I don't uunderstand those so upset about no replay?

[Hawknballs]

don't know if the call was wrong but the fact that there was 0 discussion and no review whatsoever just seems weird in that moment.

wasn't it ruled that it wasn't even a fumble? They moved the ball way back to where he lost it. not where a ram recovered it.

fact of the matter is that SOMEONE had to have control of the ball moreso than anyone else, the no review is just weird.

 

[Hawkpower]

don't know if the call was wrong but the fact that there was 0 discussion and no review whatsoever just seems weird in that moment.

wasn't it ruled that it wasn't even a fumble? They moved the ball way back to where he lost it. not where a ram recovered it.

fact of the matter is that SOMEONE had to have control of the ball moreso than anyone else, the no review is just weird.

I think the explanation came out that they moved it back because it was the final 2:00 and you cant fumble it forward.

Still think the absolute rush and lack of explanation reeeeeeeeks of not being sure about their call or what happened, so the rookie refs just took the ball, wound the clock and got outta there as fast as they could.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

It's a matter of fair process. People want to feel decisions are made based on fair and thought out reasoning. If the officials took the extra time to review the footage, even if fans don't like the outcome they feel better about the final decision.

The OP and others say there wasn't a clear shot, but we may have not seen every angle of the play like, supposedly, the review officials in New York did. What we saw was the 30 seconds before the next hurried snap.

Do you remember the Cooper Helfet TD catch? At first review of the play, it looked like a TD, but it was close enough to raise some doubts. It wasn't until the TV broadcast came back from commercial break to show us a new angle they didn't show before that gave zero doubt that both feet were in bounds. If the Seahawks went straight into the extra point then viewers may have felt the officials missed something, whether true or not, had they not shown that last angle

Had the refs took an official timeout and allowed the TV broadcast booth to show every angle and told viewers that this was all to see, I think people would feel better about the final outcome.

 

[cboom]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

 

[Msfann]

What harm does it do at least review it? they had the ability to review it. it would have avoided a lot of butthurt if they did review it.

If Seattle didn't get it after the review so be it, but at least look at it.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Because there's still doubt. We saw only a few angles of the recovery before the next play was snapped and the game was over, thus leaving no time to show the viewers every angle of the play. You may not have any doubt about the play, but I don't like to form an opinion on only 2 or 3 camera footage shown when there are another 5 or more in the stadium. Personally, I wanted to see a shot from the endzone of Sherman laying on the ball from the other angle.

 

[Shadowhawk]

Even if they did it wouldn't have changed a thing. There wasn't anything that could completely confirm Sherm had control. And they did come out of the pile with the ball. So replay or not it would have been the exact same result.

Because it's their freaking job to replay close calls ESPECIALLY when the game is on the line, there's no reason why they couldn't have taken an extra minute to replay it, and at the time it wasn't a given that there WASN'T some sort of indisputable evidence.

Should it have come down to this? No. As I said in another thread any time you leave the game in the hands of NFL officials you are just asking for trouble. But we should have gotten two things here: 1) an indisputable shot of the person who came out of the pile with the ball and 2) time taken to make absolutely sure that the deciding play of the game was decided correctly, or as well as they possibly could have. Anything else is sloppy at best and negligent at worst.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What harm does it do at least review it? they had the ability to review it. it would have avoided a lot of butthurt if they did review it.

If Seattle didn't get it after the review so be it, but at least look at it.

Dean Blandino from the NFL Office said that New York did quickly review it and concluded that it was no way the call would have even had a chance to be overturned if it was reviewed, so they didn't.

Dean Blandino @DeanBlandino

Player coming out of pile w/loose ball is not a clear recovery. Need video evidence of him gaining possession. Play was reviewed in NY.

 

[Cartire]

What harm does it do at least review it? they had the ability to review it. it would have avoided a lot of butthurt if they did review it.

If Seattle didn't get it after the review so be it, but at least look at it.

Dean Blandino from the NFL Office said that New York did quickly review it and concluded that it was no way the call would have even had a chance to be overturned if it was reviewed, so they didn't.

Dean Blandino @DeanBlandino

Player coming out of pile w/loose ball is not a clear recovery. Need video evidence of him gaining possession. Play was reviewed in NY.

Blandino is also a self entitled ass who gets smoozed by Jerrys kid during the summer. I trust him like I trust a Prostitute claiming shes a virgin.

If they can review it that fast in NY, then why does every other play that the ACTUALLY review take forever. Did he just inadvertently admit they could actually speed up this whole process but have chosen not to in light of more commercials? No, unfortunately, I think hes just lieing so that we shut up about a blown call.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

What harm does it do at least review it? they had the ability to review it. it would have avoided a lot of butthurt if they did review it.

If Seattle didn't get it after the review so be it, but at least look at it.

Dean Blandino from the NFL Office said that New York did quickly review it and concluded that it was no way the call would have even had a chance to be overturned if it was reviewed, so they didn't.

Dean Blandino @DeanBlandino

Player coming out of pile w/loose ball is not a clear recovery. Need video evidence of him gaining possession. Play was reviewed in NY.

Are these the same officials that reviewed the Percy TD run and instead of stopping the game decided that a quick review was enough to call it a TD?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What harm does it do at least review it? they had the ability to review it. it would have avoided a lot of butthurt if they did review it.

If Seattle didn't get it after the review so be it, but at least look at it.

Dean Blandino from the NFL Office said that New York did quickly review it and concluded that it was no way the call would have even had a chance to be overturned if it was reviewed, so they didn't.

Dean Blandino @DeanBlandino

Player coming out of pile w/loose ball is not a clear recovery. Need video evidence of him gaining possession. Play was reviewed in NY.

Are these the same officials that reviewed the Percy TD run and instead of stopping the game decided that a quick review was enough to call it a TD?

Yep, same guys.

I'm still confused as to why you guys are so mad. Even if it was reviewed there wasn't enough evidence to give the ball to Seattle. Maybe it should have been reviewed, but who cares if that means no change in the call? Is this another conspiracy theory nonsense?

Of all the things I'm angry about yesterday, this isn't even in the top 10.

 

[Cartire]

What harm does it do at least review it? they had the ability to review it. it would have avoided a lot of butthurt if they did review it.

If Seattle didn't get it after the review so be it, but at least look at it.

Dean Blandino from the NFL Office said that New York did quickly review it and concluded that it was no way the call would have even had a chance to be overturned if it was reviewed, so they didn't.

Dean Blandino @DeanBlandino

Player coming out of pile w/loose ball is not a clear recovery. Need video evidence of him gaining possession. Play was reviewed in NY.

Are these the same officials that reviewed the Percy TD run and instead of stopping the game decided that a quick review was enough to call it a TD?

Yep, same guys.

I'm still confused as to why you guys are so mad. Even if it was reviewed there wasn't enough evidence to give the ball to Seattle. Maybe it should have been reviewed, but who cares if that means no change in the call? Is this another conspiracy theory nonsense?

Of all the things I'm angry about yesterday, this isn't even in the top 10.

First, please name the 10 other things that you are more mad about.

Second, we have no idea what other angles there were. Because they werent shown. Because it wasnt reviewed. Sure, on the broadcast angles of the 30 second replay while they were lining up for the next play were shown, but that was all of 2.

 

[jlwaters1]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

Maybe I need to watch it again, but I'm quite certain that they ruled that the Rams player who fell on the ball initially that he had possession and thereby was down by contact before the 2nd "fumble occurred"

The whole problem with this call IMO is that the refs eliminated the chance of a SEahawk possession. The rule should be "When in doubt, let it play out." They never declared who had the ball in the pile. If they would have ruled it a fumble and announced who had possession at the bottom of the pile, and assuming it was Seattle's ball the play would have automatically been reviewed because it was a turnover.

So had they gone that route, no harm would have occurred as they could have corrected the call if the replay showed that the Ram player obviously had possession before being tackled. However, by making their call, they eliminated Seattle getting the ball because there's zero evidence of Seattle clearly getting the ball.

I think the Refs screwed up big because their ruling turned out to be incorrect, Infact I think it's wise for all fumble situations like this to be ruled a fumble and they review and can fix any errors at that time.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

First, please name the 10 other things that you are more mad about.

Second, we have no idea what other angles there were. Because they werent shown. Because it wasnt reviewed. Sure, on the broadcast angles of the 30 second replay while they were lining up for the next play were shown, but that was all of 2.

In no particular order;

1. Punt coverage fiasco
2. Fake punt assignment fiasco
3. Pass blocking
4. Run blocking
5. Dumb foul by Simon allowing a first down, and subsequent TD
6. Holding penalty by Bailey, negating a TD
7. Another poor tackling performance by defense
8. Defense allowing St. Louis to march right down the field after we get within 2 late
9. Smith not being able to sack Davis, which made it 4th and 2 for the fake punt instead of 4th and forever
10. Losing to a 1-4 team playing their 3rd string QB, 2nd string RB and without their best player on D

But you're right, it's all the refs fault for not reviewing a fumble that we didn't recover.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

Maybe I need to watch it again, but I'm quite certain that they ruled that the Rams player who fell on the ball initially that he had possession and thereby was down by contact before the 2nd "fumble occurred"

Exactly this. and that is why the ball was placed back where it was. The original player had the ball, fumbled, recovered and then moved. By rule he is not able to advance the ball if he recovers the fumbled ball. That is what the announcers said. I still have it on dvd and watched it ANYWAY today. I wanted to see a few things that were in confusion yesterday off the radio broadcast.

 

[RunTheBall]

First, please name the 10 other things that you are more mad about.

Second, we have no idea what other angles there were. Because they werent shown. Because it wasnt reviewed. Sure, on the broadcast angles of the 30 second replay while they were lining up for the next play were shown, but that was all of 2.

In no particular order;

1. Punt coverage fiasco
2. Fake punt assignment fiasco
3. Pass blocking
4. Run blocking
5. Dumb foul by Simon allowing a first down, and subsequent TD
6. Holding penalty by Bailey, negating a TD
7. Another poor tackling performance by defense
8. Defense allowing St. Louis to march right down the field after we get within 2 late
9. Smith not being able to sack Davis, which made it 4th and 2 for the fake punt instead of 4th and forever
10. Losing to a 1-4 team playing their 3rd string QB, 2nd string RB and without their best player on D

Deleted for Personal attack!

 

[Hawkpower]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

Maybe I need to watch it again, but I'm quite certain that they ruled that the Rams player who fell on the ball initially that he had possession and thereby was down by contact before the 2nd "fumble occurred"

Exactly this. and that is why the ball was placed back where it was. The original player had the ball, fumbled, recovered and then moved. By rule he is not able to advance the ball if he recovers the fumbled ball. That is what the announcers said. I still have it on dvd and watched it ANYWAY today. I wanted to see a few things that were in confusion yesterday off the radio broadcast.

And over 24 hours later and we still dont know what the exact ruling was because they never made it clear then, and all we apparently deserve now is a few morons on twitter speculating and trying to convince us it was "reviewed" in 21.6 seconds in NY.

The call may have been perfectly legit. But we dont know because it happened so fast and chaotic, and no clear explanation was given or shown.

Way too critical of a play to not take the time to sort it out, explain it, look at it. WAY less consequential and much clearer plays are reviewed ALL THE TIME.

Not sure whats more annoying. The play, or the hawk fans that pretend to be above being upset at the ending because of a fake punt, as if the two have any correlation whatsoever.

 

[RunTheBall]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

Maybe I need to watch it again, but I'm quite certain that they ruled that the Rams player who fell on the ball initially that he had possession and thereby was down by contact before the 2nd "fumble occurred"

Exactly this. and that is why the ball was placed back where it was. The original player had the ball, fumbled, recovered and then moved. By rule he is not able to advance the ball if he recovers the fumbled ball. That is what the announcers said. I still have it on dvd and watched it ANYWAY today. I wanted to see a few things that were in confusion yesterday off the radio broadcast.

And over 24 hours later and we still dont know what the exact ruling was because they never made it clear then, and all we apparently deserve now is a few morons on twitter speculating and trying to convince us it was "reviewed" in 21.6 seconds in NY.

The call may have been perfectly legit. But we dont know because it happened so fast and chaotic, and no clear explanation was given or shown.

Way too critical of a play to not take the time to sort it out, explain it, look at it. WAY less consequential and much clearer plays are reviewed ALL THE TIME.

Not sure whats more annoying. The play, or the hawk fans that pretend to be above being upset at the ending because of a fake punt, as if the two have any correlation whatsoever.

This type of fan is hilarious, the ones that somehow think they are better than other fans because they don't want to discuss a controversial call that went against us.

 

[Hawkpower]

Maybe I need to watch it again, but I'm quite certain that they ruled that the Rams player who fell on the ball initially that he had possession and thereby was down by contact before the 2nd "fumble occurred"
[/quote]

Exactly this. and that is why the ball was placed back where it was. The original player had the ball, fumbled, recovered and then moved. By rule he is not able to advance the ball if he recovers the fumbled ball. That is what the announcers said. I still have it on dvd and watched it ANYWAY today. I wanted to see a few things that were in confusion yesterday off the radio broadcast.[/quote]


And over 24 hours later and we still dont know what the exact ruling was because they never made it clear then, and all we apparently deserve now is a few morons on twitter speculating and trying to convince us it was "reviewed" in 21.6 seconds in NY.

The call may have been perfectly legit. But we dont know because it happened so fast and chaotic, and no clear explanation was given or shown.

Way too critical of a play to not take the time to sort it out, explain it, look at it. WAY less consequential and much clearer plays are reviewed ALL THE TIME.

Not sure whats more annoying. The play, or the hawk fans that pretend to be above being upset at the ending because of a fake punt, as if the two have any correlation whatsoever.[/quote]
This type of fan is hilarious, the ones that somehow think they are better than other fans because they don't want to discuss a controversial call that went against us.[/quote]




Indeed. They showed up in droves for this one.

If the seahawks get a false start, are late for the team bus, or wear white jerseys after labor day, complaining about piss poor officiating is not allowed, and one is clearly not an educated fan if they do so, because, as we know and have been told, its not the reason we lost. so we cant discuss it.

Note it.

 

[larjon53]

Even though there was not a official stop for a replay, I'm sure the replay official looked at it and figured there was no need for a replay.