Week Three Roundup

Avatar

Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Ordinary Times. Relapsed Lawyer, admitted to practice law (under his real name) in California and Oregon. On Twitter, to his frequent regret, at @burtlikko. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

Related Post Roulette

19 Responses

  1. Avatar aaron david says:

    Well, the call was obviously correct, as it went the Seahawks way. (This starts to make up for the horrible refereeing when the ‘Hawks went to the superbowl.)Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck says:

      I do think it’s interesting to have this example of what actually bad refereeing looks like, rather than “judgement call that didn’t go my way” refereeing.Report

  2. Avatar Koblog says:

    The problem in America in one post: NFL refs: important, disgusting and unjust.

    One robed Supreme Court Justice inventing law from whole cloth to bankrupt America with Obamacare: Ho hum.Report

  3. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    Seems to me is that the issue is refs watching the ball, rather than the players; and that the players are recognizing this and taking advantage of it.Report

  4. Avatar Koz says:

    I wasn’t watching the game live, but I saw the replays and given the harsh comments toward the ref it wasn’t what I was expected. It looks like the Seattle receiver gets two hands on the ball comes down that way. I’m glad I didn’t have to make that call but I’m wondering why exactly it’s not a reception. As near as I can see it’s because at the end of the pile the ball is closer to the defender’s torse.

    In any event, contrary to some other incidents it’s not clear to me that the regular refs would have called it any different.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy says:

      Great point, Koz. I think people are mistaking the outcome for the action. The rule is apparently that simultaneous possession goes to the offensive player. I don’t think it was simultaneous possession, but I have the benefit of watching it on slow motion replay.

      What I enjoyed about the play was having the follow two exchanges with Zazzy, who was trying to sleep in bed next to me…

      K: Holy crap! Did he catch that?
      Z: [Pause] Well, did he?
      K: I… don’t… know.
      Z: What do you mean that you don’t know?
      K: I don’t know if ANYONE knows.

      … a few moments later…
      Z: Is the game over at least?
      K: I… don’t… know.
      Z: Is this some sort of trick to keep the TV on longer?
      K: I…….. don’t……. know…..Report

  5. Avatar sidereal says:

    As a Seattle resident and Seahawks fan, I’m both aware of how bad the call was (the postgame Seahawks Twitterverse was a pretty hilarious blend of disgust and excitement) and gratified that national commentators and the general NFL fanbase is outright admitting that the call was worse because it hurt the Packers, implying that if it had been reversed and the Packers had been given an incredibly dubious TD to win over Seattle, it’d be less of a problem and maybe just blow over. The fact that some franchises are given preferential treatment by the media and the rest of the country is a pretty well understood fact here, but it’s rare to see it so out in the open.

    And that sense of aggrievement at being blamed for an injury to the precious Packers will probably go a long way this season, since as we all know being aggrieved is the most powerful motivation in sports. So it’ll probably help Green Bay’s season as well.Report

  6. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    national commentators and the general NFL fanbase is outright admitting that the call was worse because it hurt the Packers, implying that if it had been reversed and the Packers had been given an incredibly dubious TD to win over Seattle, it’d be less of a problem and maybe just blow over.

    [Citation needed].

    If the situation had been reversed, and Green Bay was sitting on top of an unearned win and Seattle was told informally that it was a bad call but they have to live with it, I would accept the win (as Seattle is doing) but I’d still concur with pointing out that if the refereeing is going to be this bad and the rules don’t mean anything and all that money and technology and effort invested in replays will be disregarded, then the integrity of the game is substantially diminished and maybe I’m a little less eager to watch it despite my affinity for my own team. I want to see my team win, I want that win to represent its superior skill, strength, and strategy. If there was a rule that Green Bay simply wins every game automatically just because it’s Green Bay and everybody’s supposed to love Green Bay because hey, it’s Green Bay, that wouldn’t be interesting at all.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      Maybe they should sign Tebow.Report

    • Avatar sidereal says:

      In case it wasn’t clear, I absolutely agree it was a bad call, and a bad call poorly executed (where was the white hat?). But I and other Cascadians are at least a little bit bemused that the country is having an existential cry over Green Bay losing a regular season game when, for example, a referee so bungled a series of Superbowl calls that he publicly apologized to the Seahawks. Or that Vinny Testaverde was given an incorrect late touchdown because his head apparently looks like a football in a game that essentially ended Seattle’s hopes for the playoffs (and got Erickson fired, so thanks I guess).

      Somehow the integrity of the league survived those blunders and the rules still meant something. Which is why one wonders why the very soul of the league is at stake when the Packers lose but a botched Superbowl is just crybabies being crybabies (citation needed).

      On the specifics, by rule replay couldn’t overturn the play because replay can’t determine possession. At least that’s my understanding based on all of the yelling of the past few days. Once the ref called touchdown (one of them, anyway), replay was effectively bound to a pretty narrow set of criteria that weren’t relevant.Report

      • Avatar DensityDuck says:

        “Somehow the integrity of the league survived those blunders and the rules still meant something. ”

        The problem is that even by the rules this wasn’t a reception by the Seahawks.

        Setting aside the overt offensive-pass-interference–and that’s a big thing to set aside, but we’ll do it anyway for now–the post-game commentators quoted chapter and verse on the subject of simultaneous catches, wherein it was stated that if a player catches the ball, and another player comes in after that and grabs hold before the first player hits the ground, then it is not considered a “simultaneous catch”.Report