Danny O'Neil is an idiot

[blue 22]

God I miss Mike Salk.

The show has gone to chit since Danny became co-host. I hate how he talks over ppl and he all to frequently goes off on a tangent.

AMEN. Wish old man wassell was the other host instead of oneil. Poor Brock

 

[StaffAmerica74]

While i don't agree with Danny saying it wasn't a catch. He has his own right to his opinion and his opinion is about what 95 percent of the nfl world thinks too. If it was the other way around we'd all be screaming bloody mary around here. No reason to bash Danny, he does a good job with Brock, I enjoy their show.

 

[dbsn2420]

Lets not forget this play went to the booth review for a decision. Then a few days later the NFL stated the right call was made. However, personal opinion could care less about that.
I was standing about 100' away from the catch, it looked like a simultaneous catch to me when they both came down, both of Tate's feet were down first. That is all that matters to me is how I saw it when it happened. I've watched it hundreds of times from every possible angle with the various analysis of it. I have seen nothing to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not a TD. However I will admit that if some people see it as an interception, that is fine. I agree to disagree. The books say TD, it's over.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

What matters is if you look at the photos.

1) Tate had his left fingers tips on the ball before Jennings even touched it.
2) Whether or not you believe 1, Tate still established possession while in the air.
3) Tate with possession touched the ground first, both of Tate's feet touched and he was going to the ground on his butt before Jenning's got one foot down.
4) Even on the ground you can see who had more possession even when the play was ruled over the moment Tate had possession and both feet on the ground. Tate was in control with an arm around the ball, Jennings was trying to wrestle it away after the play was over.

The was what happened when the play was dissected through stills.

Now no matter what anybody thinks:

1) 1 ref ruled it a TD while another asked for a time out to discuss the play.
2) The replay official who wasn't a replacement guy and had NFL experience ruled it a TD.
3) The NFL reviewed the play and ruled it a TD.

End of story.

I think Danny is just trying to get ratings stirring up a controversy.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Fact is, if we were the team to lose a game based on that call this forum would never ever stop complaining about it.

It was a crappy call that technically just about scraped by the rule book in terms of a justification. But we all know in reality it probably shouldn't have been a touchdown. Your initial reaction is usually the best and mine was a loud yell at the TV, a celebration and then total disbelief that the ref had called it our way.

But who cares. 2013 season.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Fact is, the day after that play the majority of the people here where defending it. So why is Danny now an idiot?

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Fact is, the day after that play the majority of the people here where defending it. So why is Danny now an idiot?

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The problem with this whole argument is that most of it seems to be based on incorrect understanding of the rules of the game. Possession in a catch must be established on the ground, and not in the air. It wouldn't matter if Jennings had both hands wrapped around the ball with it shoved clear down his pants as soon as he left the ground. Possession doesn't happen until they hit the ground, and when they landed, they both had their hands on it. Tie goes to the receiver. To say nothing of the fact Jennings didn't get both feet down to establish possession until well after Tate was on the ground, so it wasn't even a tie.

But yea, it's ancient history. Just don't lump it in with other calls like Roethlisburger's "touchdown" or Testeverde's helmet because you don't understand the rules.

BINGO! Sailor NAILED this!

 

[Hasselbeck]

At about the 4:45 mark, he asks "did Tate have control of the ball with his one hand before MD Jennings got his two hand around it." O'Neil swears that the ref got it wrong and basically says anyone that thinks otherwise is stupid. This guy has no clue.

http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_player_sports/?a=9958496&p=1025&n=Brock and Danny Blue 42

Because... the ref did it get wrong.

It's ok to admit this. It's ok to admit we, for once, had a game-changing call go in our favor.

Swap Golden Tate for Randall Cobb and MD Jennings with Earl Thomas and tell me you wouldn't be just as pissed as Packer fans were (and still are).

 

[jdblack]

The problem with this whole argument is that most of it seems to be based on incorrect understanding of the rules of the game. Possession in a catch must be established on the ground, and not in the air. It wouldn't matter if Jennings had both hands wrapped around the ball with it shoved clear down his pants as soon as he left the ground. Possession doesn't happen until they hit the ground, and when they landed, they both had their hands on it. Tie goes to the receiver. To say nothing of the fact Jennings didn't get both feet down to establish possession until well after Tate was on the ground, so it wasn't even a tie.

But yea, it's ancient history. Just don't lump it in with other calls like Roethlisburger's "touchdown" or Testeverde's helmet because you don't understand the rules.

BINGO! Sailor NAILED this!

No way he didn't. The landing sequence is irrelevant. It goes -

1. Begin controlling the ball.
2. Maintain control while touching down with both feet (or some other body part besides hands). Control isn't defined in the rules, it is only "proven" by the end result.

A simultaneous catch is triggered at step #1 in the rules if both players appear to exert control at the same time, and keep some control until touching down regardless of order on step #2. There is no language that discusses the percentage of control, or when either player completes the catch. Tate qualified because he started exerting control at about the same time, exhibited by his hand stopping the downward movement of the ball.

 

[Tical21]

That was an INT. I have yet to see a person who wasn't a Seahawks homer to have a differing opinion.

But it wasn't called that way so everybody else can F the F off!


And he launched into Lee.

But I digress.......

 

[jdblack]

It's easy to say it was an INT, but try explaining why! I have yet to see anyone give a good answer in the context of the simultaneous catch rule. They just back off if it comes up and put an expletive or two about homers.

 

[Navyhawkfan187]

That was an INT. I have yet to see a person who wasn't a Seahawks homer to have a differing opinion.

But it wasn't called that way so everybody else can F the F off!


And he launched into Lee.

But I digress.......

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...y-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

^-----Not a "Seahawks Homer"

 

[loafoftatupu]

Aside from the PI, Tate at no time was separated from the ball when both gis feet touched the ground, which was prior to Jennings getting his feet down.

At that point, whether Jennings had his hands on the ball or not, it meets the full textbook description of a TD, which ends the play right there. The follow through to the ground is just icing.

It looks wrong to most outside of Seattle, but it was indeed the right call as a TD. It should not have been a TD from a penalty point of view, because while the TD rules were met, the PI was bad and we got lucky.

No, pushoffs are very rarely called in a Hail Mary play, but it was a push off. Was justice served? I think so, because this play never would have happened, nor would the roughing call if the ghost PI wasnt called on Kam that led to a TD after third down and 2.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

It's easy to say it was an INT, but try explaining why! I have yet to see anyone give a good answer in the context of the simultaneous catch rule. They just back off if it comes up and put an expletive or two about homers.

Yup.
And I agree... the homer labeling is getting really old. It's on the same level as what you said in the first place about others not explaining why it was an INT. It's easier to put a negative label on someone in an effort to discredit.

Think about it this way... besides the refs making the calls - who else is going to even try to understand why it's a catch when it's the Seahawks? What % of fans who hate the Hawks in the first place actually know the rules of what constitutes a catch? Yet, it's suggested by some that we appeal to their sensibilities? Anyone suggesting that has got to be joking.

You've got the media (who is, of course, never wrong) talking up a media darling team and not saying anything about how it could possibly be ruled a catch. Yah, that's fair and balanced alright. Sheesh. Some Hawks fans are so conditioned to being told to sit down and shut up that you just allow the media and popular opinion walk all over you.

What's popular isn't always right... and what's right isn't always popular. It was a TD catch by the rules, by the call, by the review. It doesn't make one a "better" Seahawk fan to cave to the media or "admit" something that doesn't warrant such action. People need to get over it alright. Those who shamefully beat to death that it was an INT.

I think the hard thing for those who see it as an INT is that it happens so fast and does sort of look that way at first depending on the angle without considering all that constitutes the right call. Even when watching it as the play happened... Tate had the possession on the ground and Jennings wrestled it away. That's what initially concerned me that the initial call would go to GBay and I was screaming at the TV that the DB took the ball from him after Tate was the first to establish possession with 2 feet on the ground (again, not the same criteria in this instance as breaking the plane.)

I've appreciated the excellent comments "for" the catch in this thread. Thanks to the O.P. for having the courage to post this and there's no reason to "move on" as if we fans should just sweep some crime under the rug. True enough, it's now the 2013 season. Still, apparently there's great reason to discuss such a key play from the past when it brings out some excellent points. Great point that there are not valid arguments in the context of the simultaneous catch rule for it being an INT.

 

[loafoftatupu]

The Packers were lucky that they even got to be in that play in the first place. BB, the strip machine forced a fumble near the goal line that GB was lucky to have anyways.

If the Hawks get the ball there, game over with a Lynch TD.

What i loved most is how pissed off the Niner fans were because the Hawks won, yet they werent lining up to give GB the two seed as a gesture of faith. The Hawks gained no advantage in the end.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

That was an INT. I have yet to see a person who wasn't a Seahawks homer to have a differing opinion.

But it wasn't called that way so everybody else can F the F off!


And he launched into Lee.

But I digress.......

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...y-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

^-----Not a "Seahawks Homer"

Excellent article, NavyHawkfan. Thanks for posting. Everyone should read this. Perhaps especially the sections toward the end:

(Excerpts)
The Perfect Storm for Overreaction

After clear evidence and support from the NFL for why the play was ruled a touchdown, why is there so much complaining over the call? The circumstances of the moment created a perfect storm for a record amount of mass whining.

Moving On (Can We?)

Shame on the media outlets not focusing on the frame-by-frame look at the play and instead showing the same old angles and repeating the same old rubbish that does not even apply. Allegedly Steve Young on ESPN actually defined a catch as having the ball in your chest. These are experts?

 

[VaporHawk]

That play is where I fell in love with Tate.

Tate for President!

Danny is no Salk that guy had years of Radio. Danny needs a little more time to develop and lose that whiney voice he gets when excited.

 

[bobk3333]

"someone said something I don't agree with. Obviously an idiot."

Congratulations. You missed the point completely. Obviously something.

.

 

[bobk3333]

That was an INT. I have yet to see a person who wasn't a Seahawks homer to have a differing opinion.

After careful study of the video and the rules, the NFL upheld the ruling as a catch by Tate.

I guarantee that the NFL is not biased towards Seattle.

Dork.

.