Thunderbird
New member
Largent80":1t1pbd7a said:I am so tired of hearing about this, I just want to kick their asses and be done with it.
And so, it is D O N E.
Word...
Largent80":1t1pbd7a said:I am so tired of hearing about this, I just want to kick their asses and be done with it.
And so, it is D O N E.
MysterMatt":3fega5lq said:It's just one of those things that some people can't get over. The other day I heard Dave Wyman on the radio say that he thought "it was probably an interception"...and I just about lost my lunch. It simply defies logic how this is still a controversy. As you all know, there are these things called cameras that can not only take pictures, they can take them so fast that the images they capture actually appear to be moving. Using this technology, you can slow down, or even stop, the motion to analyze the images to see what might be happening if things are going too fast for the human eye.
Now bear with me, but you can actually point multiple cameras in different positions at the SAME THING, which gives you multiple perspectives on your subject! I KNOW, right?! It just so happens that they do this wizardry at ALL NFL games so that plays may be analyzed in order to make the right call if at all possible. Refs on the field, or up in the booth, can instantly access all angles to a play in question to make sure the proper rules are applied and the right call is made.
So the play in question here shows a few things of note:
1. Initially the GB CB, Jennings, had his hands on the ball. He was way up in the air when this happened, meaning that HIS FEET WERE NOT ON THE GROUND.
2. Golden Tate also got his hands on the ball from a lower angle, but his FEET WERE ALSO OFF THE GROUND.
3. For a catch to be ruled a catch in the NFL, both the receiver's feet must land in bounds.
4. In the case of a "simultaneous catch" (see points 1 and 2), whichever person gets both his feet hits the ground FIRST is ruled to be the one who made the reception.
5. The cameras clearly show, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Tate's feet hit the ground first...with his hands grasping the ball.
So, at the end of the day, while a frontal camera angle shows that Jennings got his hands on the ball, as did Tate, his feet were not on the ground and therefore he did not intercept the ball. Was it close to an interception? HELL YES, but that's not how rulings are made. Per the rules, Tate clearly had the touchdown and anyone who disputes that, or simply doesn't understand it, is either dumb or willfully ignorant...or they're trolling (see National Media).
Poop on them.
If one wants to make a controversy out of that game, they should point at the dreadful officiating in the second half that CLEARLY favored Green Bay and allowed them to get back in the game to begin with.
Hasselbeck":3a8wfp0z said:HawkFan72":3a8wfp0z said:I was surprised while listening to Jim Rome this morning that he brought up the famous play vs Green Bay...and actually sounded like a Seahawks fan.
He said that this was a great moment for everyone outside of Green Bay, that Golden Tate "clearly had the ball", and that he likes this play "more than the Immaculate Reception and the Music City Miracle combined."
He said this was one of the great all-time moments in NFL History.
He didn't say a single negative thing about it.
Was quite refreshing to hear from a media big-shot for once.
Having listened to Rome for many years... he's trolling here. A lot of his takes are draped in sarcasm, this one seems to fit the bill.
MysterMatt":3dk37xsg said:If one wants to make a controversy out of that game, they should point at the dreadful officiating in the second half that CLEARLY favored Green Bay and allowed them to get back in the game to begin with.
loafoftatupu":7j1sxjzj said:The Hawks actually got roasted by this in 2005 against the Giants. Shockey came down with a ball in the end zone that was knocked out when he landed. I think that the rule has changed since then.
The Radish":200dfaqs said:I'm glad Rome said what he did but not to worry this Seahawks fan will never love or even like the loud mouth idiot Jim Rome is.
:141847_bnono:
This "continuation" aspect doesn't get mentioned at all. Offensive player catches the ball in the end zone - TD and ball is dead. Defender catches the ball in the end-zone - "continuation" - the ball is still live because the defender has the option of returning it. This is how a fumble is possible in the end zone and "theoretically" an offensive player can rip a ball away from a defender then making it a TD.loafoftatupu":elmii9c4 said:MysterMatt":elmii9c4 said:If one wants to make a controversy out of that game, they should point at the dreadful officiating in the second half that CLEARLY favored Green Bay and allowed them to get back in the game to begin with.
I have mentioned all that, but there no one talks about how the fact that Tate had his feet down in the end zone eliminated any continuation on Jennings behalf (not that it matters) Tate met the requirements of a touchdown.
BlueTalons":2y5s2qcv said:This "continuation" aspect doesn't get mentioned at all. Offensive player catches the ball in the end zone - TD and ball is dead. Defender catches the ball in the end-zone - "continuation" - the ball is still live because the defender has the option of returning it. This is how a fumble is possible in the end zone and "theoretically" an offensive player can rip a ball away from a defender then making it a TD.