Last play of GB Seattle

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I know I'll be listening to music on the radio tomorrow.

But part of the problem is, whether this was the right call or not, the credibility of the officials has been destroyed over the last few weeks.

All the media has done a great job in making everything into a major case as if they would not complain otherwise. This is why these guys IMO should have never done this in the first place. The s**t storm is coming no matter what they do. And many of their careers will basically be over as they know it. That is OK for a guy or two that only did this at the very end of their career and had nothing to lose, but for those that still could work, now they will be marred with this crap for some time.

Peace

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All the media has done a great job in making everything into a major case as if they would not complain otherwise. This is why these guys IMO should have never done this in the first place. The s**t storm is coming no matter what they do. And many of their careers will basically be over as they know it. That is OK for a guy or two that only did this at the very end of their career and had nothing to lose, but for those that still could work, now they will be marred with this crap for some time.

Peace

You heard it here first. Mark my word. If and when the regulars get back on the field the media will bash them even worse. "These guys are messing up just as bad as the replacments were." Anything to drive up the ratings.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

You heard it here first. Mark my word. If and when the regulars get back on the field the media will bash them even worse. "These guys are messing up just as bad as the replacments were." Anything to drive up the ratings.

Agreed.

Peace

[rulesmaven]

I see nothing in the rules that make this play non-reviewable. The rule (Rule 15 section 9) is a rule of exclusion. It lists reviewable plays and provides that anything not in the list is not reviewable, with a note containing a nonexhaustive list of 7 unreviewable plays.

Section (a)(3) makes reviewable "Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone! and end line.". There is no exclusion for "possession," and indeed possession is frequently part of a review. None of the 7 exclusion examples include possession or anything like it.

This seems like a reviewable play. If Austin says possession is not reviewable, my conclusion fron the book is that he is in error, unless he means it in a different sense than I understand. We frequently see the call that the receiver "did not maintain possession through the catch" on instant replay. Can't see how this is different.