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!

The one saving grace about tonight's debacle (1 Viewer)

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Is that most FF games probably weren't affected by the finish, except for those who had GB or Seattle defenses going. I doubt a lot of people had Wilson or Tate in their starting lineups.

*cues the 9 people here who did*

:P

Imagine if the controversial TD had been Rodgers to Jordy Nelson. Games everywhere in fantasy land would have been affected, and the outrage would be 10 times worse!!! :popcorn:

 
Is Marshawn Lynch really that bad of a receiver? Imagine if they would've gotten him the ball in open space. He might enjoy not haveing to run between the tackles every now and then

 
Woulda been even better if it had changed FF leagues everywhere. The uproar would've been hilarious. Entire seasons/leagues under protest. :lmao:

 
Is Marshawn Lynch really that bad of a receiver? Imagine if they would've gotten him the ball in open space. He might enjoy not haveing to run between the tackles every now and then
They tried on an option play but Wilson's foot slipped and it was a tfl. Lots of problems with the field tonight. That's pretty unusual there.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have the Packers defense and in my league we get 3 bonus points for holding a team under 10 points. I lost 77-75 because of that call. Just 1 game but I am done watching this crap until the real refs are back.

 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Um, no he didnt. Watch again. Tate clearly has one arm free as they come down in the air. NFL network showed it a hundred times. He had no control over the ball at all.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
NFL.COM also says it's an interception http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000066003/Mariucci-We-re-gonna-talk-about-this-for-a-long-time?module=HP11_cp
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
NFL.COM also says it's an interception http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000066003/Mariucci-We-re-gonna-talk-about-this-for-a-long-time?module=HP11_cp
No, Steve Mariuchi says it's an interception. The entire ESPN channel doesn't also discuss the phantom PI call on Kam Chancellor either. The game was jobbed on both sides--sorry to the East Coast that this didn't turn out in their favor.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
NFL.COM also says it's an interception http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000066003/Mariucci-We-re-gonna-talk-about-this-for-a-long-time?module=HP11_cp
No, Steve Mariuchi says it's an interception. The entire ESPN channel doesn't also discuss the phantom PI call on Kam Chancellor either. The game was jobbed on both sides--sorry to the East Coast that this didn't turn out in their favor.
So if I post this link you're going to say "No, Gregg Rosenthal says it's an interception" amirite? Not even NFL.COM can spin this any other way. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000065969/article/seahawks-hail-mary-vs-packers-will-live-in-infamy?module=HP11_cpOh and how about this: An actual discussion of the play in the NFL.COM studios.http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap1000000065984/Was-Seahawks-final-play-really-a-touchdown?module=HP11_content_stream
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
Of course they wouldn't. It doesn't help their union buds.
 
With all due resprect [/goodfellas]

:unsure:

I'm not sure the OP has a firm grasp on the concept of what qualifies as "Saving Grace."

 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Um, no he didnt. Watch again. Tate clearly has one arm free as they come down in the air. NFL network showed it a hundred times. He had no control over the ball at all.
"Possession" can't occur in midair. "Possession" can never be completed until you finish the act of hitting the ground, as has been explained a million times. The fact that the defender had two hand on it when Tate had one is irrelevant. The fact that Tate had one hand between the ball and the defenders chest, and had the second on it before they hit the ground, and the defender was unable to immediately gain sole possession after hitting the ground, meant that at the point you could rule posesion established...BOTH players had established it.It really was a "simultaneous catch" per the rules.HOWEVER...the idea that you CAN'T call offensive PI on a hail mary is absurd. The pushoff was both blatant and egregious and absolutely should have been called. They got the catch p[art right...it was the obvious penalty they missed. Green Bay was still hosed.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
the media has an agenda here. They've been waiting for three weeks for a controversal call so they could jump up and down and pound their chests.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Um, no he didnt. Watch again. Tate clearly has one arm free as they come down in the air. NFL network showed it a hundred times. He had no control over the ball at all.
"Possession" can't occur in midair. "Possession" can never be completed until you finish the act of hitting the ground, as has been explained a million times. The fact that the defender had two hand on it when Tate had one is irrelevant. The fact that Tate had one hand between the ball and the defenders chest, and had the second on it before they hit the ground, and the defender was unable to immediately gain sole possession after hitting the ground, meant that at the point you could rule posesion established...BOTH players had established it.It really was a "simultaneous catch" per the rules.HOWEVER...the idea that you CAN'T call offensive PI on a hail mary is absurd. The pushoff was both blatant and egregious and absolutely should have been called. They got the catch p[art right...it was the obvious penalty they missed. Green Bay was still hosed.
:goodposting: :goodposting: :goodposting:
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
the media has an agenda here. They've been waiting for three weeks for a controversal call so they could jump up and down and pound their chests.
:goodposting:
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
the media has an agenda here. They've been waiting for three weeks for a controversal call so they could jump up and down and pound their chests.
:goodposting:
:goodposting: I don't agree with the call on the field after seeing the replay, but it wasn't a particularly bad call. The outrage here is either manufactured or just stems from ingnorance of the rules.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
The entire ESPN channel and every person connected to the game tonight in the media does not agree with your assessment.
the media has an agenda here. They've been waiting for three weeks for a controversal call so they could jump up and down and pound their chests.
:goodposting:
:goodposting: I don't agree with the call on the field after seeing the replay, but it wasn't a particularly bad call. The outrage here is either manufactured or just stems from ingnorance of the rules.
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Yep, the refs got it right. It's not who possesses the ball more. Tate had his left hand in between Jennings hands and they both made the catch. Tate's right hand secured the ball as Jennings was pulling it to his chest. Jennings had better position, and more control. However, as I said previously that's not the issue. They both had control, and WR gets the advantage. Result of the play TD.
 
How do they both have control when one guy has it pinned to his chest and the other merely is reaching in and only has his fingers around it?

 
How do they both have control when one guy has it pinned to his chest and the other merely is reaching in and only has his fingers around it?
How does the defender have complete control if he's unable to immediately roll away with the ball by himself?
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Um, no he didnt. Watch again. Tate clearly has one arm free as they come down in the air. NFL network showed it a hundred times. He had no control over the ball at all.
"Possession" can't occur in midair. "Possession" can never be completed until you finish the act of hitting the ground, as has been explained a million times. The fact that the defender had two hand on it when Tate had one is irrelevant. The fact that Tate had one hand between the ball and the defenders chest, and had the second on it before they hit the ground, and the defender was unable to immediately gain sole possession after hitting the ground, meant that at the point you could rule posesion established...BOTH players had established it.It really was a "simultaneous catch" per the rules.HOWEVER...the idea that you CAN'T call offensive PI on a hail mary is absurd. The pushoff was both blatant and egregious and absolutely should have been called. They got the catch p[art right...it was the obvious penalty they missed. Green Bay was still hosed.
Funny that no actual refs who were asked about this agree with you...
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Watch the replay again. Tate's right arm is not on the ball as they going to the ground then when he get's his right arm in their he grabbed Jennings shoulder not the ball.
 
Funny that no actual refs who were asked about this agree with you...
:rolleyes: The one guy on ESPN...who is obviously in the NFLRAs corner, as well as supporting his networks chosen stance on criticizing the NFL and the replacements? Yeah...big surprise there.This was a TOUGH call. It was NOT cut and dry. Even if the ref got it wrong (I understand the argument, even if I disagree with it), this call wouldn't crack the top 20 worst calls of the day, let alone all time.
 
I guess we cannot all agree on the facts so that's gonna make for difficult discussion. The mods are going to have their hands full the next day or two, I'll just mosey on down the trail and catch you all towards the end of the week. I did not see the play live, actually had to run to the store for a bit, came back and of course all hell had broken loose by that point, thought Steve Young was giving a speech at someone's wake but nevertheless you all have fun trying to convince each other and yourselves that what you saw is the absolute truth.

Good Luck

 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
NOT really the defender had the ball pulled into his body while the receiver just had two hands on the ball - that is NOT simultaneous possession
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Watch the replay again. Tate's right arm is not on the ball as they going to the ground then when he get's his right arm in their he grabbed Jennings shoulder not the ball.
If you're arguing about Tate's right hand coming off the ball briefly as he is going down, Jennings didn't have both feet down yet and therefore hadn't established possession either. By the time Jennings touches down, Tate does have two hands on it and doesn't lose any of his portion of the possession from that point on. Yes, this is more of a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" call, but they can't write the rule differently without leaving room for opinion and interpretation on the referee's part (which leads to inconsistent call and lack of clarity on the rule).
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
NOT really the defender had the ball pulled into his body while the receiver just had two hands on the ball - that is NOT simultaneous possession
Where in the rule does it say the receiver has to pull the ball into his chest to establish possession?
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
NOT really the defender had the ball pulled into his body while the receiver just had two hands on the ball - that is NOT simultaneous possession
Where in the rule does it say the receiver has to pull the ball into his chest to establish possession?
Not sure that is even in the rule someplace BUT ask a referee and if one player clearly has the ball pulled into his body that is more possession than the other guy just having a hand there and a hand here > more of the possesion than just having your hand on it (Fitzgerald said the same this morning)
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
NOT really the defender had the ball pulled into his body while the receiver just had two hands on the ball - that is NOT simultaneous possession
Where in the rule does it say the receiver has to pull the ball into his chest to establish possession?
None of that should matter. It wasn't simultaneous possession because the DB controlled the ball before the WR, which is all that matters when determining whether or not simultaneous possession has occurred. It's not about establishing possession or who had "more" possession or anything like that. The DB went up and got the ball, then Tate threw his hands in there. Unless Tate rips the ball away on the way down, that's an interception.
 
Funny that no actual refs who were asked about this agree with you...
:rolleyes: The one guy on ESPN...who is obviously in the NFLRAs corner, as well as supporting his networks chosen stance on criticizing the NFL and the replacements? Yeah...big surprise there.This was a TOUGH call. It was NOT cut and dry. Even if the ref got it wrong (I understand the argument, even if I disagree with it), this call wouldn't crack the top 20 worst calls of the day, let alone all time.
I realize after you have gone on this long with your stance its hard to admit being wrong...but its about time you admit your stance is not based on what actually happened.At no point did Tate have possession of the football.
 
I'm sure it's been posted here somewhere, but the NFL has issued a statement on the touchdown.

Editor's note: The following is a statement issued by the NFL regarding Golden Tate's game-winning touchdown catch at the conclusion of Monday night's game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks:In Monday's game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks, Seattle faced a 4th-and-10 from the Green Bay 24 with eight seconds remaining in the game.Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.The result of the game is final.Applicable rules to the play are as follows:A player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch listed here.Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and© maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states: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.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown
 
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
Um, no he didnt. Watch again. Tate clearly has one arm free as they come down in the air. NFL network showed it a hundred times. He had no control over the ball at all.
"Possession" can't occur in midair. "Possession" can never be completed until you finish the act of hitting the ground, as has been explained a million times. The fact that the defender had two hand on it when Tate had one is irrelevant. The fact that Tate had one hand between the ball and the defenders chest, and had the second on it before they hit the ground, and the defender was unable to immediately gain sole possession after hitting the ground, meant that at the point you could rule posesion established...BOTH players had established it.It really was a "simultaneous catch" per the rules.HOWEVER...the idea that you CAN'T call offensive PI on a hail mary is absurd. The pushoff was both blatant and egregious and absolutely should have been called. They got the catch p[art right...it was the obvious penalty they missed. Green Bay was still hosed.
Funny that no actual refs who were asked about this agree with you...
Yeah, because they're not biased at all.
 
'Ghost Rider said:
Is that most FF games probably weren't affected by the finish, except for those who had GB or Seattle defenses going. I doubt a lot of people had Wilson or Tate in their starting lineups.

*cues the 9 people here who did*

:P

Imagine if the controversial TD had been Rodgers to Jordy Nelson. Games everywhere in fantasy land would have been affected, and the outrage would be 10 times worse!!! :popcorn:
I had GB defense in my lineup this week. Ended up losing by 3 points. The INT would've counted for 2 points my way, and a PA of 7 would've gotten me another 1 points compared to what I ended up getting from the official PA of 14. Net differential of 3 Points would've resulted in a tie. There were also another 4-11 points from players that I debated starting, but ended up staying on the bench due to poor roster management. But it's a lot more fun to blame the refs rather than my inability to capitalize on other opportunities.

As for the actual situation, regardless of how you feel the refs may have mishandled it, the GB defenders failed themselves with flawed basic fundamentals. With no time on the clock, and a half dozen defenders that had way better ball position and box out ability than the two Seattle receivers, there was no excuse to try to play the interception there. Swat the ball away, and the game would have been over. No opportunity for controversy, and much more quiet message boards and sports talk shows today.

 
'Captain Hook said:
'Cookiemonster said:
'Ministry of Pain said:
Best ball dynasty and I had Tate at the end of my WR bench, definitely helped me but it was an interception no doubt about it IMO.
As I explained to my wife, the GB DB had BETTER possession, but Tate had both hands on and did going to the ground. Offense wins a tie. Correct call per the rule (pass interference aside).
NOT really the defender had the ball pulled into his body while the receiver just had two hands on the ball - that is NOT simultaneous possession
Incorrect. Try again.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top