That was simultaneous?
|No, not even close.:||6 (40.0%)|
|No, but I could see it going either way.:||1 (6.7%)|
|No, but for $75/hr I can fake it.:||6 (40.0%)|
I just don't see it, sorry. As a Seattle fan I want to, I really want to, but I can't. You see the replay, and it was obvious (to me at least) Tate got his hands in there late, and simply just hung on hoping for the best. In the spur of the action though, I can only imagine (pray?) it looked closer than it did on replay. The TV announcers used the word 'simultaneous', for whatever that's worth, and apparently the play isn't reviewable or something?
To bring people who don't know up to speed, the NFL's real referees aren't working these days. They're on strike while they negotiate a new contract with the league. The game is being officiated by replacements, from backwater college leagues and the likes. Common train of thought is that the replacements are in way over their heads, are making poor and questionable calls; this latest one being the worst of the bunch. The hope among fans now is that this forces the league to meet be more flexible with compensation to get the real officials back on the field, as they've been pretty stingy with their terms.
Does this really force the league to negotiate? I'm not optimistic. Millions of dollars are at stake, and football fans are pretty darn loyal. We'll put up with a lot. After all the real refs back terrible calls too. Say hello to Super Bowl XL, and having 14 points taken away from you. This is nothing in comparison. Of course, I'm not bitter or anything...
If it does spur change though, I suppose we can feel lucky this happened in week 3 and not in the playoffs sometime. Which leads to the real question:
Q: What's the different between real refs and replacement refs?
A: Replacement refs make bad calls in our favor.