Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Official who called failmary TD co-writes book about expeirence. (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57028)

Ness 07-23-2013 04:26 PM

Official who called failmary TD co-writes book about expeirence.
 
Not sure if this was mentioned already. I think this is probably only going to sell in Seattle.

Quote:

GREEN BAY - The replacement referee who set Green Bay Packers Nation ablaze in anger at the end of last year's game against the Seattle Seahawks has co-written a book about the experience.

The referee, Lance Easley, has also been seen appearing with the man who caught the highly-disputed touchdown which beat the Packers, 14-12, in September 2012. He said Sunday that he stands by the call.

Easley co-wrote "Making the Call" about the aftermath of the decision he had to make when Packers defensive back M.D. Jennings had his hands and body cradling a football with an apparent interception in the end zone at the end of the Packers-Seahawks game.

Seahawks wide receiver Golden Tate had his hands around Jennings, grasping for the ball.

Easley ruled that Tate caught the ball and scored the game-winning touchdown.

According to an Amazon.com book description for "Making the Call," Easley said he received death threats and other angry backlash afterward, but "his solid Christian faith helped see him through the controversy."

He uses parts of the book to call people toward his faith.
http://www.todaystmj4.com/sports/gre...214597441.html


Caulibflower 07-23-2013 05:15 PM

Ugh. Atheists love this ****.

Ness 07-23-2013 05:56 PM

Just use the faith card when justifying anything. Awesome?

BallerT1215 07-23-2013 05:59 PM

Why do we let this stuff happen?

We as in Americans.

Caulibflower 07-23-2013 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness (Post 3407894)
Just use the faith card when justifying anything. Awesome?

Not having read the book, I don't know if he's using his faith to justify it, but it sounds like it was co-written, which means some entrepreneurial writer thought, "Hey - money!" and I can only imagine a scenario where, among all the interview questions, the ref's faith came to light and the writer thought, "No ****, huh? People gobble that up! I bet your faith got you through, didn't it?"

For another thing, it was actually closer to a correct call than most want to admit, particularly if you think hard about the rules. Now - what constitutes a catch?

Securing the ball... and getting two feet on the ground, in-bounds. Let that thought sink in for a moment. You have to get two feet down in bounds with the ball secure. Jennings surely touched it first, and was the highest in the air.... but I'll repeat - he was the highest in the air. He was not touching the ground. The ball was in his hands, but it was not an interception yet. While in the air, Golden Tate also grabbed the ball. Golden Tate's feet came down first, and he was holding the ball. Jennings was also holding the ball. Jennings had it closer to his body, and it looked like Tate was trying to take it away from him. He was. He started trying to take it away from him in the air, and they were both fighting over it when they both hit the ground. They both had a secure hold on the ball when their feet hit the ground. Jennings touched it first - but per the rules, they were both in possession when their feet hit the ground. Per the rule, the catch is awarded to the offense and it's a touchdown. It's a very technical rule, and it's harder to accept from replacement refs, but it was ruled a touchdown on the field and there wasn't enough to overturn it, because the rules frame the conditions of the play as constitutive of an offensive touchdown, however ugly it looked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BallerT1215 (Post 3407897)
Why do we let this stuff happen?

We as in Americans.

It's not those who ask the question, it's the hundred million who don't.

phlysac 07-23-2013 06:42 PM

I thought it was pretty cool and somewhat ironic that Richard Sherman invited him to the Seahawks' charity softball game.

robert pancake gallery 07-24-2013 12:58 AM

i can't wait to read a book about some scab referee's life experiences, he must have great wisdom to bestow upon us. i'm glad to see that he is able to continue profiting off of his ineptitude that would have never been possible had he made the correct call. it sets a great precedent (who am i kidding, that precedent was set long before this guy came along).

TitansCJftw 07-24-2013 02:26 AM

six six six

Ness 07-24-2013 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower (Post 3407918)
Not having read the book, I don't know if he's using his faith to justify it, but it sounds like it was co-written, which means some entrepreneurial writer thought, "Hey - money!" and I can only imagine a scenario where, among all the interview questions, the ref's faith came to light and the writer thought, "No ****, huh? People gobble that up! I bet your faith got you through, didn't it?"

For another thing, it was actually closer to a correct call than most want to admit, particularly if you think hard about the rules. Now - what constitutes a catch?

Securing the ball... and getting two feet on the ground, in-bounds. Let that thought sink in for a moment. You have to get two feet down in bounds with the ball secure. Jennings surely touched it first, and was the highest in the air.... but I'll repeat - he was the highest in the air. He was not touching the ground. The ball was in his hands, but it was not an interception yet. While in the air, Golden Tate also grabbed the ball. Golden Tate's feet came down first, and he was holding the ball. Jennings was also holding the ball. Jennings had it closer to his body, and it looked like Tate was trying to take it away from him. He was. He started trying to take it away from him in the air, and they were both fighting over it when they both hit the ground. They both had a secure hold on the ball when their feet hit the ground. Jennings touched it first - but per the rules, they were both in possession when their feet hit the ground. Per the rule, the catch is awarded to the offense and it's a touchdown. It's a very technical rule, and it's harder to accept from replacement refs, but it was ruled a touchdown on the field and there wasn't enough to overturn it, because the rules frame the conditions of the play as constitutive of an offensive touchdown, however ugly it looked.

Wait, don't tell me you actually believe the official made the correct call? I'm pretty sure that was a blown call and it wasn't a touchdown. Actually, practically all of America except the pacific northwest was sure of it...which is why it became a huge deal in the first place. Everyone and their grandmother could see that even before the catch was made, the entire thing was a fiasco. The play should have been over after Golden Tate's mugging. Seattle got away with one that day.

Brothgar 07-24-2013 03:00 AM

If he hired Brock Thoene to co write his book then religion is going to be a major part of it. Thoene makes a living writing religious fiction.

Caulibflower 07-24-2013 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness (Post 3408109)
Wait, don't tell me you actually believe the official made the correct call? I'm pretty sure that was a blown call and it wasn't a touchdown. Actually, practically all of America except the pacific northwest was sure of it...which is why it became a huge deal in the first place. Everyone and their grandmother could see that even before the catch was made, the entire thing was a fiasco. The play should have been over after Golden Tate's mugging. Seattle got away with one that day.

The play should've been over after Tate's mugging just like Seattle's drive should've kept going earlier in the game. They were replacement refs, and you better believe I'm not just going to say, "Yeah, the Packers should've won," just because the last play looked like it should've gone in their favor. There were bad calls all game, and everyone loves to forget the refs killed a Seahawks drive in the 4th quarter that very well could have resulted in a noncontroversial touchdown. It was a shoddily-reffed game all around.

That said, did you read my explanation? It's fairly simple. Call it a dumb rule, but their rationale was by the book and that's why it stood. It comes down to a subjective (replacement ref) interpretation of what looked like "possession," which doesn't really have anything to do with whose body the ball is closest to, or who touched it first, for that matter. It was a completely fluky play. You'd have a hard time finding another one like it, whether called a touchdown or an interception. There's not much of a precedent for a play like that. I know perfectly well that most people think it should've been called an interception, but there's a reason it wasn't and it's not simply that the refs were incompetent. They were incompetent, but the reason it stood was because of what the rulebook says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brothgar (Post 3408110)
If he hired Brock Thoene to co write his book then religion is going to be a major part of it. Thoene makes a living writing religious fiction.

Go figure. I don't know how these assholes can live with themselves using controversy and bias to peddle their mediocre writing.

holt_bruce81 07-24-2013 04:31 AM

Your 15 minutes of fame is over bud. Get over it.

Ness 07-24-2013 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower (Post 3408111)
The play should've been over after Tate's mugging just like Seattle's drive should've kept going earlier in the game. They were replacement refs, and you better believe I'm not just going to say, "Yeah, the Packers should've won," just because the last play looked like it should've gone in their favor. There were bad calls all game, and everyone loves to forget the refs killed a Seahawks drive in the 4th quarter that very well could have resulted in a noncontroversial touchdown. It was a shoddily-reffed game all around.

That said, did you read my explanation? It's fairly simple. Call it a dumb rule, but their rationale was by the book and that's why it stood. It comes down to a subjective (replacement ref) interpretation of what looked like "possession," which doesn't really have anything to do with whose body the ball is closest to, or who touched it first, for that matter. It was a completely fluky play. You'd have a hard time finding another one like it, whether called a touchdown or an interception. There's not much of a precedent for a play like that. I know perfectly well that most people think it should've been called an interception, but there's a reason it wasn't and it's not simply that the refs were incompetent. They were incompetent, but the reason it stood was because of what the rulebook says.

I just wanted to know if you thought the final play of the game that led to a direct score was called correctly. And I don't think the official was operating by the rulebook 100%, or rather didn't understand it because the real officials that were out of commission like Gerry Austin said they totally screwed up. You know, I guess it doesn't really matter. The game will always be remembered for Seattle getting away with one. And that's fine. Sometimes teams get away with murder on the deciding play of the game. The same thing happened to the 49ers in the playoffs years ago.

phlysac 07-24-2013 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower (Post 3408111)
That said, did you read my explanation? It's fairly simple. Call it a dumb rule, but their rationale was by the book and that's why it stood. It comes down to a subjective (replacement ref) interpretation of what looked like "possession," which doesn't really have anything to do with whose body the ball is closest to, or who touched it first, for that matter. It was a completely fluky play. You'd have a hard time finding another one like it, whether called a touchdown or an interception. There's not much of a precedent for a play like that. I know perfectly well that most people think it should've been called an interception, but there's a reason it wasn't and it's not simply that the refs were incompetent. They were incompetent, but the reason it stood was because of what the rulebook says.

Doesn't the rulebook also say that the player must maintain possession? So when Tate's hand come off the ball and it's still clearly in both of Jenning's hands, doesn't count?

So they only have to interpret portions of the rulebook?

J-Mike88 07-24-2013 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holt_bruce81 (Post 3408112)
Your 15 minutes of fame is over bud. Get over it.

We Packer fans have a different opinion of this ****** than others do.

That W-L result was the difference in us playing the Niners there or in Green Bay in January.

I don't know if we would have ever tackled that skinny big nosed inked up Kaepernick on the slower frozen tundra, but I know Lance Easley is an asshole, and I knew he wanted to financially benefit from the horrible call. And he has. And he will any way possible.

I still believe he had (or had friends do it) money on Seattle winning that game. This was the worst call he made that night, but he mad a few other horrible ones, including calling Sam Shields for interference even though he got shoved in the back on the play.

He also called Jennings for a personal foul when he got assaulted by Browner.

Someone tell Easley there's a wad of cash at the top of Pike's Peak please.

XxXdragonXxX 07-24-2013 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phlysac (Post 3408130)
Doesn't the rulebook also say that the player must maintain possession? So when Tate's hand come off the ball and it's still clearly in both of Jenning's hands, doesn't count?

So they only have to interpret portions of the rulebook?

His first hand never came off the ball (probably because Jennings held it there...) nowhere in the rule book does it say a catch has to be with both hands.

SchizophrenicBatman 07-24-2013 11:33 AM

Thanks tho!

phlysac 07-24-2013 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX (Post 3408149)
His first hand never came off the ball (probably because Jennings held it there...) nowhere in the rule book does it say a catch has to be with both hands.

Of course it doesn't. But possession needs to be maintained.

K Train 07-24-2013 12:10 PM

failmary lol

niel89 07-24-2013 03:26 PM

Easy money opportunity so I see why he's doing it. That was not a TD.

iowatreat54 07-24-2013 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX (Post 3408149)
His first hand never came off the ball (probably because Jennings held it there...) nowhere in the rule book does it say a catch has to be with both hands.

Please god not this again...

J-Mike88 07-24-2013 05:16 PM

The guy should have been jailed for that call.
If Vegas didn't win money on that game, and instead lost because of that call, he'd be next to Hoffa somewhere right now.

Caulibflower 07-24-2013 06:37 PM

So many Packers sympathizers in here. Has anyone really looked at the video? Like, looked at it, and not just listened to the ******* commentary? Part of the problem is that the live commentary was a myopic old guy who didn't see it correctly, and so everyone's first impression is what he says on-air: "When Jennings gets to the ground he's got it against his body, and Tate then pulls it away." So people think Jennings caught it, Tate wrestled it away on the ground, and got awarded with the score.

One of the refs signaled interception while the other signaled touchdown. How else would a simultaneous catch be called? The one who called interception was staning behind Jennings and couldn't see Tate's hands. The one who called touchdown was the one who saw Tate's hands. The commentators were eager to call the refs out on screwing up, because they'd been screwing up all-game already. Now, they were right about Tate getting away with an extremely blatant OPI. But I'm talking about the catch. Jennings gets to it in the air; he jumped first. Tate was waiting beneath him, and jumps about as Jennings is at his highest point; Jennings is above him. Jennings gets both hands on the ball and his feet are still a foot off the ground. You can see in the replay that Tate also gets his left hand firmly around the ball - he's not just touching it, his hand is around the ball, and he does this well before Jennings' feet hit the ground. Jennings is probably, in fact, holding Tate's hand between the ball and his chest. Tate gets his other hand on the ball, and both of his feet hit the ground. Jenning's feet then both hit the ground, also in bounds. Therefore, by definition of the rules, they both touched both of their feet down in bounds while in possession of the ball. Jennings couldn't just rip it away on the ground because Tate was holding onto it. It doesn't matter where the ball was or who it looked closer to, it's who was holding it, with their hands, when their feet touched the ground, and an honest observer will acknowledge that they both did.

And as an honest observer myself - yes, Tate should've been flagged. But it's not a bogus play because of the catch itself. It's hard to take the replacement refs word on such a sketchy call, but there were much worse calls in that game, and it bugs me that the narrative is that the Seahawks were gifted a game, not that the game was so poorly-officiated throughout that it hardly seems like it should be included in the official records. The end of that game (at least, without the PI that should've been called) is probably about the hardest call that can be made in a football game, replacement refs or not.

XxXdragonXxX 07-24-2013 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phlysac (Post 3408235)
Of course it doesn't. But possession needs to be maintained.

The ball didn't move around in Tate's hand (because Jennings held the ball and Tate's hand secure.)

Caulibflower 07-24-2013 06:42 PM

There's a youtube video of all the controversial calls from that game, and it's seventeen minutes long.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.