Question: Earl's Pick
- Thread starter poly1274
- Start date
peppersjap
New member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 853
- Reaction score
- 0
They reversed the initial call on the field to an incomplete pass so when it went to review and they determined it was an interception by rule the Seahawks got the ball at the spot of the interception instead of the spot of the return.
LymonHawk
Well-known member
poly1274":1yi7spv7 said:
IIRC: Wasn't it originally called incomplete? If so, that is why they disallowed the return.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 8,037
- Reaction score
- 2,108
LymonHawk":ael7shgs said:
Originally ruled interception, changed to incomplete when officials got together after the play. Same rule applies though.
The refs want to make sure they get it absolutely right by changing the call to something that would automatically be reviewed-- like that non-TD they changed for Denver in Game #1. By overturning what the ref actually SAW, they allow an automatic review in the booth to make sure they get it right. Yes, this probably cost us the game in Denver because there wasn't enough video evidence, so it really is a stupid plan.
The problem is they are idiots because they did it backwards. With Earl's pick (that they correctly called on the field but changed), the play would have been reviewed automatically to get it right, but changing the call made us use up a challenge and and probably cost us 3 points.
Think about if Earl would have scored on the return and they pulled that crap.
The problem is they are idiots because they did it backwards. With Earl's pick (that they correctly called on the field but changed), the play would have been reviewed automatically to get it right, but changing the call made us use up a challenge and and probably cost us 3 points.
Think about if Earl would have scored on the return and they pulled that crap.
Steve2222
New member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 1,993
- Reaction score
- 1
poly1274":2cwvarpb said:
It was originally ruled an INT and then the refs overturned their call to an incompletion. Hence Pete, not the booth, challenging the call. When a play gets overturned to a turnover, the teams gets the ball at the spot of the turnover.
Which is why Pete was so livid they didn’t just keep it an INT with all turnovers automatically reviewed anyways.
kidhawk
Well-known member
Kryten":1n1l7kda said:
Actually this is false. The original call on the field was a turnover which would have been automatically reviewed but they changed the call to incomplete which meant Pete had to use a challenge.
It’s frustrating when officials overturn the right call to make it a wrong call. If you aren’t 100% sure then don’t overturn the original call on the field.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
They found a way to screw the Seahawks when possible.
Next.
Next.
kidhawk
Well-known member
Kryten":15viyfzj said:
The way I am reading it, you are saying the the officials WANT to have it officially reviewed, but they were "idiots" because it did just the opposite of that desired outcome. I don't think that they had any desire to have it reviewed. That is where I think it is a misconception (perhaps better than just false, but I was on my phone and I like to be as brief as possible when posting from my phone).
I believe an official with not as good a view as the official who made the call pushed harder for his opinion instead of just taking the call as it was. I think officials know exactly the consequences of their overturning the call meant. The official who made the original call should have been allowed to stand.
I'm all for officials conferencing to get a call right, but when thy conference and change a correct call to an incorrect call, there is just no reason for it. If you aren't 100% you shouldn't try to overturn another officials call. If you are 100% sure you are right and you end up being wrong, then as an official, you need to reevaluate why you are so certain you are right about a call that another official has the better view on and perhaps consider not trying to override his decision.
Frozenropers
Active member
I was at the game. The back judge (one behind our defense) ruled it an incompletion right away, however the play continued because nobody saw him and nobody could hear him. He was waiving the interception off right away and was the ref that ran forward after the play to assert that he saw it as incomplete. His view was bad because he was behind Earl and could not see that Earl's foot was between the ball and the ground. All of the other officials just let it play out. Tying this back into the thread topic, because he ruled/saw it as an incomplete pass as the initial call, the play stops there as we don't get the benefit of the runback after the call was later overturned.
D
DomeHawk
Guest
Dumb rule.
