Official response going into next season.

[ParisPC07]

It was a catch, right? I'm wondering if people's opinions have changed about his. Gradually, I've noticed more and more Hawks fans being more willing to just accept that it was a catch instead of feeling the need to apologize to everyone. Thoughts?

 

[nIdahoSeahawk]

It was a catch. When someone at work or in town brings it up anymore and claims it isn't, I just laugh it off and change the subject. Not really worth trying to defend or explain to the shallow-minded anymore.

 

[JSeahawks]

I still think it was an interception. But i'm certainly not going to apologize to anybody for the Hawks winning that game.

 

[Sterling Archer]

By the current rules, it was an interception. However, logically I think it should be a catch. Possession in bounds should matter.

 

[RichNhansom]

Not sure how anyone could still rule out simultaneous. I have seen many explanations and breakdowns of the play and not one explains how it was not. Virtually every analysis I have seen of the play in frame by frame break down shows it was a catch.

Next time someone tries to say it wasn't simply ask them to explain why and provide some sort of breakdown of the play that validates it. If they do the research with any kind of open mind they will come to the same conclusion.

The only ones I see bringing it up any more are usually doing it as a jab.

Edit: We won the game but lost the popularity contest. The Packers organization should be fined for how they conducted themselves at the end of that game. Do you think we could have gotten away with that?

 

[DavidSeven]

It was a catch. Not just saying that as a homer. I think Golden Tate got away with blatant OPI and Green Bay fans can legitimately complain about that. But it was a catch. I'm convinced.

 

[pinksheets]

It was silly to blame the "replacement refs".

The NFL's rules state that a ruling of simultaneous catch isn't reviewable, which is why there was no chance of an overturned call there.

Watch that play full-speed as it happened and try to make sense of it. It's really, really hard. We get to see it in slo-mo over and over and even then there's still debate. The refs get to make one call on the field in that instance. I think they could review a called interception to determine if it was, in fact, a simultaneous catch, but keep in mind the burden of proof needed to overturn a play. If a ref calls it a pick thinking a review will sort it out, it puts the offense at a huge disadvantage. They have to call it the best they can, right there, right then. If the NFL simply allowed for a review of that type of play, perhaps a final decision could've been made.

Yet we blame the refs who have to react instantaneously to a mob of people playing flyer's up with multiple people having hands on the ball.

 

[DavidSeven]

Yet we blame the refs who have to react instantaneously to a mob of people playing flyer's up with multiple people having hands on the ball.

I love how Tirico so quickly and passionately condemned the replacement refs when he himself called it "SIMULTANEOUS!" as the play unfolded in real time.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Footage and photos by Q13 not only shows Tate catching the ball with his left finger tips before Jennings snagged the ball with both hands for so called possession. It also shows Tate also with possession before either player touched ground with clearly Tate on his ass before Jennings even had a foot down.

The Replacement Officials said it was a catch.

The Replay Official said it was a catch.

The NFL Review Committee said it was a catch.

By all means it was a catch in almost every sense of the word in the rule books, the only people who really doubted it was those who jumped on the media bandwagon to get back the regular officials watching the same replay that made it look like a interception and Packer faithful.

 

[bigtrain21]

The one time we may have caught a break and it's still talked about. Just our luck.

Vinnie Testeverde's phantom TD and the Fredd Young interception vs the Oilers in the playoffs that was reviewed by instant replay and overturned even though he clearly caught it were both much worse calls. Not to mention Super Bowl XL.

 

[FargoHawk]

Yes, It was a catch.......by Jennings.

 

[Throwdown]

Catch, that was ours without it, the right team won. Ball should've been ours after Chancellor knocked it away without making contact to the receiver and was still called for a PI, it was a catch, Tate had possession as soon as he touched the ground wih both feet, the right team won.

 

[vin.couve12]

Catch. Tate didn't have his hands on it first, but once he got both hands on it both feet and even his arse was down when the DB only had one foot down.

 

[MissoulaHawkFan]

It was a catch - Tate had some possession of the ball and landed on his butt (on your butt equals 2 feet down) while Jennings was on one foot - ergo possession goes to receiver. Basically what I do with Green Bay folks that talk to me about it, I say read the info from the following link, but pretend it was two teams you don't care about - and see who you side with. 90% of the time they mumble "Oh"...and walk sheepishly away.

Linky: "The Catch" - Explained

 

[ivotuk]

By the current rules, it was an interception. However, logically I think it should be a catch. Possession in bounds should matter.

Incorrect. If you believe this is true, state said rules and explain the ruling. Remember, the replay booth did NOT turn the call over.

There was a very good explanation about the catch.

And what is up with Brock Huard and Danny O'Neill still calling it "Fail Mary?" What idiots! Like I said last time, it's "Wail Mary" because of all the people that are still crying over it.

AND, take away the bogus call that benefitted Green Bay and gave them a TD on the previous drive, and all this would be moot. The only reason anyone is talking about this is because it was the LAST bad call in a game filled with them.

Edit: And, if Seattle would have beat Buffalo on such a play, no one would care...

 

[kearly]

Pinksheets makes all the right points. Additionally, I think Tate having a hand on the ball before Jennings changes the equation. You can't argue that Jennings had true sole possession at any point, because Tate already had one hand on the ball. That's not how sole possession works.

 

[brimsalabim]

check the score board.... it was a catch...

 

[Anonymous]

Tie goes to the runner.

Catch.

 

[godawg]

It was a catch and a brave ruling.

 

[Oof]

Just like we all heard right after the Super Bowl... get over it. It is what it is. Move along... move along.