Seattle - NYG - Part2: NFL says both NYG TDs no good

[ZXTT]

Reported on SI.com and ESPN.com - both TDs were reviewed and should have been overturned. Hmm, well there's a shock, a NY team getting bogus touchdowns against the Seahawks. To this we can add Vinny's 1-yard line TD and Baltimore's 4th timeout from two years ago. Difference: the Seahawks won this one, so no bitterness this time.

For those who missed it:

The 1st TD had Shockey hit hard in the endzone, and he lost the ball before getting his second foot down. At best, his foot could have brushed the surface of the turf, but no part of his body moved to indicate contact with the ground.

The 2nd had Toomer catching the ball at the back of the endzone. Both feet landed in, just not at the same time, because the first foot slid onto the white before the second foot came down inbounds.

To be fair, Larry Nemmers did overturn a Shockey catch-fumble-NYG recovery in OT because he never had control of the ball. That one added 16+ yards to the subsequent field goal attempt, that as you probably know, went awry.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by ZXTT

The 2nd had Toomer catching the ball at the back of the endzone. Both feet landed in, just not at the same time, because the first foot slid onto the white before the second foot came down inbounds.

didn't see the first one, but I did watch the Toomer catch, and I couldn't understand why the announcers couldn't see that it wasn't a catch. seemed pretty clear to me.

[ZXTT]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

didn't see the first one, but I did watch the Toomer catch, and I couldn't understand why the announcers couldn't see that it wasn't a catch. seemed pretty clear to me.

I noticed that those guys had a habit of describing what was "called" and not what appeared to be happening. "It's a great catch!" as long as the officials say so.

I've seen this with some soccer announcers as well - some will make up stuff to agree with ref calling something a foul.

They also struggled, or at least the play-by-play guy did, with the concept of if a play starts before the two-minute warning, then the coach must challenge. Heck, didn't everyone involved with football learn that part of the rule after what happened between the Saints and Rams? And after the ref said that Seattle had used both its challenges a little earlier, couldn't the announcers have told us that he was wrong as soon as the 2-minute situation developed? I was left hanging there thinking no booth challenge and no Seahawk challenges left. They did explain it all after the whole sequence had played out, but come on, I'm not supposed to sit in my living room knowing more about what's going on than pro announcers, am I...?

[Warhammer]

I saw the Toomer catch and thought it was very close and could have gone either way. The Shockey catch I thought was a blown call.

What is really starting to bother me, it seems that officials are giving the benefit of doubt to the player and then counting on challenges to overturn the call. The problem is, the burden of proof is to show what didn't happen, rather than what did, and that is harder to do.

[AlexB]

The Shockey was was a shocker, thought the Toomer TD was good though tbh. The commentators were probably right though when they said they made the call knowing it would be reviewed, giving them a way out if they were wrong.

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The commentators were probably right though when they said they made the call knowing it would be reviewed, giving them a way out if they were wrong.

Which is my problem with replay. That is ridiculous.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by pennywisesb

Which is my problem with replay. That is ridiculous.

Yep, also why i hate replay. If the ref is like 3 feet from the play, and he makes the call of the feet being in, it shouldnt be reviewable. If the refs are wrong, then fire their asses, dont let some lame replay "is it or isnt it" second guessing coming into play.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The Shockey was was a shocker, thought the Toomer TD was good though tbh. The commentators were probably right though when they said they made the call knowing it would be reviewed, giving them a way out if they were wrong.

Not sure I get this. This is a TD catch, which is reviewable from both sides. No matter what call they made, it would have been reviewed.

The only time this comes into play is on a fumble the refs may let go if they aren't sure, as a whistle ends the play and makes it a non reviewable play where a fumble call allows the play to be reviewed if there was a mistake.

As that didn't happen in this case, they just made the wrong call. The problem is they made the wrong call TWICE, not that they were indecisive because of the fact the play could be reviewed.

[Logan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2241040

NFL says refs didn't blow calls on Giants

The NFL on Tuesday defended two touchdown calls by officials during the Seattle Seahawks 24-21 overtime win against the New York Giants on Sunday.

Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren had said Monday that the league had admitted officiating errors to the team.

"I had a conversation with the league, and there were mistakes that were made, which we felt at the time," Holmgren said.

The league, however, strongly denied any second-guessing about two Giants touchdown passes.

"The report that the NFL informed the Seahawks of officiating mistakes on two Giants touchdown receptions is inaccurate," the league said in a statement.

"Our officiating department never discussed with the Seahawks the Amani Toomer touchdown reception, which was properly called. The Jeremy Shockey touchdown catch at the end of the first half was not overturned because the referee determined that there was insufficient visual evidence to reverse the call."

Holmgren's disclosure is being reviewed as a potential violation of league policy, which says that a coach is not allowed to publicly divulge confidential conversations with the officiating department, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported. Holmgren may be subject to a fine and his access to the officiating office could be restricted for a limited amount of time.

Sunday, with 1:14 left in the second quarter and the Seahawks leading 7-3, Shockey briefly caught a 7-yard pass from Eli Manning in the center of the end zone. Seattle safety Marquand Manuel then lowered his right shoulder into Shockey and forced the ball to the turf, though officials signaled a touchdown.

Jim Blackwood, the replay review official, buzzed Nemmers, an NFL game official for 21 years, and asked him to review the play to determine if Shockey had possession long enough to constitute a catch.

After a few moments, Nemmers emerged from under the hooded replay monitor beyond the sideline and declared Shockey did secure possession before losing the ball. The touchdown stood and the Giants took a 10-7 lead into halftime.

With 2:03 left in regulation, Toomer leaped high and caught another pass at the back of the end zone. Toomer got his left foot down inside the end line and then appeared to drag the toes of his right shoe into his left as it hit the turf.

At least that's what game officials concluded on the field -- and what Nemmers concluded after reviewing Holmgren's challenge to that call.

That score, and the Shockey's subsequent two-point conversion catch, tied it at 21 with 1:59 left.

Holmgren said he was told by game officials there was not enough indisputable visual evidence to overturn either touchdown.

"Look, I get excited about it, just like any coach would, especially if you think it might cost you a ball game. But it's a tough job," Holmgren said. "Officials have a tough job. They are honest guys doing the best they can."

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The Shockey was was a shocker, thought the Toomer TD was good though tbh. The commentators were probably right though when they said they made the call knowing it would be reviewed, giving them a way out if they were wrong.

I don't buy this for a call that's reviewable either way -- the refs are going to go whichever way they think is right on something like that.

Edit: That is, I agree completely with TroyF.

[Ksyrup]

So lemme get this straight - Holmgren is going to be fined because he exposed an NFL cover-up? He divulged a confidential conversation about both TDs being ruled incorrect, the NFL comes back with a lie, and now Holmgren is going to get fined?? Makes sense to me!

On instant replay, they should do it like college - all plays are subject to review by officials in the booth. This whole "2 challenges/3 if you get the 1st 2 right" shit is ridiculous. The idea is to get the calls right. It's not to play a game with when to challenge and when not to challenge. Or, if 5 calls are blown in one game - whoops, sorry, you can only challenge up to 3 of them. I think that is total bullshit.

[Buccaneer]

I, too, thought Toomer's TD catch was good.

[ZXTT]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I don't buy this for a call that's reviewable either way -- the refs are going to go whichever way they think is right on something like that.

Edit: That is, I agree completely with TroyF.

And I've developed the impression over time that they're ruling in favor of the player making the play, knowing that it can be reviewed. With the Toomer catch, they seemed VERY indecisive on the call and on accepting the challenge.

And the call vs the review is not an even thing. The original call gets all the weight and must be proven conclusively (according to the rules) to be wrong. In the case of the Shockey TD, his foot was below the bottom of the picture on the best camera angle, so it was hard to really conclude anything for sure.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I tend to think that if the refs are favoring the player making the play, it has more to do with a "give the benefit of the doubt to the playmaker" mindset than anything else. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, either.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I too thought Toomer's catch was clearly good (and I live in Seattle). It just shows you that instant replay is in the eye of the beholder.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So lemme get this straight - Holmgren is going to be fined because he exposed an NFL cover-up? He divulged a confidential conversation about both TDs being ruled incorrect, the NFL comes back with a lie, and now Holmgren is going to get fined?? Makes sense to me!

On instant replay, they should do it like college - all plays are subject to review by officials in the booth. This whole "2 challenges/3 if you get the 1st 2 right" shit is ridiculous. The idea is to get the calls right. It's not to play a game with when to challenge and when not to challenge. Or, if 5 calls are blown in one game - whoops, sorry, you can only challenge up to 3 of them. I think that is total bullshit.

Agreed. I think the college system is better, except in the case of the UGA-GT game. That was just over-kill, but I believe that comes from the history of the series (where there has been some horrid officiating in the past that has cost both teams wins).

[Ragone]

Larry Nemmers Crew is rated the WORST in the nfl.. and they haven't gotten a playoff game in nearly 5 years.. so when you watch your team play this sunday.. and you see Nemmers and his gang of stooges.. pray they don't screw you

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ZXTT

And I've developed the impression over time that they're ruling in favor of the player making the play, knowing that it can be reviewed. With the Toomer catch, they seemed VERY indecisive on the call and on accepting the challenge.

And the call vs the review is not an even thing. The original call gets all the weight and must be proven conclusively (according to the rules) to be wrong. In the case of the Shockey TD, his foot was below the bottom of the picture on the best camera angle, so it was hard to really conclude anything for sure.

So reread your own post. You're telling me that with multiple replay angles, the call was difficult to conclude, but the guys on the field should be ashamed because they couldn't figure it out and needed time to think about it before making a ruling?

It was a tough call on the field in real time. They conferred and came to a decision. I can only think of a handful of plays in the last two years where the "not conclusive" happened on the replay. Essentially, a majority of the time there is zero problems. This time there was.

Again, i don't think they called the TD knowing it could be reviewed. EITHER side could be reviewed. What they had was a difficult call and they did what they thought was right.

Far be it from me to defend officiating. I think it's poor in many sports and I think certain teams are allowed to get away with murder on occasion. But I don't see the issue being replay here. I see the issue being replay was used incorrectly.

[Ragone]

And as far as the td's go.. i think shockey's was clearly not.. and Toomers was too close to call


Remember... you need CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn

[ZXTT]

Originally Posted by TroyF

So reread your own post. You're telling me that with multiple replay angles, the call was difficult to conclude, but the guys on the field should be ashamed because they couldn't figure it out and needed time to think about it before making a ruling?

It was a tough call on the field in real time. They conferred and came to a decision. I can only think of a handful of plays in the last two years where the "not conclusive" happened on the replay. Essentially, a majority of the time there is zero problems. This time there was.

Again, i don't think they called the TD knowing it could be reviewed. EITHER side could be reviewed. What they had was a difficult call and they did what they thought was right.

Far be it from me to defend officiating. I think it's poor in many sports and I think certain teams are allowed to get away with murder on occasion. But I don't see the issue being replay here. I see the issue being replay was used incorrectly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the calls themselves - they were borderline and very hard. I'm merely saying that when the officials seemed to me to have no idea on the Toomer play, they just said in their heads "give it to him, replay will sort it out". In other words, they did NOT see him make a good catch, but they couldn't say that he didn't. In theory, the play could be called either way, but in practice I think they're more apt to give the player the call, especially since it can be reviewed.

As to the catch itself - I contend that if you look at Toomer's feet, when the second foot touches down, the first has already slid onto the white. I'm not sure anyone can see this in real-time, but with replay, if they'd bothered to freeze it, it should have been clear one way or the other. Without freezing it, all I can do is contend, because you're still trying to look at two things at once in a moving picture.

I've seen bunches of non-conclusive replays. From the Seattle game, I'd say the Shockey TD and Ingram catch in OT were both inconclusive. On the Ingram play, I think Nemmers just said the play stands as called. That's two in one game.

Just for some perspective, I realize the point of replay is to prevent the ridiculously bad calls from standing. Toomer made a damn good play, irrespective of whether his feet were in or out by an inch.