Touchdown, interception or pass interference: Packers vs. Seahawks

If anything should get the NFL and the officials talking again, a play like this will do it.  At the end of the game, the refs couldn’t figure out what to call, leading to this amazing picture with one calling for a touchdown and the other calling for a touchback (interception).

Here’s a video of the play. Touchdown for Golden Tate or interception by M.D. Jennings?



  1. My belief is that it was an Interception by Green Bay. Derek Rhone-Dunn the BJ should have been more emphatic as this was his area and not let himself be overruled by the SJ. Another important point is that simultaneous possession is not reviewable so the only way the call could have been overturned on further review is if the pass itself was incomplete (either because the ball hit the turf or when simultaneous possession occurred a player was out of bounds)

  2. It is clearly reviewable, because simultaneous possession is not what is under review. What should be up for review: was there a clear interception in the end zone prior to the wide receiver becoming involved? That can be confirmed.

  3. Is it NOT enough that our country is an EMBARRASSMENT already that now our American National Football League is ALSO AN EMBARRASSMENT? WHAT A TERRIBLE CALL THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PACKERS A PLAYOFF BERTH!!! It doesn’t affect Seattle because that team sucks!!! They won’t make the playoffs!!!!

    • Well, seeing as how they went to the Divisional round in the playoffs, and were 30 seconds away from the NFC Championship, I think that makes it pretty clear that Seattle didn’t suck. Let’s review Super Bowl XL, who got screwed more, Seattle or Green Bay? The Packers are just lucky that didn’t happen to them in the playoffs as it has happened to Seattle TWICE in postseason play.

  4. It seems to me that the ball was against the defender’s chest and the receiver is completely behind the defender. That should give the defender clear position on the ball.

    Even so, I think there’s a bigger issue here than just “did they get the call right”. What about the precedent this sets? Now, any receiver who gets beat to the ball can just wrap his arms around the defender and get his hands on the ball, creating “simultaneous possession”. I can understand “simultaneous” if the players are facing each other, arms interlocked and 4 hands on the ball. But when one player has a clearly established position on the ball, there shouldn’t be any kind of question about possession.

    If the NFL does let this stand, do they update/rewrite the simultaneous possession rule for clarity? Or do they let the precedent be set, and now receivers can look for opportunities to point to this “catch” in the future?

  5. Its a td all the way