Dirk Diggler Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I am listening to WFAN in NY. The refs called an illegal man downfield on the Giants. There was no pass interference called on the play. The refs obviously thought that the interference was with the illegal man. It wasn't. The interference was with #69, the tackle eligeable. If the pass interference that should have been called, was called - there would have been offsetting penalties on the play. In the case of offsetting penalties, the down should have been replayed. And the Giants should have had one more shot at a 41 yard FG for the win. :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 what about the other guys downfield that shouldn't of been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighthawk Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 They would have just botched the snap again!:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Jan. 6, 2003) -- The New York Giants and San Francisco 49ers were informed that a defensive pass interference penalty should have been called on the final play of their NFC Wild Card Game. A videotape review by NFL Director of Officiating Mike Pereira of the final play -- the Giants' 41-yard field goal attempt with six seconds remaining -- determined the following: Tam Hopkins, No. 65, of the Giants lined up as the left guard and was illegally downfield on the pass attempt. The three flags thrown on this play were for this penalty. Guard Rich Seubert, No. 69, was an eligible receiver on Giants field-goal attempts. This was reported to the officiating crew prior to the game as is routinely done before every game. 49ers defensive end Chike Okeafor interfered with Seubert downfield when he was attempting to catch Giants holder Matt Allen's pass. This defensive pass-interference penalty against the 49ers was not called. If defensive pass interference had been called, there would have been offsetting penalties (ineligible receiver against the Giants and pass interference against the 49ers) with the down replayed at the original line of scrimmage, the San Francisco 23-yard line. Although time had expired, a game cannot end with offsetting penalties. Thus, the game would have been extended by one untimed down. One additional note on the play: Allen did not have the option of spiking the ball to stop the clock, which only can be done by taking a hand-to-hand snap directly from the center. If Allen had spiked the ball, it would have been a penalty for intentionally grounding the ball and the game would have ended due to a 10-second runoff of the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted January 6, 2003 Author Share Posted January 6, 2003 This is really worse than the Pats/Oakland game from last year. The refs enforced what is a bad rule. Your problem in that game should be with the rule, not the refs. But this was simply a blown call. Ouch:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Well, if they called Tiki's fumble right in our 1st game with NY, they wouldn't of been in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 The league should give them some kind of compensation for this obvious huge officiating error, or just start firing refs who f!@# up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 what kind of compensation do you suggest? What about all the teams in the past that got screwed by the Refs? Do they get something retro-style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Normally blown calls like this don't happen on the final play of the game. It's pointless to try to correct the call after the fact, because of the gameplay that happened after the blown call. (This is why I agree that plays cannot be reversed after the next snap has been made.) However, in this extreme case -- playoff game, final play, clearly blown call by the officials on a rule, not a visual judgment -- it does seem that the fair thing to do would be to replay the kick. Yes, I'm actually saying line up 22 guys in San Francicso and do it again. Obviously that would be quite a circus, but it would be fair. They could do it tonight if they were so motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 This should be an unsettling piece of news for Giants fans. After the play, I initially thought that there would be offsetting calls, which would have allowed a replay of the down, but reasoned that the player that was interfered with was ineligible. I believe that this afternoon on ESPN they had stated that the player who was interfered with was ineligible. To hear the contrary leaves m a bit miffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I thought it was curious that they didn't spend more time looking at the last play while they had a chance. The games not over until they say its over. I think there was so much chaos at the end of that game (on the 4 or 5 plays leading up to the kick) that the officials just wanted it to be over as they were in real danger of losing control on the field. I actually think this new trend of 'admitting' when a call is blown afterwards is counter-productive and just creates more hostility against officiating. They should have reviewed that last play 20 times if thats what it took to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasEagle Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 So, they lost and they screwed at the same time. Too bad it didn't happen the Cowboys instead. That would have made my year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog I thought it was curious that they didn't spend more time looking at the last play while they had a chance. The games not over until they say its over. I think there was so much chaos at the end of that game (on the 4 or 5 plays leading up to the kick) that the officials just wanted it to be over as they were in real danger of losing control on the field. I actually think this new trend of 'admitting' when a call is blown afterwards is counter-productive and just creates more hostility against officiating. They should have reviewed that last play 20 times if thats what it took to get it right. I also was surprised at the time that Fassell didn't blow his top and argue the call. Maybe he didn't want to look like a sore loser. This is actually a good point: although I think the "fair" thing to do would be to replay the kick, the fact is that the Giants blew it big time. They let the 49ers erase a 24-point deficit, they got into fights all over the field (the 49ers may have taunted, but it was the Giants who started fights), and they couldn't even snap the d@mn ball -- twice they blew the snap. So, $crew it. Cancel the plane and the re-kick. They deserved to lose. The refs enacted a mercy killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 You know what? Then that's on Fassell. He has to go to the ref and say "#69 was elligable. That's interference and should be offsetting penalties." Instead he just nodded his head and let the game end. That said, shame on the refs anyway. I hate it when a bad call decides the outcome of a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 not to mention after the kick off, the Giants could of gotten a 15 yarder again which they didn't. That would or really hurt them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.