NFL Admits Error on Harvin TD Run

[Kansashawkfan]

I got so tired of the broadcasters bringing it up every 2 minutes. There were other miscalls as well ie Gates pushing off on one of6 his touchdowns. The defense got abused on that play and would of been lucky that Harvin wasn't paying attention to where his feet were. But agreed, it was a terrible call.

Absolutely! Terrible non-call. We got to hear (& see) all about it every few minutes throughout the entire game. Ruined an otherwise crappy game for me.

 

[Anonymous]

The "Fail Harvey".

 

[BlueTalon]

It's time to get the real refs back in there. We've seen enough of these replacements. They're ruining the integrity of the game.

Well played!

 

[RiverDog]

I don't understand why the official who pointed didn't throw a bean bag. Isn't that SOP? Did he just do a "never mind...." ?

I still don't get why he pointed at the spot at all. When I saw it in real time I figured he was ruling him in bounds, and somewhat emphatically at that. Don't they usually just start blowing the whistle like mad and killing the play once someone steps out?

I kinda think he actually "saw" Harvin as in bounds right there. I know from a very tiny bit of umpiring (thankless, not-fun job that) that you make your call, loudly, and believe in it, right or wrong. So I think that's what he must have been doing. :shrug:

If they are certain he stepped out, yes. But if they have a doubt, they are specifically instructed to let the play continue as they can always let it stand if he's in and reverse it if the replay shows that he was out. It preserves their options.

The other thing here is that one of their objectives is to speed up the review process, a very laudable goal as anyone that had to sit through the countless booth reviews we had to endure under the old system ..."After further review, the play stands as called". The theory is that they'll have a team of monitors watching every game and every camera angle and will have the ability to render an immediate decision so they don't interrupt the flow of the game.

They'll learn from this mistake. You almost have to expect some flaws when they embark on a new system like they have.

 

[Scottemojo]

I hate that this happened. A ref saw it, pointed it out, but he didn't blow his whistle and call the play over.

It was a nutless move. I hate wishy washy refereeeing. If he calls it out, perhaps Seattle establishes a ground game. Perhaps Seattle turns it over the next play and gets no points. Maybe 3 instead of 7. Point is, there was no reason that play should have ever gone to replay. The NFL getting the replay wrong does not excuse the sideline judge for not having the sac to make the call right there on the sideline.

How many other times does this guy swallow his whistle every game if he can't make a call he plainly sees?

 

[RiverDog]

I hate that this happened. A ref saw it, pointed it out, but he didn't blow his whistle and call the play over.

It was a nutless move. I hate wishy washy refereeeing. If he calls it out, perhaps Seattle establishes a ground game. Perhaps Seattle turns it over the next play and gets no points. Maybe 3 instead of 7. Point is, there was no reason that play should have ever gone to replay. The NFL getting the replay wrong does not excuse the sideline judge for not having the sac to make the call right there on the sideline.

How many other times does this guy swallow his whistle every game if he can't make a call he plainly sees?

How do you know that he plainly saw it? Motioning to the spot could have been a gesture that indicated that he thought it was close, and a signal the replay officials to take a closer look at it.

Like I said, the league has specifically instructed that refs on the field allow close plays to continue, and IMO this was one of those occasions. The only thing I might blame the refs on the field for was that they may have delayed the XP attempt and give the replay center time to consider, but even that has been discouraged, too, as the emphasis has been on speeding up decisions.

 

[Scottemojo]

I hate that this happened. A ref saw it, pointed it out, but he didn't blow his whistle and call the play over.

It was a nutless move. I hate wishy washy refereeeing. If he calls it out, perhaps Seattle establishes a ground game. Perhaps Seattle turns it over the next play and gets no points. Maybe 3 instead of 7. Point is, there was no reason that play should have ever gone to replay. The NFL getting the replay wrong does not excuse the sideline judge for not having the sac to make the call right there on the sideline.

How many other times does this guy swallow his whistle every game if he can't make a call he plainly sees?

How do you know that he plainly saw it? Motioning to the spot could have been a gesture that indicated that he thought it was close, and a signal the replay officials to take a closer look at it.

Like I said, the league has specifically instructed that refs on the field allow close plays to continue, and IMO this was one of those occasions. The only thing I might blame the refs on the field for was that they may have delayed the XP attempt and give the replay center time to consider, but even that has been discouraged, too, as the emphasis has been on speeding up decisions.

If he didn't see it he is incompetent. He has the sideline all to himself just for that purpose.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Cant you tell??? He is watching Baldwin. Sheesh. LMAO

 

[chawx]

Yeah, the only thing that play was good for was it made my fantasy football team win, but other than that, it sucked for San Diego, the Seahawks, and the league. As others have mentioned, if he gets called out, that's more time for our D to sit in the shade and for our offense to posses the ball...

Second, (grab your tin-foil hats), I think we started getting hosed more by the officials after that happened. They knew they blew that call and they were instructed to do what it took to keep our D on the field and their O on the field so they would win by enough to make this TD irrelevant. Hear me out, how many times did we think we were getting off the field, only to be put right back in to extend drives on questionably crappy call—AND on top of that, SD was getting all kinds of penalties in the red zone, keeping the D out there even longer, and then eventually they would get a TD, and if not, they would call something on Seattle to give SD a new set of downs and keep them on the field even longer!

I have no doubt that after they messed up that call, they were instructed from higher ups to get SD the game so this never would become an issue... (remove tin-foil hat and carry on)

 

[253hawk]

I kinda think he actually "saw" Harvin as in bounds right there. I know from a very tiny bit of umpiring (thankless, not-fun job that) that you make your call, loudly, and believe in it, right or wrong. So I think that's what he must have been doing. :shrug:

That's what I was thinking. He was probably focusing more on the heel of Harvin's foot being off the ground and hovering over the line (still considered in bounds) but didn't catch the ball of his foot being out of bounds due to his feet being nothing but a blur. That'd be a tough call in real-time for any ref.

 

[kidhawk]

I kinda think he actually "saw" Harvin as in bounds right there. I know from a very tiny bit of umpiring (thankless, not-fun job that) that you make your call, loudly, and believe in it, right or wrong. So I think that's what he must have been doing. :shrug:

That's what I was thinking. He was probably focusing more on the heel of Harvin's foot being off the ground and hovering over the line (still considered in bounds) but didn't catch the ball of his foot being out of bounds due to his feet being nothing but a blur. That'd be a tough call in real-time for any ref.

I didn't think that at first, but when the TD was called, then I figured that must have been the case. I just originally thought when I saw it that I saw Harvin step out and saw him pointing, so assumed he saw the same as I did. Once you watch the replay though (they showed it as we were kicking the extra point) it was obvious that official was the one who actually raises his arms and calls it a TD.

 

[kearly]

I hate that this happened. A ref saw it, pointed it out, but he didn't blow his whistle and call the play over.

It was a nutless move. I hate wishy washy refereeeing. If he calls it out, perhaps Seattle establishes a ground game. Perhaps Seattle turns it over the next play and gets no points. Maybe 3 instead of 7. Point is, there was no reason that play should have ever gone to replay. The NFL getting the replay wrong does not excuse the sideline judge for not having the sac to make the call right there on the sideline.

How many other times does this guy swallow his whistle every game if he can't make a call he plainly sees?

I think the fear is that if the refs sees it wrongly and blows the play dead in a scenario where Harvin does not step out, it erases a TD by Seattle, so refs tend to err on the side of caution for this reason. You can overturn the Harvin TD, but you can't overturn an out of bounds call and give Seattle six if you blow the whistle.

The sideline judge should have seen it, but wasn't sure, so he did the right thing by letting instant replay answer the question for him. It's extremely rare for instant replay to get things so wrong, especially when the broadcast could see that Harvin was out plain as day.

I think the real mistake here was that the NFL was in too much of a hurry to make the review. They should have treated the situation as if it had been challenged by a coach and given it a lengthier review. It appeared to me that Seattle hustled up to kick the extra point, which may have also caused the crew in New York to get in a hurry it up mindset.

 

[RiverDog]

I think the fear is that if the refs sees it wrongly and blows the play dead in a scenario where Harvin does not step out, it erases a TD by Seattle, so refs tend to err on the side of caution for this reason. You can overturn the Harvin TD, but you can't overturn an out of bounds call and give Seattle six if you blow the whistle.

The sideline judge should have seen it, but wasn't sure, so he did the right thing by letting instant replay answer the question for him. It's extremely rare for instant replay to get things so wrong, especially when the broadcast could see that Harvin was out plain as day.

I think the real mistake here was that the NFL was in too much of a hurry to make the review. They should have treated the situation as if it had been challenged by a coach and given it a lengthier review. It appeared to me that Seattle hustled up to kick the extra point, which may have also caused the crew in New York to get in a hurry it up mindset.

Exactly, and for that reason, the league specifically instructs their refs to let the play continue unless they are absolutely certain the player is out of bounds.

In addition, the picture shown above was not taken from the same angle as what the ref had. He may not have been able to see Harvin's entire foot well enough to make a conclusive judgment that he was out of bounds and blow the play dead. None of us were there and saw what that ref saw.

The only thing I can possibly rap the crew on the field for is that they might have stalled a bit longer before allowing the PAT to occur and give the control center more of a chance to review the play, but then again, the emphasis has been on speeding up the decision making process. This one's on the control center, and not the field crew.

 

[RiverDog]

I think the fear is that if the refs sees it wrongly and blows the play dead in a scenario where Harvin does not step out, it erases a TD by Seattle, so refs tend to err on the side of caution for this reason. You can overturn the Harvin TD, but you can't overturn an out of bounds call and give Seattle six if you blow the whistle.

The sideline judge should have seen it, but wasn't sure, so he did the right thing by letting instant replay answer the question for him. It's extremely rare for instant replay to get things so wrong, especially when the broadcast could see that Harvin was out plain as day.

I think the real mistake here was that the NFL was in too much of a hurry to make the review. They should have treated the situation as if it had been challenged by a coach and given it a lengthier review. It appeared to me that Seattle hustled up to kick the extra point, which may have also caused the crew in New York to get in a hurry it up mindset.

Exactly, and for that reason, the league specifically instructs their refs to let the play continue unless they are absolutely certain the player is out of bounds.

In addition, the picture shown above was not taken from the same angle as what the ref had. None of us were there and saw what that ref saw and are in no position to pass judgment by calling him incompetent.

The only thing I can possibly rap the crew on the field for is that they might have stalled a bit longer before allowing the PAT to occur and give the control center more of a chance to review the play, but then again, the emphasis has been on speeding up the decision making process. This one's on the control center, and not the field crew.

 

[themunn]

They are not allowed to kick the FG until the ruling has been confirmed anyway

 

[RiverDog]

They are not allowed to kick the FG until the ruling has been confirmed anyway

Good point, but I think you meant the conversion attempt.