The interception fumble.

[BigMeach]

I am really confused about this play. I understand why we can't challenge it. But why do the refs call who has the ball before actually seeing who has the ball? It makes no sense to me that this is okay. Then it's not a clear recovery to review? Of course it's not it's a pile of dogs on a bone.

After all is said and done the announcer's glance over it like it is no big deal at all. It was game breaking.

Can someone explain this play to me? I'm re-watching it over and over trying to figure this out, it's confusing as hell to me how they called it GB's ball in the first place.

 

[RunTheBall]

Because refs love to have power in game-changing calls, they can deny it all they want but they love having the power to impact the outcome of a game. The refs should have waited until the pileup was over to point who had the ball, but head ref got excited and gave it to GB.... when in fact it was Britt who came up with the ball.

 

[seanoob]

This is the uncontrollable part of football. I was disappointed and then kinda shrugged it off. Not a great performance by the team. This was just insult to injury.

 

[BigMeach]

Don't get me wrong. I felt we could have won that game so many ways before that point. But our O made just as good of play to knock the ball back out as the guy did to get the interception, I don't feel like that should be taken away by a ref making a call he is in no position to make.

 

[Scottemojo]

I ain't even mad about that. They made plays. Seattle did not.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

They got the possession wrong on the field but were confused if it was reviewable. Its not challengeable but possession should have been reviewed and overturned by league official review.
Pete may send this to the league for clarification.

 

[Hawkpower]

I ain't even mad about that. They made plays. Seattle did not.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that that blown call impacted the game in a major way.

Seattle did make plays, including that one. And had they gotten the ball like they were supposed to, they may have tied or won the game.

 

[Grahamhawker]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

 

[Scottemojo]

I ain't even mad about that. They made plays. Seattle did not.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that that blown call impacted the game in a major way.

Seattle did make plays, including that one. And had they gotten the ball like they were supposed to, they may have tied or won the game.

And if Bennett could hold his water, we might be having a different discussion.

 

[Hawkpower]

I ain't even mad about that. They made plays. Seattle did not.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that that blown call impacted the game in a major way.

Seattle did make plays, including that one. And had they gotten the ball like they were supposed to, they may have tied or won the game.

And if Bennett could hold his water, we might be having a different discussion.

Sure, you could say that about 15 different elements of the game.

Doesnt take away the fact that the blown call impacted the game in a major way as well.

 

[Hawkpower]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

Link?

 

[rcaido]

Greenbay look like they got the ball at first glance...Would have been nice if we got the ball since Britt ended up with it but it did look like GB had it so aint to mad.

Im more upset w/ the ticky tack fouls & the free timeout at the goal line.

 

[BigMeach]

I ain't even mad about that. They made plays. Seattle did not.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that that blown call impacted the game in a major way.

Seattle did make plays, including that one. And had they gotten the ball like they were supposed to, they may have tied or won the game.

And if Bennett could hold his water, we might be having a different discussion.

Actually you bring up another good point. On the Richard Sherman pass interference off the Bennett "offisdes". I always thought if the singular Olineman moves because the Dlineman jumps but the ball hasn't actually been snapped yet then the play is blown dead and the penalty is assessed.. I also though only when the dlineman is offsides when the ball is snapped does the offense actually get a free play.

Am I wrong on this?

 

[BestInTheWest]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

This was my thought as well. He wouldn't have been digging so much after the play was called dead if he had possession.

 

[Grahamhawker]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

Link?

Just what I saw on the field. Thought it was pretty obvious.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

To be honest, this call didn't really bother me. With the history of Seahawks/packers games and fail Mary, I thought it's only right the refs give this one to the packers.

Not saying they should but with calls you win some and you lose some. Give it to the packers, the season is still young.

 

[BigMeach]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

This was my thought as well. He wouldn't have been digging so much after the play was called dead if he had possession.

Falling on the ball isn't possession, the ball goes all over the place in those fumbles. It is who gets actual control of the ball. Again though, we're making the same assumptions the ref did without actually seeing who had possession.

 

[253hawk]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

Just like Sherman fell on the ball @STL last year and some Ram dug it out after the fact. Went back to the Rams anyway. Coming out of the pile with it doesn't mean anything; it's whoever the refs see with it first when they start clearing the pile.

 

[Scottemojo]

I ain't even mad about that. They made plays. Seattle did not.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that that blown call impacted the game in a major way.

Seattle did make plays, including that one. And had they gotten the ball like they were supposed to, they may have tied or won the game.

And if Bennett could hold his water, we might be having a different discussion.

Actually you bring up another good point. On the Richard Sherman pass interference off the Bennett "offisdes". I always thought if the singular Olineman moves because the Dlineman jumps but the ball hasn't actually been snapped yet then the play is blown dead and the penalty is assessed.. I also though only when the dlineman is offsides when the ball is snapped does the offense actually get a free play.

Am I wrong on this?

Nope, not wrong.

 

[BestInTheWest]

Really no need for a review.

The Packer d-end fell on the ball and had possession.

Britt dug it out after the fact.

This was my thought as well. He wouldn't have been digging so much after the play was called dead if he had possession.

Falling on the ball isn't possession, the ball goes all over the place in those fumbles. It is who gets actual control of the ball. Again though, we're making the same assumptions the ref did without actually seeing who had possession.

I'm not sure of the rule, but the play was called dead and Britt was still digging after the fact if my memory serves me correctly. I dunno, as many have said it wasn't a big deal to me. I was more upset with the int.