What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Packers at Seahawks (5 Viewers)

Russell Wilson interview is ridiculous. I don't know how these guys can take themselves seriously. Pretending you won the game....major bush league. Just say "no" to the interview. At least be intellectually honest.
They won the game. I mean seriously, a lot of games end in controversy and the winning team celebrates. Your statement is ridiculous, it's like this is the first game you ever watched as a fan that ended in controversy. Good God.
 
419 User(s) are reading this topicINSANE!The billionaire NFL owners are trying to break the ref union with these worthless scabs so they can save a couple of hundred thousand dollars. IS IT WORTH IT YOU SCUM BILLIONAIRES????????? IS IT WORTH IT??????????????
:goodposting: i'm almost sad about this ending because what's gonna be lost behind it is the fact that the whole game was like this and the packers got handed the game many times over by bad calls before they got "robbed". this wasn't even a game
huh? you mean like negating a GB INT on a brutally bad roughing the passer call late in the 4th? or by not calling PI on Woodson, or the myriad other horrible calls that went in GBs favor? the only team that got handed this game was Seattle...You're right that this wasn't a game, however...none of the last two weeks have been. Just brutal to watch. I'm done until the real refs come back.
 
Why didn't GB take the safety and have a free kick and make them go the full distance?
Guessing because then it would have been tied with a FG.
But would have had to go the full distance. And Seattle was having trouble moving it at all. I get not doing it for exactly the reason you state, but the punt was almost blocked.
Yes and no, what if they get a great return and are sitting at the 40? I think it was the right call.
 
I don't think you can review for simultaneous possession.
But you can (and must) review for possession. Tate had a hand touching the ball, but a reasonable person wouldn't argue that he controlled the ball.
The ball never hit the ground, so complete versus incomplete is not an issue. The only issue is touchdown versus interception, and that depends on who controlled the ball first (or whether it was simultaneous), which isn't reviewable.
 
I think the call was wrong, but I honestly can't blame the refs for the possession issue. How many people here knew 100% who caught that when watching it live? Heck, we have people still arguing simultaneous possession after watching slomo replays. I could absolutely see the real refs having made the same call.

But both calls/non-calls for PI on that lat drive were horrendous. Those really did cost the Packers the game and I think the real refs would have likely made the correct calls on both of those.

 
And for the record, with the completion of this game, my 4 year old daughter had more correct top 12 QBs for week 3 than Dodds. So she gets an extra juice box this week.

 
I've watched the play over and over, and it's still a touchdown to me (and I don't have a dog in this fight). Jennings hadn't established possession yet (because you have to complete the catch, feet down) when Tate got his hand on the ball. I think it's clearly simultaneous possession. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I think it was the correct call.
I agree. Tate gets both hands on before Jennings hits the ground.
You're so full of crack it's not even funny. When you're ready to join reality, let us know.
Um, I'm watching the slow-mo, and that's what I see. Jennings catches the ball. Tate has one hand on the ball. As they go down, he puts his second hand on the ball. By the time Jennings hits the ground, Tate has two hands on the ball.
What you just described is an interception.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I cant shake the feeling this has something to do with Rodgers opening the game with a scramble and shooting finger pistols at the D Line.Or at least that explains the 10 sacks.
He was pointing "first down".
at the first down with both hands like a gun, pantomiming the act of alternating fire with two guns? Yeah, nah.
He has done it many times.H ewas not "shooting finger pistols at the Dline" who at that point are mostly behind him because he ran past all of them.
 
Nothing at all wrong with Russell Wilson's interview. You actually expect him to say, "Hey, we actually lost!"

Some of you are acting crazy.

 
Can we go over the rule as it pertains to simultaneous possession and reviewing a play? Is it really true that if simultaneous possession is ruled on the field, it can't be overturned no matter how egregious or obviously wrong it is? What about if it is just ruled a plain touchdown, can it be overturned then? Or is it that once it is ruled that a particular player was the one to catch the ball, a review cannot change it to another player? Either way I am not a fan of this rule, and I want my 11pm bedtime back! :hot:

 
I've watched the play over and over, and it's still a touchdown to me (and I don't have a dog in this fight). Jennings hadn't established possession yet (because you have to complete the catch, feet down) when Tate got his hand on the ball. I think it's clearly simultaneous possession. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I think it was the correct call.Regardless, I'm glad it's being considered a bad call, because it may FINALLY be the thing that gets the real refs back.
A hand on the ball is not possession.
What I mean is that he got his hand on the ball before Jennings established possession. At the time possession would have been established, Tate had both hands on the ball, just like Jennings.I actually lost a fantasy game because of that touchdown (I started the Packers defense), but personally, I think it was the right call.
You do not understand football. Plain and simple. Tate had 2 hands on the ball? He threw one hand over the ball while it was still secured in the Packers player hands. :loco:
I always understood possession to be completing the process of the catch, which would mean going to the ground and maintaining control. After hearing the wording with "control" and the actual definition of the rule on Sportscenter, I stand corrected. I would consider it an interception after hearing the official written rule.
 
Why didn't GB take the safety and have a free kick and make them go the full distance?
Guessing because then it would have been tied with a FG.
But would have had to go the full distance. And Seattle was having trouble moving it at all. I get not doing it for exactly the reason you state, but the punt was almost blocked.
Why do you keep saying "full distance"? The Seahawks would have only needed to go about 45 yards to get into field goal range.
 
419 User(s) are reading this topicINSANE!The billionaire NFL owners are trying to break the ref union with these worthless scabs so they can save a couple of hundred thousand dollars. IS IT WORTH IT YOU SCUM BILLIONAIRES????????? IS IT WORTH IT??????????????
:goodposting: i'm almost sad about this ending because what's gonna be lost behind it is the fact that the whole game was like this and the packers got handed the game many times over by bad calls before they got "robbed". this wasn't even a game
huh? you mean like negating a GB INT on a brutally bad roughing the passer call late in the 4th? or by not calling PI on Woodson, or the myriad other horrible calls that went in GBs favor? the only team that got handed this game was Seattle...You're right that this wasn't a game, however...none of the last two weeks have been. Just brutal to watch. I'm done until the real refs come back.
 
Next time Goodell mentions doing something "for the integrity of the game" at a press conference, I'll be amazed if he doesn't get laughed at.

 
Good call by the refs there. They understood the extent of what could be ruled, what could be overturned, and made the right call.

 
Russell Wilson interview is ridiculous. I don't know how these guys can take themselves seriously. Pretending you won the game....major bush league. Just say "no" to the interview. At least be intellectually honest.
They won the game. I mean seriously, a lot of games end in controversy and the winning team celebrates. Your statement is ridiculous, it's like this is the first game you ever watched as a fan that ended in controversy. Good God.
:lmao: You act like this happens with frequency. Every commentator on TV has basically said "I've never seen anything like this before." Seriously, it's comical to have him talk about "keeping plays alive" and "keeping fighting out there." That isn't why they won. They won because the refs jobbed the opposing team.
 
I think the call was wrong, but I honestly can't blame the refs for the possession issue. How many people here knew 100% who caught that when watching it live? Heck, we have people still arguing simultaneous possession after watching slomo replays. I could absolutely see the real refs having made the same call.But both calls/non-calls for PI on that lat drive were horrendous. Those really did cost the Packers the game and I think the real refs would have likely made the correct calls on both of those.
It was pretty easy to see. Jennings caught the ball and Tate caught Jennings.
 
I've watched the play over and over, and it's still a touchdown to me (and I don't have a dog in this fight). Jennings hadn't established possession yet (because you have to complete the catch, feet down) when Tate got his hand on the ball. I think it's clearly simultaneous possession. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I think it was the correct call.
I agree. Tate gets both hands on before Jennings hits the ground.
Quite the feat if Tate did that, since Jennings is laying on Tate's left arm when they landed...
 
Can we go over the rule as it pertains to simultaneous possession and reviewing a play? Is it really true that if simultaneous possession is ruled on the field, it can't be overturned no matter how egregious or obviously wrong it is? What about if it is just ruled a plain touchdown, can it be overturned then? Or is it that once it is ruled that a particular player was the one to catch the ball, a review cannot change it to another player? Either way I am not a fan of this rule, and I want my 11pm bedtime back! :hot:
They could have ruled it wasn't a catch.
 
Russell Wilson interview is ridiculous. I don't know how these guys can take themselves seriously. Pretending you won the game....major bush league. Just say "no" to the interview. At least be intellectually honest.
They won the game. I mean seriously, a lot of games end in controversy and the winning team celebrates. Your statement is ridiculous, it's like this is the first game you ever watched as a fan that ended in controversy. Good God.
:lmao: You act like this happens with frequency. Every commentator on TV has basically said "I've never seen anything like this before." Seriously, it's comical to have him talk about "keeping plays alive" and "keeping fighting out there." That isn't why they won. They won because the refs jobbed the opposing team.
It's fine that you feel that the call was wrong, it doesn't matter. The Seahawks WON THE GAME, they won. Why would their players not be happy? The Tigers lost a game this year where they had bases loaded, down by two in the top of the sixth and the umps brought the tarp out after it had been raining all night. Had the next batter hit a double they would have been up a run, and right now they'd be tied for first place. If the White Sox win the division by one game using your logic they shouldn't celebrate, they won it under false pretenses.
 
It wasn't simultaneous posession READ THE RULE!! The rules state it was an INT.

Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players

retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an

opponent subsequently gains joint control If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such

players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball. "

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top