Last play of GB Seattle

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

I don't think it was 'clearly afterwards'.

They were both still in the air when there were four arms around the ball. The 'four arm' situation continued onto the field of play.

I don't have a problem with the call either way.

If I had to guess how the NFL wants this particular play called, I bet there will be a downgrade on a certain LOS offical. The call would have been a much easier sell had we not had differing, simultaneous signals from the covering officials. Verbal communication prior to a signal would have helped considerably here.

Of all the things discussed sorrounding the play, the "blarge" is what intrigues me the most. Those two officials looked directly at each other for a brief moment, then amazingly displayed different calls. Unbelievable.

There is absolutely NO hurry to make a call in that situation. Communication and agreement THEN the SAME call should have been communicated on the field. Even if a call is "wrong", we officials know that we are only helping ourselves if we all show the same ruling on the field.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Throw me in with the vast minority... I have a TD for all the reasons Jeff mentioned, as well as not clearly seeing Jennings with the ball first. He might have had BETTER possession (irrelevant to the rules), but there is no 2-hand requirement on possession or control, and we've all seen 1-handed catches many times. The left hand on the ball, that never came off the ball despite Jennings pulling at it, is enough to demonstrate control to me. No where in the rules does it say that if one player has 2 hands (or a chest) on the ball and another has 1, the guy with 2 gets it.

Put it this way - remove Jennings from the picture, and have Tate and the ball only - do you have a catch for Tate? I do - and that's enough.

This is a very good response; the last statement I think convinces me more than anything. I think it's dual possession, and the refs - despite all of the other circumstances involved - made the right call.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Can't believe it took 6 pages for someone to say this. This was my initial thought.

Agreed.

In this situation, though, the official closest to the play (even if the BJ had been much much closer) still had the best look since he had a direct view of the ball.

[Welpe]

I think one key component of the NFL rule here that makes this an interception:

The Green Bay defensive back controlled the ball in the air before the Seahawks WR gained any kind of control over it. Per the rule and case plays, this is not simultaneous possession.

What I also think:

This is not nearly as cut and dried as the clueless fans and media think it is.

OPI should've been flagged.

[mperlst216]

The regular officials would have conferred before making a touchdown signal. Also, wasn't the touchdown signalling official the same one who made the pass interference call against the Packers on the previous series?

[zm1283]

1. OPI should have been flagged. It was blatant.

2. I'm with Rich and most of the others on here: It was a horrible call. Not only was it wrong, (As Gerry Austin pointed out) but they gave conflicting signals. I could have bought it a little more if they had communicated and then both gave the same signal, but the different signals looked AWFUL. It was about like having an "Out/Safe" signal by two baseball umpires.

3. The roughing the passer on the INT by Green Bay and the DPI on the Green Bay defensive back toward the end of the game were horrible as well. I am sick of hearing people on the radio talk about how "These replacements are getting better every week, just fire the regular officials". No, they're really not, and last night's game is evidence of that.

[Welpe]

I think speculation as to what the regular officials might or would've done is just that, speculation. The regulars are the cream of the crop, make no mistake but they are not infallible either.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Maybe it's their anniversary or her birthday. Plus FOX doesn't have games on Monday night.

As someone who doesn't officiate football I just want to make sure I'm clear on another aspect of the play. Am I right on assuming based on the responses here that you are not going to call Pass Interference on a game-ending Hail Mary? And if not, is the philosophy the same for a Hail Mary on the last play of the 2nd quarter?

I didn't think about the chance that it was an anniversary or birthday. He did mention going to dinner on Sunday; that may have been part of it.

I've watched football way longer than I've called, but I've never heard of a pass interference call being made on a Hail Mary. Then again, when has there been a PI situation on a Hail Mary that may have made this much difference? Tate was the guy that pushed off and made the (potential) difference on that being an interception or a dual possession TD. I would like to think an NFLRA ref would have called it, but I dunno for sure.

But also, when have we seen an ending to ANY football game at any level like this? This is one of those freaks occurrences that probably happen once every 20 yrs or so, if not longer. I guarantee you there are a lot of referees on every level that are glad they don't have their names placed in infamy by calling last night's game.

[zm1283]

I don't work football, but I can only imagine how many things these replacements are doing wrong. Who knows how many things don't get called that should every game, to go along with the calls that are made that shouldn't be made. (Like dozens of holding and PI calls so far) Not to mention rule screw ups, bad mechanics, bad game management (They have no control over a lot of games).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mperlst216

The regular officials would have conferred before making a touchdown signal. Also, wasn't the touchdown signalling official the same one who made the pass interference call against the Packers on the previous series?

Agreed... and yes - same guy. His name is James Cromwell, and can also be seen in the movies Babe and Star Trek: First Contact.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by Rich

He worked a Super Bowl as a side judge.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

2. I'm with Rich and most of the others on here: It was a horrible call. Not only was it wrong, (As Gerry Austin pointed out) but they gave conflicting signals. I could have bought it a little more if they had communicated and then both gave the same signal, but the different signals looked AWFUL. It was about like having an "Out/Safe" signal by two baseball umpires.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Of all the things discussed sorrounding the play, the "blarge" is what intrigues me the most. Those two officials looked directly at each other for a brief moment, then amazingly displayed different calls. Unbelievable.

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.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Adam

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DLH17

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.

Originally Posted by Rich

Sorry, not buying it. A lot of officials use a stop the clock on touchbacks. I'm not sure I've ever seen one use a stop the clock signal on a *touchdown*, though.

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.