Last play of GB Seattle
 

We just thought the replacement guys were catching heat before.

Ok I know nothing about football officiating - but how can the GB player basically intercept the ball - and then the SEA player gets credit for a touchdown for basically sticking his hands in there after the GB player already has control of the ball?

:confused:

Somebody needs to explain this one to me - and I'm a Seahawks fan lol

Warm up the bus
 

I'll be GLAD to throw those clowns under the bus.....

Simultaneous possession ends everything. Touching proceeds possession and it looked to me like the right call. The GB player did not come down in the field of play with the ball.

Peace

Really? :confused:

So one player can outright catch it in the air, and another player can come in clearly afterwards and as long as he gets a hand on the ball it's simultaneous?

I'll take your word for it, Rut - you've reffed football probably as long as I've been alive :D - but to this casual fan it seems like a strange rule.

You have GOT to be kidding me...

The broadcasters only mentioned it once during initial occurrence, and then briefly discussed it while GB was getting back onto the field for the try.
The concept of simultaneous possession is that if A and B both achieve possession of a loose ball at the same time, then possession is awarded to A and the ball is dead immediately. Essentially the side judge ruled that both A and B had the ball, and so it belonged to A. In NCAA and NFHS, it is irrelevant who had it "more", as the broadcasters were discussing. I'm not sure if that applies at all in NFL, but this is such an old, basic, and infrequently-applied rule, that I'd be surprised if it's different. What is not irrelevant is if B grabbed it and then A just stuck his hands onto the ball. I can see why the officials would take a look at the situation on the ground, since they have to make a call on the field.

It would be a cluster even if the regular officials were in place.

First of all you do not catch the ball in the air. You catch the ball when you come down with it. Again, you said you were not a football official right? ;)

I do not care what casual fans think because that is silly when it moves to basketball either. Basketball fans think that it is a foul on a defender if he moves. And I am a deep wing in college and a Back Judge in high school and rule on these kinds of plays all the time. Players always go up for the ball and it does not mean anything until they come down to the ground.

Peace

How can you have possession in the air? Show me the rule?

Peace

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.

dual possession?
 

You guys are arguing with the White Hat on the broadcasts who worked 2 Super Bowls....

Irrelevant, since he had possession on the ground.

Oh, so he has to land with it all to himself for it to be an interception....I suppose it makes sense - kind of like that catch in the Super Bowl where the guy caught it, but the defender reached in and popped it loose, so no TD; the explanation was that he has to have the catch 'through the finish of the play' - one of those subtleties about football rules that most people don't know, I guess.

And making it worse is that it was not reviewable...?

The only time there were four arms on the ball was after both players were on the ground.

I get the dual possession. I don't get the lack of OPI on that play. The shove in the back was quite blatant.

Just saw the replay again. Gotta agree with this observation. I'll let you football stripes debate the application of the rules, though.

Play nice, kids.

First of all the replay officials confirmed the call. Secondly a WH is a WH for a reason. They do not make many of those calls and he had not likely made those calls for several years. So yes I can take issue with his comments unless he gives an NFL difference in the rule. At the HS and NCAA level, that is a simultaneous catch based on the rules. You cannot intercept a ball in the air and then possession ends there. There were arms all over that ball and like someone else said, I could live with either call. But the Replay guys who are NFL guys from previous years made this call. ;)

Peace

What I saw was the one hand of the Seahawk on the ball simultaneously with two hands of GB. And as they came down, Seahawk got second hand on ball.

My husband and I were laughing at the ugliness of it all.

Rita

You're just not going to get either DPI or OPI in a jump ball situation...

Nor should you.

It was a scoring play, it is reviewable.

Peace

He didn't have possession on the ground. By the time the receiver landed, his arms were wrapped around the ball. The defender only had one foot on the ground, then he fell on top of the receiver.

Yes, you can, when the push is not incidental to the play. This is no doubt OPI.

A receiver shoves a defender in the back and out of the way while the ball is in the air is permissible as long as it is a jump ball?

Sadly, a jump ball is known to be a free-for-all...

I would love to rip these guys, I truly would. But guys this is a tough play. This is a tough play for any football official at any level. And ESPN is doing what they do, they are giving part of the rule and not the entire rule I am sure. Because you cannot read simultaneous catch wording and then forget what it takes to have a catch in other parts of the rule. You cannot catch the ball in the air unless forward progress is stopped and still have to come in-bounds. You have to come to the ground and establish your feet in-bounds. If the player came out of bounds he would not have been able to complete the catch in NCAA or NFL rules that I am aware of. This was not even that bad either way, it was a call that would have been tough without any replay and probably called the same way. And I love how guys have never officiated a single football game now know more than guys that do. A guy giving a "stop clock" signal has nothing to do with anything but to stop the clock and to discuss what is going on. If there was a TB, then he would have giving the signal.

It is just sad that this play is being talked about when they do not even know what they are discussing in the first place.

Peace

I have ripped these guys several times and did so publicly. Again, it just shows how little some will ever know about football officiating because you do not even know what constitutes a catch.

Peace

I have a TD on the play. The receiver has both feet on the ground when his second hand moves in to have both hands on the ball. The defender you can still see his left foot still in the air. By then the process for completing the catch was made by the Seattle player.

Remember in the NFL you have to have control of the ball AND have both feet or something other than the feet touch the ground. You have to go through that whole process. The Seattle player was the first to complete the process. It wasn't even simultaneous it was a catch completed by Seattle.

It's a possession issue, which is not reviewable.

Rule 8, section 1, article 3, item 5. There is a difference between simultaneous and one where a player secures possession before the other. Who had possession is not reviewable, only if the ball was caught w/o hitting the ground and in bounds. Call would have stood under replay regardless of call on field.

But it is a scoring play. And all NFL scoring plays are reviewed. Now maybe Jansen can quote the rulebook for the NFL which he has done in the past, but they review all scoring plays to my understanding. I believe this would be reviewable in NCAA too. I will look up the later to be sure.

Peace

The replay guys are not part of the lockout? So these are the regular replay guys? So why did they not overrule the GB touchdown? When his foot was out of bounds before the ball crossed the line?

Rita

Not a football official.

From 2011 case book for NFL:

A.R. 8.28 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 controls a pass in the air at the A40. B3 then also gets control of the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as A2 gains control first and retains control.

A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control. (B

I believe you miss the point. Yes, the play is reviewable to see if the ball hit the ground, feet in bounds, etc; but you cannot review the who has possession part of the play as was ruled on the field.

Make no difference Jeff. Gerry Austin stated that possession is not reviewable, even during a scoring play. The officials ruled the receiver has possession, therefore the replay official has no other choice than to confirm he is in the EZ and it's a TD.

If you're talking about the Jennings play, the crew did.

The replay guys in the NFL don't have the final decision. The R is tasked with that decision after reviewing the available film and getting input from the booth.

I see what you are saying.

Peace

Was the play in question tonight not one of these two scenarios? Would the cases be handled differently in NCAA and NFHS?

I don't ref football, but yes I believe that both of these case plays were the play tonight. Both say possession in the air. Not sure what I'm missing, but I think it should be an interception by rule. Hs and ncaa, I don't have a clue, like I said, not a fb ref.

The top one is.

And not it would not be handled much differently other than the fact that in NCAA and NF the players do not have to get two feet down to establish control of some kind. Even in NCAA you have to complete the process of the catch and coming to the ground would matter with at least a foot. ;)

Peace

Btw, here is a link to NFL rules and case book...

NFL.com Rulebook

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

The rule is in place so that we will not be splitting hairs over who had the ball first when they have not fulfilled other parts of the catch. I think the rule is fine, this was just on National TV and ESPN has their panties in a bunch over this call on their network (remember they get ratings buy ranting about this all day).

Peace

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

I would not use the word "caught" in your post. A catch is defined as having control of the ball and two feet or something other than the feet down inbounds. By rule a player CANNOT catch a ball while being in the air. All he can do in the air is gain control. A catch is not completed until he comes to the ground. In the play, only 1 foot touched down. The Seattle player had both feet down.

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

NFL rules suck altogether. There are many changes made during the season that aren't in the printed rulebook. Memos, interpretations, etc. are sent to the officials during the season that are in all actuality rule changes, but they aren't in the public version of the rule book. What those of us non-NFL officials, fans, and media have access to is not the complete version of rules that those officiating in the NFL get. This is one reason why you should never trust what the media is trying to feed you. You'll learn more about football no matter what the level is if you turn off the volume.

Got it. My husband and I couldn't understand why that touchdown wasn't overruled.

Rita

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.

They do not have the final say normally, but the replay guys (who are regular guys in that position lockout or no lockout) have been more involved to help the replacements out. I think if there was a way to change this if wrong, they would have IMO.

Peace

But did B (Jennings) actually have control though? Jennings had two hands on the ball vs. A (Tate)'s 1 while airborne. Can you clearly say that Jennings had control over Tate from the initial contact of the ball?

Isn't this the exact reason why we have a dual possession rule in football? Because there is really no way to truly know who had clear control?

In his example the ball is given to A, not to B in the first play which mirrors the example tonight. I am not sure he realizes what example he quoted.

Peace

Actually, I don't think either does.

The question here is does one person have more control over the ball with two hands vs. a player with one? Unless they can point to a rule defining which is control and which isn't when both a receiver and defender have contact, then I doubt you can have anything but dual control/possession.

I say yes and yes.

A difficult call to be sure, but I thought it was an interception in real time, even though I was sorta wishing for the Packers to lose. (Aaron Rogers' commercials have ruined him for me.) I thought replay verified it, with the last straw being when the receiver takes the one hand off the ball, even briefly.

Trying to make sense of this, looks to me like the Packer had possession first?

http://brianschaefer.net/temp/mnf.jpg

and everyone clearly is inbounds when they land...

http://brianschaefer.net/temp/mnf2.jpg

We can see whether or not the NFL takes this down, but here's the clip as of now: Seahawks vs Packers controversial touchdown - YouTube

Doubt they'll take it down (unless they are going for copyright issues.)

They have their own guys on their own website with the video talking about how this is a horrific call.

You cannot have possession of a football in the air. And the GB player is in the air in the first two pictures.

Peace

Take it up with Gerry Austin. He says differently.

Bad angle. There's another angle facing them off the sideline that shows Tate had his left hand on the ball simultaneously as Jennings grabbed with two and maintained contact with the ball as they went down. Tate's right hand didn't make contact until they both landed.

Do you know when Gerry Austin was a deep wing?

Peace

He worked a Super Bowl as a side judge.

Jeff, in the NFL rules, per the case book plays cited, you can have possession in the ait. In the first play, the offense, A, controls the ball first and then the defense, B, attains possession and then they go to the ground. A ball. In the second, the defense ,B, gets possession first followed by the offense, A, and then they go to the ground. B ball. Clearly the NFL defines this differently than what your experience is, which means it is different from HS and ncaa.

You did not read your own example. It said that player A gained possession on the ground first. You quoted the Accepted Ruling not me. The ground is apart of this equation, not who has control in the air. That is all I am saying to you. And in the NFL there is more required to have a catch than at the NCAA or NF level.

Peace

Who gives a crap what people would have said. That is the problem with this discussion, what does the rule say? I would not ruled this in an NCAA game and would have felt good about it on replay.

Peace

I'll post again since you are not reading the play correctly...

A.R. 8.28 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 controls a pass in the air at the A40. B3 then also gets control of the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as A2 gains control first and retains control.

A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control

In both plays possession is gained in the air. In the first play "a2 controls a pass in the air" and then B3 gets control " before they land." As they land they fall to the ground...A ball and NOT a simultaneous catch.

The second play is worded the same except B3 gets the ball first.

I know its hard for you comprehend what I found in the NFL case book, but those arguing that the play should be an interception are correct under the second case play. And BY RULE, they would be correct.

I think we are getting control vs. possession mixed up. You can have control in the air, as the case studies have shown. But that doesn't mean you have possession until you come down.

In the case studies cited, if you have clear control in the air and then it's grabbed by a player on the opposing team inbounds, then you don't have dual possession and the person who first had control has possession. The problem here is whether Jennings actually had control while airborne. Tate definitely had a hand on the ball simultaneously with Jennings having two.

Either way, we're dealing with a replay issue, in slow motion. I can't see how any official on the field could have anything other than dual possession in realtime. Although they screwed up with the conflicting signals, I believe the initial ruling was correct. Thes slow motion replay review is left up to judgement.

These are you words, not mine. ;)


It says controls in the air, not has possession. There is a big difference as in order to have a catch completed. Even in NCAA Rules (2-4-3) talks about a catch not happening without possession and touching the ground under definitions of a catch(same basic language in NF Rules 2-4-1) . This might not be clear to you, but that is the wording of this play that you quoted and the rules at other levels.

And the point is that neither of these plays say that this is simultaneous catch for a reason. It would only be simultaneous when both players have done all the same things at the same time in order to complete a catch. The play tonight was a play where one player came down first with feet and hands on ball and the other was still in the air. That is why I said you do not seem to understand the basic language of the rule you quoted. That is also why I said that touching proceeds touching.

Peace

I would agree that it is up to individual opinion on who had control of the ball. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't care for either team, although I fall on the side of the play being an interception. I don't have a problem with the ruling on the field either. The refs are doing the best they can under the circumstances and I commend them for that.

My problem is someone arguing a point that is not relevant in this play. Both players possessed the ball once on the ground. To secure control, one does not have to have anything on the ground, ie a foot or both feet. That is necessary to obtain possession but not control. In my view of the play, it is obvious that the green bay player controlled the ball prior to Seattle player gaining control. With that mindset, yes the play was ruled incorrectly by time.
If you deem the Seattle player controlled at the same time as green bay player, then you have a simultaneous possession and the ruling on the field was correct.

This is not about individual opinion. Jennings was still in the air when the Seattle Receiver came back to the ground with both feet. That is a fact and slow motion even confirms it was not that close (in other words you can clearly see this fact). I also have no dog in this fight, but feel we need to be correct when making rulings and not just giving opinions. Possession cannot happen until you come to the ground and only the NFL requires two feet which Jennings did not have before the Seattle player was grabbing at the ball too.

Someone was on the ground first. That is all I am saying and suggesting. And when the player comes down first, they win. That is why in reality this is not even about a simultaneous catch, it was about the offensive player came down first. And again the definitions in the NFL, NCAA and NF all say possession does not take place until you come down to the ground with possession of the ball.

Peace

Jeff according to the case plays it does not matter who landed first, it matters who controlled the ball first. Plain and simple. Even on the case plays for simultaneous catch, the wording is controlled in the air at the same time. It makes NO difference who landed first. In the case play it does NOT say anything about landing first. The only thing the landing has to do with is completing the catch. Both players legally completed the catch so it comes down to who controlled the ball FIRST. If one of them had come down OB, then it would be a different story.

I apologize for using the incorrect term previously, you are correct about that. However, I again stand by the fact that per the case play, if you determine that green bay controlled the ball first, the ruling was incorrect. If you determine that it was simultaneous, the ruling was correct. Again, who landed first is not relevant according to the case play. We will have to agree to disagree on this as I know you won't change my mind and vice versa.

Just as an fyi, here are case plays for simultaneous catch. Note they also do NOT say anything about landing together, just controlling the ball in the air at the same time.

A.R. 8.25 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, both players land on their feet and wrestle for the ball on their feet. Eventually, B3 takes the ball away from A2 and is tackled at the A38. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A38. Until one of the players in simultaneous possession of the ball goes to the ground or out of bounds, the ball remains alive.

A.R. 8.26 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players fall down to the ground. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. The ball is dead.

A.R. 8.27 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players land with one foot out of bounds. Ruling: Second-and-10 on A20. Incomplete pass

According to these, if either player had landed OB, the play is an incomplete pass. But none of them say anything about landing first.

So Jeff if I'm understanding what you are saying, we know Seattle player landed first. What you are saying is that if green bay had landed OB instead of IB, you would have still ruled the touchdown?

Oh how I miss Official Review on NFL Total Access.

The Back Judge is in horrible position...why is he so far away from the "jump ball"?

Part of the problem is that it seems like you are not understanding the major point because you do not officiate this sport. Nothing wrong with that, but you are trying to split hairs on issues that ultmately you do not seem to have a grasp of because of your not understanding basic rules. If a player touches out of bound and there is no possession of the football, then the play would be over and ruled out of bounds on the spot. As it relates to a catch, then you cannot have a catch of a pass if this takes place. If one player had possession of the ball and the other is trying to grab at the ball, the play would continue if this took place in the middle of the field. This would be no different if a runner is has the ball and a defender that is trying to tackle them or rip the ball out of their hands is touching the sideline, you do not kill the play. When possession in the EZ is established in-bounds the play is over if the team trying to score a TD has possession.

Peace

Where is he supposed to be?

Peace

BBG is suggesting that upon seeing the ball in the air, the BJ should have made a better effort to get to the calling area to help with the ruling.

And I agree with him.

I do not necessarily agree with him as I am not sure where else he should be.

Peace

http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Tk.../packer+td.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...52048580_n.jpg

Personal attacks and general bickering have been dealt with. Keep it civil.

Play was already over.

Not sure the point. Both signals stop the clock and the calling official made a ruling. If you have a TB, you do not use the stop clock signal. ;)

Peace

Having never officiated football,I ask this because I simply want to know. Were the officials in the right place to make the call as the players touched the ground? If not, where should they have been?

The show would be too long this season.....:rolleyes:

Actually, the case plays are silent on this aspect.

Doesn't help things that Mike Periera was out in the Sierra Mountains last night. You'd think he and his wife would have made that trip before or after football season. He was out to dinner last night for the end of the Sunday Night Football game, too.

Blown calls (2) on the last play.

Blatant OPI. I would have flagged than in an instant!

Interception. No way would I have given a TD on a play where a player sticks one hand in there.

The NFL "Brand" is being cheapened by the use of these incompetent replacement officials. The NFL has long been the best sports league because of the professionalism in all aspects. No way can you match the speed, intensity and complexity of the NFL with D-III and HS officials. How sad to see the league decline like this.

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

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.

My issue with the officials in this game was not the TD/INT at the end - it was the 2 blatantly wrong pass interference calls, and to a lesser degree it was the lack of Referee participation in the discussion of this call at the end.

Maybe it's their anniversary or her birthday. :cool: 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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