Wooderson wrote:Icness wrote:I'm really tired of all the talk about this game, but my two cents:
--the refs technically got the final call correct and it could not be overturned. But there is no way that was a case of simultaneous possession. No way Tate had that ball, that was an INT.
--I thought Green Bay's halftime adjustments and utter domination of the 2nd half was darn impressive considering how badly they got outplayed in the first half. They just couldn't translate it into enough points.
I went back and found an instance where the regular refs botched a similar call. Jaguars/Raiders in Week 14 2010, Mike Mitchell picked off a ball but Jason Hill stole it after jumping on him on the ground. Even though the ball never hit the ground, the refs called it incomplete on the field, which was technically an impossible ruling. After a 9 minute delay/review on a Tom Cable coaching challenge, referees ruled INT. The side judge and linesman both did not work the following week. Jaguars wound up winning anyways, and they ultimately got it right.
Please elaborate on the bolded. The simultaneous catch was reviewable since it occurred in the endzone. Given your subsequent statement that there was no way that was a case of simultaneous possession (obvious to anyone with at least one working eye and a functioning brain), you actually should think the call should have been overturned.
The worst part about it was that I don't think the refs, or booth official were aware of the possibility that the simultaneous catch could be reviewed. Otherwise they obviously spend more than 30 seconds under the hood reviewing the call.
When the official ruled touchdown by simultaneous possession, there is no way the possession can be overturned. They could only rule if it was a catch or not, making sure feet were inbounds and the ball didn't hit the ground, etc. Simultaneous possession on a catch is a judgment call and judgment calls cannot be overturned. At least that's how it was explained by Andrew Brandt and I'll take his word.
The only way they could have give the ball to Green Bay was to have the ruling on the field be INT, because once again the possession cannot be overturned. They should have huddled and decided all that beforehand and the back judge should have stood his ground and stuck hard with his INT/touchback call he made. He got it right and he was in the best position to make the call. Of course he's also the one primarily responsible for OPI on the play so I don't want to give him too much credit. Note that it is different for fumbles if there is clear evidence that the call on the field is wrong, and that is specifically written. That is the same as college, the other rule I don't know if it's the same. I never officiated with replay so it's all foreign.
From my own reffing experience:
I got as high as DII, in the GLIAC conference for one season after doing HS and DIII for a few years. The jump from DIII to DII was more dramatic than I expected, primarily because of the size of the players. Linemen in DIII were maybe 265 with one or two per team that might hit 295. In DII everyone was at least 275, most had two or three starters over 300. Grand Valley under Brian Kelly had a line bigger than most Big 10 teams his final year there. The bigger the bodies, the harder it is to see holding and chopping and hands to the face. I was primarily an umpire but also did some field judge. The rules were almost exactly the same but the game was definitely different. I can't imagine the jump from that level to the NFL. I'd need at least 3 years of experience before I felt confident and even then I'd probably feel overwhelmed at times. It has been my experience that new officials usually got the calls right (often more vigilantly right) but figuring out stuff like where the foul was committed, spotting the ball after a flag, getting the clock reset, stuff like that was a real struggle for them. That's why having an experienced crew chief was so important. These scabs don't have that luxury.
