not tell me what he should have done differently? Now I do not know if NFL mechanics are so drastically different than CCA Mechanics, but I see nothing he should have done differently. I was told to stay in the middle and even at some point stop to give yourself a still place to view the play. He never stops, but tries to help and all I am saying is that just seems nitpicky to say he was not moving with a purpose (before your edit). He should not be sprinting.

Peace

Hence my "edit" statement.

Agreed.

I know, that is why I referenced the edit. Then again you were not the only one that made this reference either.

Peace

The question seems to be whether or not he Jennings actually secured the ball without Tate's hand being in there. I'm not convinced the video is all that telling on this. The NFL simply stated the play should not have been reversed by replay; completely different than saying the call on the field was right.

And I think that issue honestly is up for debate. I know I can see both sides of this debate when it is based on rules. I just think that we have to use the rules to keep having that debate, not personal feelings about what we think it looked like. Football is much more a game of rules than most sports I know and you cannot just do things without support of rules.

Peace

And I think that they would have had the same comment if the ruling on the field would have been that it was an interception. There just wasn't enough indisuptable evidence to change the original call.

But the second sentence of simultaneous catch rule does not use the words "catch" or "possession." To me, that's the controlling rule. I think it's unfortunate that the terms switch so much in the various rules, but it uses "control," and it seems pretty clear that control is not intended elsewhere in the rules to be synonymous with catch or possession (or "completed pass").

To use a crazy hypothetical, a defender catches the ball and holds it to his body tightly, while having one foot on the ground IB. He tries to gain his balance to put his second foot IB. A second later, just before his second foot hits IB, a receiver reaches an arm in, and gets joint control as the second foot of the defender touches. I read the second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule to say that this is an interception.

The biggest question is how would two of the regular officials have ruled this play? :confused:

Of course, we'll never know.

I think even if there's no lockout and the regular guys are on the field, this play is still a huge mess. In some ways, it's a lot like the old tuck rule play that occurred with the Raiders-Pats. I wonder if this might result in a re-write of the rule, although the case play seems to address it.

If the call on the field would have been interception, the headlines would be reading, "Replacement officials screw up and take away last second TD Catch" . The media would be bashing them over the incorrect interception call. This was a no win situation. I agree that no matter if the regulars are in or replacements, this play would be used to raise ratings.

Remember when the NFLPA was locked out last year, Commissioner Goodell said he wouldn't be paid during the lockout? I'll assume he is doing the same during this year's NFLRA lockout, yeah fat chance.

I highly doubt that. This play is an interception in the minds of most. They'd be more focused on the two hand shove in the back or other penalties on the drive before.

I usually use the forum to just read but I think I'll state my opinion on this. I would like to challenge anyone to make this call in real time. It's very easy to say now that Jennings had "control" first after you see the still shots, but in a split second after the jump ball he sees Tate on his back and Jennings on top of him with 4 hands on the ball. I know if I was in that position I would have no choice but to call TD. Granted, a discussion between officials was certainly warranted here. But during a discussion I would be saying they both had it on the ground.

My perspective of this play is certainly biased being an official because I now know how difficult it is to see this stuff when it's happening right in front of you. As a fan I would have been the idiot yelling "Are you blind?"

This play is an interception in the minds of anyone due to one man: Jon Gruden. Had Gruden, who clearly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to anything related to officiating, not been so quick to call out the replacement officials on anything he could find, Packers fans and those that bet on GB would be the majority of the ones *****ing.

This is a sports media created circus. I'm extremely disappointed that the guy I plan to vote for for VP of the US would buy his way into this with his own ignorance. I'll tell him that when his boss appoints me for something (!!).

i would of gone TD..just my 2 cents. The strike/lock out is over, so good luck to the NFL officials as they return

You give Gruden too much credit for this one play. I'd venture to say that if this play was shown without any commentary, public opinion would not change. The public (inlcuding I per AR 8.28 and 8.29 and never actually believing that Tate had control of the ball before the DB) would still believe this is an interception/touchback.

I caught a bit of ESPN tonight, and they were analyzing air time, time with the ball, covered surface area, etc. I think they were setting out to create a gold standard for "ad nauseum."

They're just trying to make officiating more a science and less an art. http://tpww.net/forums/images/smilies/shifty.gif ;)

Not to say that Gruden would change everyone's opinion, but believe it or not, the public tends to believe these guys more than they should about rules. People think because someone played or coached they know rules. If Gruden would have said this was a great call when the game was over and ranted about it for 20 minutes, I think a great deal of this issue would have been seen as different, at least from the ESPN point of view. ESPN had the highest ratings in a very long time after a game and this controversy kept that alive. I am not going to give him all the credit, but a lot of people seem to think these guys know things they clearly do not know. I wish I had a dollar for everytime some stupid fan makes some comment in basketball at least about "Did you play the game...." mess I would be rich. Fans are just plain stupid and they do not know how stupid they are, which is sad.

Peace

With regards to rules, most fans are ignorant, not stupid. There's a difference.

It's not what they don't know, it's what they know that isn't so.

And there is a difference to being unaware of something and thinking you know the exact rules better than those that would actually have some background. That is why I said they were stupid.

Peace

Most fans are ignorant. A good number are also stupid.

I will refrain from posting my thoughts on this statement. :)

Here's what I saw in real time without going throught about 200 posts. It appeared that Tate intially controlled the ball, and Jennings got his hands on the ball a split second later. They both fell to the ground with simultanious possession. In that case, my basic knowledge of the rule was the offense had the ball, and thus a touchdown was awarded. I never saw the push by Tate either.

Heck replay didn't overturn it.

IMO-the replacement referees where just pawns in a game of chess where the NFL has lost it's Queen, but were playing well with their rooks. Until this blunder which caused check, and the NFL conceded before mate.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...7d9709f44eb31e

Found a picture of our Steven Tyler here on the forum ;)