Questionable calls all game long

I’m at the game and the fireworks have gone off and the Seahawks have walked away from the stadium winners. Now the second-guessing of the final play begins. Was it an interception or was it a winning touchdown? It’s hard to say, since in some aspects it looks like a case of simultaneous possession. Green Bay fans look at it as the referees snatched their hard-fought victory from them with a bad call. However, all that can be said is the call at the end of the game was the culmination of a poorly officiated game. What if the two questionable penalties which gave Green Bay first downs and continued their touchdown drive when it was third and long had not been called? Would Green Bay have punted and there would not have been the last play to dispute. Who knows?

What is known that this game was played on the NFL’s biggest stage with its biggest audience and that the officiating definitely was below the standards that everyone would expect. It had a very negative impact on the flow of the game and the outcome. It affected both teams equally and to say it cost the Packers a victory is disingenuous. This game really highlighted the impact of the dispute with the referees and the use of replacements. Hopefully the black eye that the NFL has received will lead to an end of the dispute. The regular referees know how to call the game. They know the rules and keep the game moving smoothly. It is said that a penalty could be called on almost any play, but, the regulars have experience to call the ones that impact the play and the outcome and let the frivolous infractions slide. It is that experience that was lacking in Monday’s game.

I’m sorry for the Green Bay Packer fans, but I believe that the Seahawks earned the victory. The focus of any argument should not be on the one questionable call on the last play of the game, but, on all of the questionable and dubious calls during the game.

Mark Baker

Lake Stevens

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, Nov. 21

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau logo is seen through a window at the CFPB offices in Washington on Sept. 23, 2019. Employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were instructed to cease “all supervision and examination activity” and “all stakeholder engagement,” effectively stopping the agency’s operations, in an email from the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, on Saturday, Feb. 8, 2025. (Ting Shen/The New York Times)
Editorial: Keep medical debt off credit score reporting

The federal CFPB is challenging a state law that bars medical debt from credit bureaus’ consideration.

Schwab: Release the files? Sure; Trump has nothing to hide.

The man’s an open book. And scandals that would destroy others’ political lives are a MAGA selling point.

Few seem to understand property taxes, Port of Everett included

Regarding the Nov. 13 front-page article about the Port of Everett’s 2026… Continue reading

Protect access and conservation of our public lands

I am one of millions of Americans who love our nation’s public… Continue reading

Won’t somone explain tariffs to Trump?

To borrow from the caption for The Herald Editorial Board’s Nov. 15… Continue reading

No Kings rally: Kids say darndest things

At Snohomish’s very large and very peaceful No Kings rally there was… Continue reading

A model of a statue of Billy Frank Jr., the Nisqually tribal fishing rights activist, is on display in the lobby of the lieutenant governor's office in the state Capitol. (Jon Bauer / The Herald.
Editorial: Recognizing state history’s conflicts and common ground

State officials seek consensus in siting statues of an Indian rights activist and a missionary.

FILE — President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick display a chart detailing tariffs, at the White House in Washington, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.(Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Public opinion on Trump’s tariffs may matter most

The state’s trade interests need more than a Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff power.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Nov. 20

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Trump’s $2,000 tariff rebates are a shell game

Most Americans have already paid $1,800 in price increases from the tariffs. It’s another distraction.

Comment: If Trump cares about affordability, he must show it

It will take more than reducing tariffs on a few items; he must show he understands consumers’ pain.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.