@gdog3finallyYup, most people see it as a choice. When coaches lose
too many games they lose their jobs. I don't blame them for coaching their
players to make that "choice". Players who don't make that choice
probably will not play much.I do understand the game well enough to
understand that "choice". I face choices every day. I can choose to be
honest or not. You advocate for dishonesty (in my opinion).We will
have to agree to disagree.
I'm with Vai! While I understand the opposition comments, sometimes a guy
(or girl) just has to stand up and take responsibility. Maybe Vai is speaking
philosophically but, it does't mean he's wrong. If more people took
this approach to life, maybe the world would be a slightly better place.
I can't for the life of me see how one could look at that play and assume
that one player (or the other) could be expected to do much of anything other
that assume they had just made a play to win the ballgame. Asking Tate to report
to the official in this particular case, makes about as much sense as Coach
Wooden running out to tell a ref that his point guard travelled and the call was
missed (I saw him coach and don't remember him ever doing anything like
this). There are times for calling ones own foul--but this is not a
good example. There are certain calls and situations that simply must be left to
the refs to decipher. Also--and maybe most importantly, does the author of this
article realize how quick he has been to rush to judgment on Mr. Tate and to put
him in the "doesn't measure up, character wise," category? I
don't know Golden Tate---he's probably a great guy and as good of a
person as many of those who are tearing down his character in this article and
Interesting comments I must say.However, Tate brought the focus on
himself when he lied to the sideline reporter after the game about pushing the
GB defensive back out of the way. Actually that push cleared three GB players
out of the way. Pushes aren't usually called, even with the real pro refs.
But Tate lied about it. He could have, should have, just deflected the
Maradona's goal was in the Azteca stadium in Mexico city while he was
playing for Argentina in the 1986 World Cup.It did NOT happen in the
San Paolo stadium in Naples...it didn't even happen while Maradona was
playing for Napoli."Football" deserves better from American
@The RockOne more addition.Do you consider it cheating
when BYU or any other football team takes a delay of game penalty on purpose to
give more field room for a punt? What about when that penalty is produced
purposefully to back up a short extra point length FG when the hash mark is to
the opposite side of favoring a kicker? Again I respect honest play.
I just don't think you understand the game enough to realize that accepting
punishment for penalty in football for your benefit is not cheating. It's
part of the game in a strategic way. I don't care if it's BYU, a
military school, Notre Dame, or whoever, nobody as an institution or coaching
staff views these examples as being some form of cheating or dishonesty. Nobody
Rock. You guys jumping on Vai's train here are rewriting rules on you own
accord. Vai is extremely intelligent but sometimes gets overly
dogmatic in his inductive opinions to where he finds fault where there is none.
There is no need to always have a villian.
@The RockFollowing the rules? Choosing being penalized over
accepting another outcome is not cheating. It's a choice. Sometimes refs
fail at their job. The players job is not to be coached to run around telling
the refs they made a mistake.There's no moral letter of the law
here. College rules are different regarding pass interference from the NFL.
Arguments go both ways on the better rule. But if PI is a 15 yard penalty, why
give up a TD if you get beat when PI can stop it?Am I reaching you
here? I guess you could argue intentional PI is cheating, it's just most
people don't see it that way, including BYU coaches who will tell their DBs
all of their options in defending the pass (rather a deep ball or down and
distance issue).Anyway, you gave no mention of Tate here. Your take
was about generally being honest in competition. I can respect that. I will say
that Tate did not cheat though. Infact, the league might be embarrassed by their
rule, but the call was the right one even if it doesn't make visual sense.
@BarkforSarkI think you are right. I wasn't sure enough to
mention it directly in my comments above, but I think what you are seeing is the
league saying quickly on Tuesday morning that the call was correct, and then
resolving the ref dispute (making it look like they despised the call). This fiasco could have happened with the regular refs, and the league
would have had to accept it like they did the Brady tuck rule and Calvin Johnson
no TD call. Those two examples clearly were the deciding factor in the outcome
of games as well (one a playoff game).So if the call is right even
if the Packer DB brought the ball into his chest, then Vai looks silly
lambasting Tate for doing his job. @casual observerTate
was not dishonest. Don't you see that? I respect Vai to a considerable
degree, but are you letting him form your opinions? He is not always right.
Despite being a Ute fan, I know more than a few BYU fans that disagree with Vai
from time to time. It's healthy to think and not induce your opinions from
a set conclusion as your base.
Vai you are missing the whole point, when all was said and done the guys in the
booth reviewed the play. What did you want Tate to do, run up to the booth and
tell them they were wrong. No matter what happened on the field the guys in the
booth could have overturned it. Go after them not the refs or players on the
field.Also the guys in the booth are verterian refs not replacements!!!!!
Thanks Via for reminding us that character is more important than the W-L
column, a priority that some don't buy into. When 'Holier then
thou' is used to derogate being honest, we are in worse trouble than just
having substitute officials.
I was raised to follow the rules. I was shocked, while attending BYU, to hear
people say:"Well the receiver had our guy beat. The penalty for
pass interference was far less severe than allowing the guy to make a touchdown
and losing the game."Given the choice of intentionally violating
the rules and preserving a win, vs, following the rules and losing most athletes
break the rules. I'll bet they are even coached to do so. To me that is
cheating. And a victory obtained by cheating is no victory at all.
After reading the comments look's like Wooden's observation is true
for fans too.
@AZRodsTate isn't my boy. All I know is he plays WR for
Seattle, a team I don't follow outside of fantasy nerd stuff. But seriously
AZRods, have you read your comments?The officiating was bad all
night that game (MNF). I recall Seattle holding a 7-6 lead early in the fourth
quarter when on 3rd down the Seahawks defense forced 4th down but a poor pass
interference call was made from the 3rd down, resulting in a first down, and
later a TD on that possession. The Packers took the lead 12-7 (2 point
conversion failed). There is often woulda coulda shoulda stuff. Officiating
calls are part of the game. Some are good and others bad. Just like players who
throw TDs and INTs, sacks and offsides, great coverage and pass interference,
pass protection and holding calls, tackles and facemasks, TDs and fumbles
ect...Players play and refs ref. Let each do their job. When
mistakes are made, let each be accountable for their post. Tate is not an
official. Tate did nothing wrong. He fought for the ball. The league
still hasn't admitted their mistake. What is the rule anyway?
The best part about all this outrage is that the call was actually correct.
There are multiple screen caps that show Tate clearly reaching up with his left
hand and controlling the ball BEFORE Jennings snatches it with both hands. But
at no point from the time Tate originally controlled the ball to both him and
Jennings going to the ground did he lose control. It matters not that Jennings
had both hands on it, or that he had it closer to his chest. All that matters is
Tate never lost control with his left hand, therefore the call was correct. And
if the non-P.I. call is that upsetting, maybe you should take a look at the
completely bogus P.I. that was called on Chancellor to continue GB's lone
scoring drive. That call had the biggest impact on the game up until the final
Nice how many of you can just sorta look the other way, but you conveniently
avoid the blatant interference your man Tate conveniently committed which if
called would have ended the game.But let's not muddy the already
merky waters right?I suppose you can justify that as well by saying boys
will be boys.It's that mentality that cheapens all sports when dirty
or dishonest play occurs and the players and fans justify it all in the name of
winning.Well too bad the poor officiating didn't help Seattle when
they played my Cardinals.Cant' wait to play them again to see how
well they do without the help of poor officiating.Shame on those who
wink and smile and say it was a fair game.It was the worst most of us has
ever seen. And that's saying a lot.Good call Vai
So it also must be Golden Tate's fault that:Aaron Rodgers was
sacked 8 times.Green Bay only scored 12 points. Bad
calls also went against Seattle.No let's just focus on the
final play. Not the lack of offense and lousy play by Green Bay. In addition to
being shut down by Seattle.
Via. Your coming across holier then thou.You've jumped the shark this
Vai - you picked the dumbest example to make that point. And Yes, I'm a
Seattle homer, but this column didn't involve any intellectual thought.
You simply jumped on the national pundit bandwagon and accused Golden Tate and
Seattle of "robbing" Green Bay of a victory in what was a national
"fiasco." You clearly didn't watch the whole game; only the last
play replay shown again and again ad nauseam on every network and sports
channel.Worse, you grant the referee absolution and place all the
blame squarely on Golden Tate--while getting in a little jab at Pete Carroll as
well. Stick to Philly and Utah Sports and quit booing Golden Tate
and Seattle like Philly fans did Santa Clause so many years ago. Trust me,
nobody wants to win the way Seattle did and nobody wants to lose the way Green
Bay did.But instead of grabbing your pitchforks and torches and
going after the true source of the blame--a lingerie league referee and a
commissioner and owners group that put him there--your boogie man is Golden
I love ya Vai but I'm sure some time in your life you bent a rule in your
football career, maybe like holding a blitzing linebacker or pushing off a
defender to get open. It is part of the game. It was up to the NFL to do the
right thing which would have been having the best officials in the game in the
first place and overruling the play and giving the Packers the victory. Instead
they took the easy way out...
Also that public service announcement thing. Corny and not realistic even from a
moral view. Refs make mistakes countless times in a game. One player speaking up
does not correct bad calls. It's part of the game and not a player's
call. It's the refs job and call. It's what they are paid to do. This
isn't high school tennis were players ump their own games. This is big
business and Golden Tate isn't about to threaten is ability to pay for his
families needs because he was supposed to correct the ref on a call he probably
doesn't even understand himself. Calls (good and bad) are part
of the game. Let the refs be accountable for that and not a player (i.e. Tate)
who you are now criticizing Vai.
Come on Vai, Golden Tate was fighting for the ball, and the ref makes a call.
Who's to say Golden Tate knew the who had the right to it, or knew the
rule. In fact, although the league suddenly resolved the first string ref issue,
they still didn't admit the call was wrong. I don't know
the rule here, but sometimes rules need resolving. Think tuck rule (Tom Brady).
Was Brady supposed to say I fumbled? Oakland still won't acknowledge that
call. It saw their demise and rise of the Patriot dynasty. How about
Calvin Johnson's TD two years ago (ruled no TD based on a silly rule by
most of the league's account)? How about Utah vs. BYU a few
weeks back? Was Bronco supposed to say: yeah the call is technically right, but
it didn't effect the outcome, so we won't accept the call on the field
(fan rushing)? We will take the loss and not the re-kick. Seriously Vai? I am a
Ute fan all the way. But Bronco would be wrong not accepting the kick to try and
Well Said, AS John Wooden put it, " Sports don't develop character, it
reveals it." I'm sure he'll learn from it though, I hope.