Last time there was a horrendous interpretation of a jumpball TD, it became the last straw to get the "incompetent" replacement refs thrown out.
How much do you think we'll hear about this play in the coming week?
I'm guessing we won't.
It has been years since the replacement refs and the league still doesn't know how to rule on TD catches. They don't apply consistent standards to the going to the ground rules and bobbles apparently don't get consistently reviewed on replay.
The refs have been poor all season long across the league, yet the last time a play like this happened, it got everyone up in arms.
You know as well as I do that we won't see any outrage now....
Can anyone explain why two guys standing there don't signal TD while the players are wrestling for the ball and when they do it is when Collins clearly has it?
That shouldn't be called out?
Very strange take.
- Two refs are standing right there waiting to see where possession ends up
- Once they have a visual on the possession, they award it the opposite of what they saw
- They signal TD as Collins holds the ball up
That's the TD call on the field.
We don't know what replay is looking at, but they missed:
- A bobble when the players hit the ground
- Richardson then attempting to gain possession while he has one and then a second foot hit out of bounds
- Collins maintain possession in the field of play without being out of bounds
- Ignoring the going to the ground rule where you must maintain possession throughout the catch
We probably won't ever understand why the call was what it was - which is exactly what got the replacement refs ousted.
The NFL has a huge problem, and it extends well past a shitty call between two bad teams.
100% on point. Cannot believe how many things they got wrong on one play.
Quote:
on the field deserve blame since it was the call made that needs evidence to overturn.
Can anyone explain why two guys standing there don't signal TD while the players are wrestling for the ball and when they do it is when Collins clearly has it?
That shouldn't be called out?
Very strange take.
What's "evidence"? It's whatever the replay guy in NY says it is. It doesn't matter what the official on the field calls in the heat of battle. The replay guy in NY can replay 19 times from 5 different angles and make his own call.
Because the call on the field stands more than not if it's a questionable/controversial call. The minute they called it a TD you just knew it wouldn't get overturned. That's why the call last week in the Jets game was so ridiculous. They overturned it without a shred of eveidence to do so.
The refs in this case had zero reason to call a TD under any circumstances. And they weren't about to overturn it based on the backlash from last weeks game. They went back to the ole "call on the field stands" cop out.
Quote:
total arbitrary bullshit. Makes zero sense. At no point did Richardson have possession - yet Shephard's 3 step catch isn't a TD because he lost the ball out of bounds. ASJ for the jets last week, no TD despite never actually fumbling.
Officiating is broken. Needs to change. Refs + Replay + Rules that make no sense = terrible product.
.
Add players kneeling for the national anthem and you see why ratings and attendance are tanking.
A lot of people are watching it on the internet. Neilson doesn't pick that up.
Seattle stinks. This performance today from the Giants was a fucking joke.
Seattle stinks. This performance today from the Giants was a fucking joke.
Russel Wilson is the entire difference. You put him on the Giants today and they would have won.
This officiating is driving people away from the game.
You notice Carroll is constantly working the Refs while
MacHandley stands like a emotionless tree stump .
Even early in the game there was a 1st down that looked like the ball hit the ground there was no stoppage and the shitty broadcast didn't even show a replay and the Hags rushed up
and got the play off . It's ruining the game its BS
They don't make the final call, but the initial call is even more important because it has to be clear with indisputable evidence to overturn it...a ref calling something to just say "fuck it, let the replay guy in NY sort it out" is still game-changing.
But keep worrying that it would have changed the outcome...and waste your evening...
I'd be worked up about it if nyg had a chance to win. They did not.
Routine bad call in today's NFL. Dime a dozen.
Yup. But once the call was made, I didn't expect it to be overturned. If they called it another way, that call probably wouldn't have been overturned either.
Seattle stinks. This performance today from the Giants was a fucking joke.
Well there are 6000 other threads discussing how bad the Giants suck. This thread the topic is the refs and the TD call. We all know the Giants suck. Just look around you. Thanks for letting us know though!
It looks incredibly bad because unless the ref calls it a TD immediately after both players go to the ground, how can the ref with any certainty declare it a TD well after Richardson's foot steps out of bounds? (and well after both players have already hit the ground)
Isn't the ability to decide a game by one person (not this game) in a private room hundreds of mikes away outside of the public view a little too much of a red flag for some of you? In a game where millions are at stake based on which teams win or lose on several fronts who thought this was a good idea?
I tried to raise hell about it when it was first announced but other than a cursory blurb on pft it just became a thing with no publicity or discussion and nobody here cared.
You don't understand the replay rule.
The initial call has priority; you must have indisputable evidence to overturn. I believe it is in the best interest of the sport that if the call is in doubt to call it initially in favor of what is PROBABLY correct and let NY overturn.
BTW, based only on radio commentary it sounds like it was a bad call from both the field and the replay.
- Two refs are standing right there waiting to see where possession ends up
- Once they have a visual on the possession, they award it the opposite of what they saw
- They signal TD as Collins holds the ball up
That's the TD call on the field.
We don't know what replay is looking at, but they missed:
- A bobble when the players hit the ground
- Richardson then attempting to gain possession while he has one and then a second foot hit out of bounds
- Collins maintain possession in the field of play without being out of bounds
- Ignoring the going to the ground rule where you must maintain possession throughout the catch
We probably won't ever understand why the call was what it was - which is exactly what got the replacement refs ousted.
The NFL has a huge problem, and it extends well past a shitty call between two bad teams.
Someone was in that one refs earpiece screaming "Call it a Touchdown!".
Never seen anything like it in well over 30 years of watching football.
Disgraceful.
The NFL needs to get back to basics with these calls. Last week a guy who ended up with the ball was ruled to have fumbled while this week a guy who didn't end up with the ball was said to have made a catch. Neither of these pass the common sense test.
Ageed!
My screed for several years has been they need full time refs and their role is to meet (virtually) and to review every controversial call the previous week under the supervision of an experienced supervisor (NOT named Baldino) and to agree on the correct call in that instance.
Quote:
they don't make the final call. They literally could call anything knowing the replay person in NY is going to make the final call. They mystery is why they fuss at all knowing it is going to be reviewed anyway. Would you feel better if they had just said fuck it and called it a TD right away?
You don't understand the replay rule.
The initial call has priority; you must have indisputable evidence to overturn. I believe it is in the best interest of the sport that if the call is in doubt to call it initially in favor of what is PROBABLY correct and let NY overturn.
BTW, based only on radio commentary it sounds like it was a bad call from both the field and the replay.
That's not how the replay rule has been implemented over the years. There have been legions of calls overturned with less than indisputable evidence. One such call last week in the same building. Countless other examples especially ones regarding end zone catches.
The defense seemed to "believe" in the first half and the offense added a TD.
Right or wrong that call took the steam out of the team (and the rest of the season).
On to next year.
There is so much fucking excuse making with this team.
Replacement refs who were looked at as incompetent boobs were thrown out over a similar call while even the broadcast announcers overlooked the severity of how poor a call it was and Lofton actually lauded Richardson for the amazing catch.
Terps - this isn't excuse making for the Giants - it is trying to point out a clear malfunction of the replay system and the weekly incompetence and inconsistencies we see as football fans.
At no point am I suggesting the Giants would have won, nor would that matter - the refs suck. Period. And it isn't getting better. and what got one group ousted won't even make it to Tuesday as a discussion.
These kind of egregious errors are being made continually, whether teams suck or not.
There is so much fucking excuse making with this team.
I don't think anyone is saying we lost because of it. Take a step back from rooting for the Giants and assess the call, the Jets call last week, and countless others. This thread isn't about the Giants.
There is so much fucking excuse making with this team.
50/50 call that the ref 30 yards away with no angle or proximity to the play called without a doubt making the replay inconsequential.
NFL is must watch shit.
- a bobble
- two feet landing out of bound while attempting to gain possession
- final possession with Collins
- No dual possession
Then the system is broken. Compare this to the Jets play last week and the inconsistencies are shocking. And the rules of maintaining the catch through the ground are malleable.
“The receiver went into the air, had control of the ball, lost control, re-grasped the ball, and at the same time he did, the defender grabbed the ball, also,” Corrente told a pool reporter. “They went to the ground simultaneously with the football. Then they started a little wrestling match. It’s over now. That catch is established because if the defender was to pull the ball out of his hands now, it’s still a catch because the defender has a second action. So at that point, when they were on the ground together and they’re tussling to begin with, the catch is over. That’s the touchdown. Now, after that is when he rolled over and we don’t have any clear view of, quote unquote, anything happening after that. So that’s where it stands.”
F'in BS!! - ( New Window )
Par for course in today's NFL. I'm not as offended by this terrible call because there are so many like this!
The NFL went through popularity upswing from the 70s to about 2-3 years ago. But the horrendous caliber of play and terrible game calls, items in the making due to rules implemented over the last decade or so, have just about ruined it for me.
I wonder if I will be as into the Giants in the future or just relegate myself to 'NFL historian' status because investing in this poorly officiated terrible product doesn't seem worthwhile.
It isn't simultaneous possession when the defender has the ball in his chest. We had two plays go against our WR's in similar plays in the past two years. One to Shepard and one to Lewis.
Both times the ruling was the defender came down with the ball.
I don't think Richardson at any time possessed the ball since Collins clearly had two hands on the ball cradled once it bobbles after they hit the ground.
Terrible call and even worse job by Corrente trying to defend it.
I'd like to know why they didn't call it a TD until Collins clearly has it. At that point, what evidence exists that Richardson caught the ball?
If that replay saw a bobble and a fumble out of bounds, how does replay miss a bobble and a player landing out of bounds? It really is an inexcusable miss and is exactly the type of play that replay is supposed to ensure doesn't happen - a scoring play that really isn't one.
Good Job-
In other words, not an easy call, and it's not like the refs make easy calls turn into slam dunks.
We were never going to win this game and therefore we shouldn't care. Unless of course you just want to make the NFL world a better place, and then I will concede YES-NFL OFFICIATING SHOULD BE BETTER!
WHATEVER...
We have no idea what a replay review looked at, but if it didn't try to determine where the receiver's feet were while trying to gain possession of the ball and it didn't see the ball jar loose when the player's hit the ground, and if it didn't see Collins in firm control, then it failed.
Especially since we are one week removed from having replay overturn a TD by a Jets player with far less evidence.
The system is broken and the refs are only consistent in one area - their inconsistency of getting calls right. But then again, for somebody who keeps ending his posts with "whatever..." you sure seem interested in coming back and saying it was the right call......
Everything else mentioned...Collins with his hands on the ball too, Richardson going out of bounds; Collins winding up with ball in the end; the refs coming in late; the refs staring at the pile before signalling touchdown is all true. However it doesn't change the fact of my first sentence above.
The refs made the right call...
It is the same rule the Shepard TD was nullified on as well as many others including the Sefarian-Jenkins call a week prior
Once Richardson hit the ground and the ball wasn't completely secured, he needed to establish control in bounds. He didn't.
The debate isn't about if it was the right call - it should be why did a similar call get replacement refs fired (and a feature on the cover of SI and this isn't even debated after Monday?
The regular refs came back and restored order!!!
And then Monday's final play happened.
With the Seahawks down five and the clock ticking to zero, Russell Wilson scrambled around and heaved one to the end zone. Golden Tate, who earlier had two potential TD passes slip out of his hands, shoved a defender to the ground and then leaped into the air. Green Bay's M.D. Jennings beat him to the punch, plucking Wilson's pass from the pile and tumbling to the ground.
Tate, in an act of desperation, reached around Jennings to put his hands on the ball too.
To just about everyone watching, including one of the officials on the field, it was a clear interception. But the call? Touchdown. Seattle wins.
Destiny is one thing. This was highway robbery.
The play was reviewed -- normally, the ruling that Tate and Jennings had simultaneously possessed the football, resulting in a catch is not reviewable; however, the circumstances are different in the end zone, which the NFL confirmed in a statement Monday afternoon:
"In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone. Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood."
And here's how the NFL explains simultaneous possession in its rule book:
"If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers," the rule states. "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control."
It is the same rule the Shepard TD was nullified on as well as many others including the Sefarian-Jenkins call a week prior
Once Richardson hit the ground and the ball wasn't completely secured, he needed to establish control in bounds. He didn't.
The debate isn't about if it was the right call - it should be why did a similar call get replacement refs fired (and a feature on the cover of SI and this isn't even debated after Monday?
The regular refs came back and restored order!!!
Simple. It wasn’t discussed because we suck. If we were 6-0 and chasing their perfect season they would have made some noise. But since we suck and nobody was watching the league and media figured they were safe and didn’t need to address the issue. I mean why would them or the media want to pile on to what is already a league that is in decline for the first time in recent history? Bad press could further damage the leagues image and they weren’t going to bring it to light when the team on the receiving end isn’t going anywhere this season.
The Patriots are the flagship team of the nfl which is why people paid attention last week. It made it news worthy.
Touchdown Richardson. The other stuff doesn't matter...
At no point after hitting the ground did Richardson possess the ball.
1. The NFL's own definition of a catch says:
1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
So let's see, did this qualify as a catch?
1. Did he secure control of the ball in his hands? Tough to say, perhaps at some point the refs could say that he had the ball secured in his hands. Consider this one met perhaps.
2. Did he touch the ground inbounds? Absolutely - when he came to the ground he was on his back in the end zone.
3. Did he maintain control after the first two things have occurred long enough to clearly become a runner? Well, he wasn't capable of warding off impending contact. He didn't tuck the ball away. He didn't turn upfield or take additional steps.
Now, by that very clear definition there is no way one could conclude that he made a catch. Possible that he did the first two, but not possible that he did the third.
What does the NFL say about simultaneous catches?
So, was the pass caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents? Sure.
Did both players retain it? No, not really. One spun out of bounds and clearly lost possession of the ball.
Finally, there is a note about uncertainty in declaring a catch. Here's what it says:
This means that the only way it can be called a completion is that there had to be complete certainty that the receiver had satisfied all three elements required of a catch, as well as that of a simultaneous catch.
As B in Alb - the official 30 yards away waited until AFTER possession was established by the defense to signal a TD. How is that certainty? At most, uncertainty could be claimed and an incompletion ruled. If there was any certainty about which of the two receivers completed all three requirements of a catch it would have had to be the one who remained in bounds and ended up with the ball, establishing himself as a runner.
The refs used their judgement, and FMiC is right to continue to point out the bad judgement that it was.
Touchdown...