Play not called dead?

[Hawkpower]

IMHO officiating was horrible for both sides. We got away with a PI early on. We also got burned on a few. That is NOT the reason we lost. They just plain flat out beat us. Take away a touchdown and they still beat us. Besides I would like anyone try to convince a Packers fan that they won because of officiating without getting punched in the mouth.

BTW - I feel the Hail Mary play in past against the Packers was ours and not bad officiating.

Ah the old "its not the reason we lost so we can talk about it" approach.

Sorry, but if that call is properly called, there is a chance that they don't score there, so it was impactful.

If the refs had properly handled the fumble in the 4th quarter, we may have been able to tie the game?

Is it a sure thing? Of course not. Is it the ONLY reason we lost. No!

But that doesn't mean it didnt impact the game in a negative way, and therefore worthy of discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

I need to look at again to be sure, but you guys might be right on the 5 yards.

They've got 5 million combinations of things to decide on, like whether there is contact or not, the relationship to position of the defense and the offensive before (and at) the snap, contact before and after the snap, etc., etc.

The talking heads have more than one opinion on it.

 

[BullHawk33]

I need to look at again to be sure, but you guys might be right on the 5 yards.

They've got 5 million combinations of things to decide on, like whether there is contact or not, the relationship to position of the defense and the offensive before (and at) the snap, contact before and after the snap, etc., etc.

The talking heads have more than one opinion on it.

The line judge should have called the play dead when the offensive lineman stood back up, neutral zone infraction, causing the lineman to move, but maybe because of the timing of the snap, he thought it was close enough. Had he called it, it would have been before the snap, 5 yard penalty. Both Bennett and the Lineman standing there is what Sherman saw, so he quit on the play. The line judge also would have been blowing the hell out of his whistle and running in when he called it to kill the play. That didn't happen.

 

[TriCHawk]

I thought the goofiest call was the temporary clock stoppage while they reviewed a non-scoring play just in case they MIGHT have scored, which gave GB the opportunity to call a play, and get lined up and be ready to go as soon as the officials restarted the clock. Never seen that before.

I blame the loss on sloppy play by Seattle, but that officiating left a lot to be desired. I guess it's week 2 for the officials, too.

 

[Ozzy]

That was embarrassing. He then proceeds to start counting to see if he was right. I loved the cover up after the fact that they wanted to replay if he got in when he gets tackled at a the 2.

 

[JSeahawks]

I thought the goofiest call was the temporary clock stoppage while they reviewed a non-scoring play just in case they MIGHT have scored, which gave GB the opportunity to call a play, and get lined up and be ready to go as soon as the officials restarted the clock. Never seen that before.

I blame the loss on sloppy play by Seattle, but that officiating left a lot to be desired. I guess it's week 2 for the officials, too.

Final 2 minutes everything is available to booth review. Doesnt need to be a scoring play.

 

[MVP53]

On the Lynch fumble, that was called back due to a defensive penalty, right?

The Hawks accepted that penalty, obviously, to negate the fumble and gain a first down.

Wasn't there also a personal foul penalty though against GB? I don't believe they counted the personal foul penalty.

I don't understand why that penalty would have not applied, since it occurred after the whistle. Would have been a huge swing to go from a fumbled handoff, to essentially a 20 yard gain.

Maybe my recollection isn't the best, but can someone explain this?

 

[pmedic920]

The line judge should have called the play dead when the offensive lineman stood back up, neutral zone infraction, causing the lineman to move, but maybe because of the timing of the snap, he thought it was close enough. Had he called it, it would have been before the snap, 5 yard penalty. Both Bennett and the Lineman standing there is what Sherman saw, so he quit on the play. The line judge also would have been blowing the hell out of his whistle and running in when he called it to kill the play. That didn't happen.

And I guess that's my point.
Yes, I would have been smart for Sherm to continue the play.
But because I saw him just peel off his guy and jog to center field, then realize that the play was still active, he ran back to his guy. He then interfered with the receiver and drew the flag.
I think that Sherm knew/believed that it should be a dead play.
Obviously I have no clue what Sherm knew or was thinking but this seems the most legit thing to me.

 

[NINEster]

4th and 7.

Wilson to Kearse.

Touchdown.

/thread

 

[bigtrain21]

4th and 7.

Wilson to Kearse.

Touchdown.

/thread

No Seahawks lineman moved before the ball was snapped so your play has zero to do with the play that happened in the this game.

 

[kidhawk]

4th and 7.

Wilson to Kearse.

Touchdown.

/thread

I'm sure you don't remember that play well, so I'll share it with you here so you can see how Seattle's OL didn't jump like the Packers did.

[youtube]LOhAREao-vY[/youtube]

 

[seahawkfreak]

Thing that pisses me off is the NFL channel had a rep for the referees on and he said it was close so the refs made a judgement call. He said he thought it probably should have been called dead. It was not close,at all! Why can't the NFL every just say it was the wrong call?

 

[pmedic920]

Well the bottom line IMHO is this, it was a sloppy game on the Seahawks part. #72 was the worst offender.
GB's QB is good and he took advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves.

This was a very poorly officiated game and I hate to see any game that the outcome can be attributed to officiating.
Call me a homer or whatever, but I think poor officiating played a role in the outcome of this game.

I think that the Seahawks did not play well in this game, I will not argue that in any way but I stand by that I think the bad officiating effected the out come.

 

[scutterhawk]

I need to look at again to be sure, but you guys might be right on the 5 yards.

They've got 5 million combinations of things to decide on, like whether there is contact or not, the relationship to position of the defense and the offensive before (and at) the snap, contact before and after the snap, etc., etc.

The talking heads have more than one opinion on it.

Not in that game, in GB's back yard, Rodgers & Co. were given every benefit of doubt, and that trumps opinions.

 

[Barakas]

4th and 7.

Wilson to Kearse.

Touchdown.

/thread

I'm sure you don't remember that play well, so I'll share it with you here so you can see how Seattle's OL didn't jump like the Packers did.

[youtube]LOhAREao-vY[/youtube]

Wow, ownage...someone call the burn ward!!!

 

[scutterhawk]

Thing that pisses me off is the NFL channel had a rep for the referees on and he said it was close so the refs made a judgement call. He said he thought it probably should have been called dead. It was not close,at all! Why can't the NFL every just say it was the wrong call?

They don't want to own their mistakes, because that would shine the light on how inept some of them are, and shouldn't be a part of making game changing decisions.

 

[olyfan63]

The Packers OL pre-snap jump was clear on replay, but apparently not reviewable.
With the shotgun snap, the timing of the GB OL movement was bang-bang on this, tricky for a human in real tme, even if clear upon replay review. Seeing the OL move and then looking over to see if the ball was snapped, that 1/10 of a second is almost enough to see the snap in motion, within the limits of human reaction times. Note below the timing tolerances for Olympic-level 100 meter sprinters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres
"At high level meets, the time between the gun and first kick against the starting block is measured electronically, via sensors built in the gun and the blocks. A reaction time less than 0.1 s is considered a false start. The 0.1-second interval accounts for the sum of the time it takes for the sound of the starter's pistol to reach the runners' ears, and the time they take to react to it."

As an official (basketball, a million years ago), I was trained to call what I clearly see, and not guess. The limits of human perception, reaction, and processing times means some things that could/should have been called will be missed. I can give the ref in charge of the call a moderate level plausible deniability on this one. The real issue is that it appears replay review is either unavailable on this, or if available, Seattle failed to react in time to challenge. I suspect "not reviewable".

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Yeah, the "not reviewable" stuff is the worst part about the NFL product IMHO. It's ludicrous-diculous that millions of people watching on TV can clearly see what happens in real time and with immediate replays, but the handful of people in charge of officiating the game carry on like that's not the case. And coaches who see the replays on jumbotrons are completely helpless to do anything. :34853_doh:

Right now they can spend 5 minutes reviewing whether a ball in a player's grasp wiggles a little bit as he steps out of bounds, but they can't review obvious infractions that happen out in the open in front of everybody. It's lame and not too hard to fix.

 

[pmedic920]

^^^^
And some of those plays are effecting the outcome of games.