See the end of the Seachickens and Packers game?...

[lloydroid]

Was it really a bad call? Or was it a judgement call? They reviewed it, with replay officials that aren't replacements.

So was it a bad call?

To answer that question, officials referred to the NFL Rulebook, specifically rule 8, section 1, article 3, item 5 (there are a lot of rules in that book; it's about 10 times as long as the United States Constitution):

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.

In less-Hochulian terms: You know the "tie goes to the runner" rule in baseball? Simultaneous catch is the football equivalent. If two guys come down with the ball, somebody has to be credited with a catch and it might as well be the team that already has possession. It's a rule of convenience and common sense.

No way was that simultaneous possession. The Packer clearly had the ball to his chest when his feet the ground and Tate was only touching his arm and just part of the ball. They F-d this up bad.

[hawaiiansteel]

No way was that simultaneous possession. The Packer clearly had the ball to his chest when his feet the ground and Tate was only touching his arm and just part of the ball. They F-d this up bad.

I can't believe the replay official didn't overturn that call, at no time during the play did Tate have two hands on the ball whereas the Packers DB was clutching the ball with both hands to his chest.

[Terrible Towlie]

What I don't get is why there are some plays that are not reviewable. It's ridiculous. If they are going to have video replay have it in every aspect of the game. Why does certain situations (judgments, etc) not reviewable? If instant replay can prove something why not use it?

Yes, the smart football move would have been for him to knock the ball away and we wouldn't be talking about this. However, he didn't but he made the play. The referees ruled wrong. Instant Replay showed he intercepted the ball, so change the ruling on the field. It's ridiculous that stipulations, etc. say, oh that's not reviewable. Any reasonable person would look at it and say............."Dude, that's definitely an interception".

[NorthCoast]

What is not a rumor is the Vegas take on that play swung to the house's favor by almost $250 million dollars. Enough to make one wonder....

[DBR96A]

If the Packers didn't want to get ****ed by the refs, then maybe that magnificent, cerebral, All-Universe QB of theirs should have helped them score more than 12 points.

Oh yeah, they're [URL="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066348/article/tj-lang-packers-talked-serious-actions-on-flight-home?campaign=Twitter_atl"]mentally soft[/URL] too. They're the Ravens of the NFC: strutting popinjays when they win, and helpless victims when they lose. **** 'em.

[SDSteel1]

By NFL rule, the play was called correctly. It doesn't say if one guy has more possesion than the other, it doesn't say if one guy only had one hand on it in the air, it says if 2 players both have possesion it's the offense's ball. Both players had their hands on the ball and when that occurs it's the offenses ball by rule. Now don't get me wrong, the rules in the NFL are screwed up, and there are way too many of them and many don't use common sense, but they got this one right according to the rule.

[hawaiiansteel]

if the Packers DB had been the WR, it would have been called a TD...

[SDSteel1]

if the Packers DB had been the WR, it would have been called a TD...

Thanks for proving my point, when it was said and done both guys held the ball, the video shows it quite clearly. The right call was made based on the rule.

[Slapstick]

Thanks for proving my point, when it was said and done both guys held the ball, the video shows it quite clearly. The right call was made based on the rule.

No, you're wrong.

In the NFL, a receiver has to maintain control of the football while going to the ground...Golden Tate had no more control of that football than I did...

You're wrong and worse, the replacement officials got it clearly wrong as well...

[SDSteel1]

No, you're wrong.

In the NFL, a receiver has to maintain control of the football while going to the ground...Golden Tate had no more control of that football than I did...

You're wrong and worse, the replacement officials got it clearly wrong as well...

You don't know the rules, what exactly does going to the ground mean?, and the video shows that both players have possesion. Maybe you don't understand possesion.