therealjohncarlson wrote:Over/Under on how many questions will be about the tateception?
Jase wrote:We "might" have got a TD we didn't deserve, but we did deserve to win that game.
PatsFanNH wrote:If I was a Hawks fan I be like "sweet we got a W we didnt deserve" if I was a Packers fan I be so POed especially if they miss the PO by one game.. oh I be so mad lol.... I can see both sides though..
PatsFanNH wrote:therealjohncarlson wrote:Over/Under on how many questions will be about the tateception?
If I was a Hawks fan I be like "sweet we got a W we didnt deserve" if I was a Packers fan I be so POed especially if they miss the PO by one game.. oh I be so mad lol.... I can see both sides though..
We deserved to win that game regardless of the fact that the only highlight reel the national media watched of that game was that last play.
PatsFanNH wrote:therealjohncarlson wrote:Over/Under on how many questions will be about the tateception?
If I was a Hawks fan I be like "sweet we got a W we didnt deserve" if I was a Packers fan I be so POed especially if they miss the PO by one game.. oh I be so mad lol.... I can see both sides though..
PatsFanNH wrote:Well I for ONE am glad it happened, we got the real refs back because of it...the fake ones were killing my Pats with their AWFUL calls.. (how you call a FG good when it clearly misses I still dont get.. lol)
SalishHawkFan wrote:We here in Seattle are not happy to see the same corrupt refs who handed out Super Bowl XL rings like Welfare checks to the Steelers. Or who consistently call the game against the Hawks week in, week out. It may be nice when you're one of the NFL's annointed teams, then the refs don't try to sway the game against you, but having referees who bungled the game, but did so honestly and equally to both sides was like a cool breeze on a hot summer day to us Hawk fans.
PatsFanNH wrote:Guys NO ONE outside of Seatle who is not a Hawks fan will EVER say thats a TD. EVER! It is not worth arguing over it is done.. you got the TD.. you won.. no one can take that away from you. TRUST ME I know I have the TUCK RULE from 01 so I understand where you are coming from.
PatsFanNH wrote:OMG thats ON the ground! And it isnt obvious to you who has CONTROL of that football!?!?! and you say the TUCK rule was questionable but not this!!! Also right hand UNDER Jennings points to him trying play CB and knock it away or back up in the air. Not to a catch that if ANYTHING proves an INT not a catch.. my god Jenning had COMPLETE CONTROL of that football not Tate.. But whatever I am not goin to convince you and your picture prove the opposite to me that they do to you.. in the NFL thats an INT.. that day it was not...
PatsFanNH wrote:therealjohncarlson wrote:Over/Under on how many questions will be about the tateception?
If I was a Hawks fan I be like "sweet we got a W we didnt deserve" if I was a Packers fan I be so POed especially if they miss the PO by one game.. oh I be so mad lol.... I can see both sides though..
peachesenregalia wrote:PatsFanNH wrote:OMG thats ON the ground! And it isnt obvious to you who has CONTROL of that football!?!?! and you say the TUCK rule was questionable but not this!!! Also right hand UNDER Jennings points to him trying play CB and knock it away or back up in the air. Not to a catch that if ANYTHING proves an INT not a catch.. my god Jenning had COMPLETE CONTROL of that football not Tate.. But whatever I am not goin to convince you and your picture prove the opposite to me that they do to you.. in the NFL thats an INT.. that day it was not...
Wait, so...if the receiver has both hands on the ball, and the defensive player has one hand on the ball and one hand on the receiver's hand.....that's an INT?
Man, I've had it all wrong all these years. Thank you, sincerely, thanks for correcting my thought process here. I always thought a receiver having two hands on the ball with feet down inbounds was a catch, but I guess not.
CANHawk wrote:peachesenregalia wrote:PatsFanNH wrote:OMG thats ON the ground! And it isnt obvious to you who has CONTROL of that football!?!?! and you say the TUCK rule was questionable but not this!!! Also right hand UNDER Jennings points to him trying play CB and knock it away or back up in the air. Not to a catch that if ANYTHING proves an INT not a catch.. my god Jenning had COMPLETE CONTROL of that football not Tate.. But whatever I am not goin to convince you and your picture prove the opposite to me that they do to you.. in the NFL thats an INT.. that day it was not...
Wait, so...if the receiver has both hands on the ball, and the defensive player has one hand on the ball and one hand on the receiver's hand.....that's an INT?
Man, I've had it all wrong all these years. Thank you, sincerely, thanks for correcting my thought process here. I always thought a receiver having two hands on the ball with feet down inbounds was a catch, but I guess not.
We're not from the east coast so we're clearly not smaat about football n stuff... This guy's funny though. He keeps going on and on about who has "control" of the football or who has "more control" of the football when the rule doesn't say a damn thing about control.
Zebulon Dak wrote:Not worth arguing about.
PatsFanNH wrote:CanHawk,
I see ONE hand on the football the other reaching for it while the Defender has COMPLETE control of said Football. It was so obvious to the CRAP officials that the 2 judges GAVE DIFFERENT SIGNALS! So happens the one from a real college program called it an INT while the other from HS football called it a TD. YOU know as well as everyone else knows with REAL officials thats a pick and games over period. Seahawk fans are the ONLY ones who will EVER EVER say thats a TD, which is fine, I personally could care less these dopey officials are gone and the real ones are back. (Pats lost TWO games because of the dopey officials. and I for one am convinced it is because they were biased and HATED the Pats because they were fans of other teams..) So if anything I am glad it happened it forced the NFL to get the real officials back.
jlwaters1 wrote:PatsFanNH wrote:CanHawk,
I see ONE hand on the football the other reaching for it while the Defender has COMPLETE control of said Football. It was so obvious to the CRAP officials that the 2 judges GAVE DIFFERENT SIGNALS! So happens the one from a real college program called it an INT while the other from HS football called it a TD. YOU know as well as everyone else knows with REAL officials thats a pick and games over period. Seahawk fans are the ONLY ones who will EVER EVER say thats a TD, which is fine, I personally could care less these dopey officials are gone and the real ones are back. (Pats lost TWO games because of the dopey officials. and I for one am convinced it is because they were biased and HATED the Pats because they were fans of other teams..) So if anything I am glad it happened it forced the NFL to get the real officials back.
I disagree my friend for few reasons. It was has been confirmed that the REPLAY officials in that game were NOT replacement guys (they were normal refs) and they allowed the play to stand. To me that is evidence that this play was not so cut and dry as MNF broadcasters would lead you to beleive. The fact is by the time Jennings had possession of the ball-- ie both feet on the ground (you can't have possession without feet on the ground), Tate had both feet on the ground and both arms around it and was nearly on his arse. Also I find it interesting that everyone says Jennings had it in chest. How is that possible if Tate's arm was between Jennings and the ball. His 1 arm never left the ball. The rule doesn't differentiate between who has "more control."
In it my opinion and evidence suggests I'm right that the play was called properly according to the rules. However, it doesn't pass the eye test. Similarly, the Tuck rule was called perfectly according to the rules, though 90% of America beleived it to be a fumble INCLUDING Tom Brady. Just as Megatron's catch 2 years ago looked like a catch to most Fans, though it was called an incompletion.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but if you look at the actual facts one has to admit that it isn't so cut and dry and all everyone made it out to be.
HawkFan72 wrote:jlwaters1 wrote:PatsFanNH wrote:CanHawk,
I see ONE hand on the football the other reaching for it while the Defender has COMPLETE control of said Football. It was so obvious to the CRAP officials that the 2 judges GAVE DIFFERENT SIGNALS! So happens the one from a real college program called it an INT while the other from HS football called it a TD. YOU know as well as everyone else knows with REAL officials thats a pick and games over period. Seahawk fans are the ONLY ones who will EVER EVER say thats a TD, which is fine, I personally could care less these dopey officials are gone and the real ones are back. (Pats lost TWO games because of the dopey officials. and I for one am convinced it is because they were biased and HATED the Pats because they were fans of other teams..) So if anything I am glad it happened it forced the NFL to get the real officials back.
I disagree my friend for few reasons. It was has been confirmed that the REPLAY officials in that game were NOT replacement guys (they were normal refs) and they allowed the play to stand. To me that is evidence that this play was not so cut and dry as MNF broadcasters would lead you to beleive. The fact is by the time Jennings had possession of the ball-- ie both feet on the ground (you can't have possession without feet on the ground), Tate had both feet on the ground and both arms around it and was nearly on his arse. Also I find it interesting that everyone says Jennings had it in chest. How is that possible if Tate's arm was between Jennings and the ball. His 1 arm never left the ball. The rule doesn't differentiate between who has "more control."
In it my opinion and evidence suggests I'm right that the play was called properly according to the rules. However, it doesn't pass the eye test. Similarly, the Tuck rule was called perfectly according to the rules, though 90% of America beleived it to be a fumble INCLUDING Tom Brady. Just as Megatron's catch 2 years ago looked like a catch to most Fans, though it was called an incompletion.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but if you look at the actual facts one has to admit that it isn't so cut and dry and all everyone made it out to be.
That's what it boils down to. To the eye test, it was an INT. To the rulebook, it's a TD.
Chrome_Seahawk wrote:Also, the other Ref didn't signal interception.....he was signaling to stop the clock
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Chrome_Seahawk wrote:I don't think the Scott Kacsmar article was linked in here yet either:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/?fb_action_ids=10151034552701557&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
Kacsmar is by no means a Seahawks fan.
The funniest thing about this is that if you really zoom in and watch all of the hands - it is apparent that Jennings would have wiffed on the ball competely if Tate hadn't caught it/stopped it with his Left Hand - look at the stills and then watch the video live - Jennings doesn't even have his hands facing the ball - he only was able to trap the ball with his wrists and then wrap his fingers around it because Tate had already caught/stopped it - I challenge ANY of you to have someone loft you a ball - even 10 feet in the air and catch a ball by trapping it between your wrists - you just can't do it.....the reaction time is too short.
It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:33 pm
Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]