Apparently the media still hates the Tate catch

[CANHawk]

Two hands on ball? Check.
Two feet on ground? Check.
The ground that those two feet are on is in the endzone? Check.

Seriously, how can anyone see anything but a touchdown given this angle? Tater completed the catch and maintained possession through to the ground, never letting go until well after the play had been blown dead (and well before wassisname comes down from upon high). Yes it was a simultanious possession and simultanious possession has gone to the offense since before Christ was a Cub Scout.

Why do people continue to refuse to understand these very simple facts.....?



......I've done my sentence.....but committed no crime......

 

[XxxZagnutxxX]

Bipolar: No reason to hate on Packer fans? I have reason enough. I shall quote one of the smarter members of this board for the rebuttal.

CANHawks picture says a thousand words but we only need one: Touchdown!

Bipolar, you can also use your psycobabble rationalization and reverse it to justify the Packer loss.

You can't just overlook Tate having the ball with two feet down, because the play ended AT THAT MOMENT.

I'm also in the ukeface: to GB group but only because of the Packer fan here at work that hasn't paid up his 1/2 case of beer bet..... Stealers, Cowpukes and Whiners still top my list though.

 

[bellyfat]

Packer fans have become worse than whiner fans now.

 

[sutz]

:snack:

 

[VHawk]

We have to hear Sterling Sharpe,Lindsay Rhodes,Joe Buck,Herman Edwards and numerous other pundits continually bring this play up and discredit and now we have a Packer/Seahawk fan trying to convince us we should move on when that play is thrown in our face on a regular basis.Maybe if you and the rest of the media can move on we can as well.

 

[Bipolar]

Two hands on ball? Check.

not clear from this angle.

you are beating a dead horse, this was discussed hundreds of times by everyone and their brother...

but this is beside the point. quite frankly, nobody is that good to call these type of calls on the spot with any degree of certainty, and surely as hell not replacement refs. everybody's beef was with the refs and their call, not with Golden Tate or the Seahawks. there is no grand conspiracy here.

you merely talked yourself into seeing things the way you want see it from a still frame from some odd angle. again, not your fault, its basic human psychology.

I'm also in the to GB group but only because of the Packer fan here at work that hasn't paid up his 1/2 case of beer bet.....

not sure who that person was, because I sure as hell did not make any bets with anyone on this board -- I am neither a gambler nor I have any interest in cheering against the Seahawks.

We have to hear Sterling Sharpe,Lindsay Rhodes,Joe Buck,Herman Edwards and numerous other pundits continually bring this play up and discredit and now we have a Packer/Seahawk fan trying to convince us we should move on when that play is thrown in our face on a regular basis.Maybe if you and the rest of the media can move on we can as well.

are there any non-Seattle based NFL pundits that do believe it was a clear TD? and if not, is it because the outside world is crazy and only you have eyes to see the "obvious"?

 

[CANHawk]

You're insane... You think that's a pot pie they're both fighting over? c'mon...

 

[VHawk]

You didnt read or comprehend my post.Didnt say anything about whether or not it was a f#*king td.

 

[CANHawk]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... git/17706/

I looked him up. The guy who wrote this is from Pittsburgh.

 

[Bipolar]

this video was played million times from all sorts of angles. including zoomed in and in crisp clean HD. in full speed and in slow motion. everyone saw it ten times over. the fact remains that Golden Tate did not establish full control of the ball until both players hit the ground. the rest is history.

the reality is that even die-hard Seahawks fans had to convince themselves that it was a legit TD after many days of watching the same damn video. I was on this board immediately after the game -- and the general consensus was "oh well, we totally lucked out, but I don't feel sorry because it's a pay back for superbowl and the Stealers".

EDIT:

OK if

Cold Hard Football Facts’ Comeback King

is the best you can do, then fine, it was a TD .

 

[CANHawk]

Too bad you're like hella wrong bro...

Edit (forgot to sing): .........I've had my share of sand kicked in my face - But I've come through.......

 

[sam1313]

cheese! now THAT we have plenty of in the Packer land...

I sure hope you have wine too. Cheese land without wine would be sad indeed....

More on point, Bipolar, it was actually the reverse angle that convinced me it was a touchdown. I have yet to see that view played by the national media. So while I understand your reference to psychology, I disagree with your analysis.

And CanHawk, sure as hell is nice to seeing you posting again my brotha! It is great to be giggling again from your posts!

 

[HawKnPeppa]

The problem my brotha (and you are my brotha cuz I know you're a Hawks fan - "entitled Puker fan" was probably a bit much) is that you keep referring to it as a bad call. It was perhaps one of the only truly good calls in that entire game.

Like I do every time this subject comes up, I'm just going to leave this here and walk away humming "we are the champions" to myself...

thats fine. no hard feelings.

that said, its all human psychology. the brain creates all sorts of defense mechanisms and rationalizes events in a way so that they make sense to you.

for example - you didn't get that job after 3 rounds of interview, and then you calm yourself down by thinking that "oh well, it wasn't meant to be, the manager would have probably sucked anyway, and there are bigger and better things waiting for me in the future", where in fact you truly are just trying to cope with reality that you didn't get the job of your dreams.

same thing here -- there is a video footage from all angles and to virtually any unbiased observer the TD call was extremely bogus. but no, to us, Seahawks fans (who clearly have vested interest), we come up with all sorts of reasons and logic why this was in a TD.

Ummm..... what?


.........and we'll keep on fighting `til the end........

No kidding! This obviously comes from people speculating based upon the inconclusive angles ,but ignoring the one conclusive one . That and not paying attention to what the rules say about criteria for a catch.

 

[SeaWolv]

by all accounts, it was an extremely controversial call made by a replacement ref.

I'm sorry but this is just not so. It may have been controversial but was not extremely controversial. By some accounts (several NFL insiders) that call was legitimate. The only reason it was controversial at all is because people let their emotions trump the facts. By NFL rules that was unequivocally a simultaneous catch. If you've read the Scott Kacsmar piece you would know this.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... git/17706/

 

[CANHawk]

by all accounts, it was an extremely controversial call made by a replacement ref.

I'm sorry but this is just not so. It may have been controversial but was not extremely controversial. By some accounts (several NFL insiders) that call was legitimate. The only reason it was controversial at all is because people let their emotions trump the facts. By NFL rules that was unequivocally a simultaneous catch. If you've read the Scott Kacsmar piece you would know this.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... git/17706/

Naw, I tried that already. Apparently this source isn't good enough. No, for Bipolar to accept it needs to come from a big named, nationally respected sports journalist. Someone like Gil Brandt I guess because those guys are always right on the money...

 

[SeaWolv]

are there any non-Seattle based NFL pundits that do believe it was a clear TD? and if not, is it because the outside world is crazy and only you have eyes to see the "obvious"?

There actually were several. The only one I can remember right now is Colin Cowherd.

 

[SeaWolv]

this video was played million times from all sorts of angles. including zoomed in and in crisp clean HD. in full speed and in slow motion. everyone saw it ten times over. the fact remains that Golden Tate did not establish full control of the ball until both players hit the ground. the rest is history.

Tate made contact with the ball first with his left hand and never lost control of it. Two hands on the ball doesn't mean the player has control and more control has no relevance. Tate clearly does have control since he is pulling Jennings down to the ground. So much so that his head is almost even with his waist. If you look at the King 5 footage from the back of the end zone you can see that Jennings is trying to rip the ball from Tate as soon as they hit the ground. Why would he need to do that if he had control?

 

[NYCoug]

Phil Simms just referenced this yet again during the Texans/Lions game. He said something along the lines of "I'm just glad that we didn't have a simultaneous possession, like I saw in a game I saw earlier this season, or at least that's what they called it."

I think it's obvious where Simms stands. I could care less what he says though. He and Nantz were praising the Texans and just trashing the Lions before Graham missed the potential game winning FG. They even tried to dismiss the fact that the awful call on the Forsett (funny how a Seahawk is yet again involved in controversy) was the main reason the Texans even stood a chance to win in the first place.

Again though, nothing surprises me with the media and the way they handle things.

 

[Scottemojo]

@ BiPolar
You think members of this board are seeing what they want to see because of "psychology"? What if you are the one seeing what you want to see, an incompletion? Goes both ways. It does make me wonder just how Bi you really are, though.

Now if you want to bitch about the pushoff, that is totally legit, even the NFL said so.

 

[hawksfan515]

are there any non-Seattle based NFL pundits that do believe it was a clear TD? and if not, is it because the outside world is crazy and only you have eyes to see the "obvious"?

There actually were several. The only one I can remember right now is Colin Cowherd.

Doesn't matter what any pundits said, they are stupid. The actual refs confirmed the TD, apparently it wasn't so "obvious" that it was an INT to them. They saw a TD, as we did. Not from the front angle, but from the back angle you can see it.