Talk:Fail Mary

They following paragraph should be deleted: Cold Hard Facts writer Scott Kacsmar also supported the touchdown ruling, stating "Golden Tate had the first control of the ball, catching it with his left hand, which never loses control of the ball throughout the entire process of the play. His two feet hit the ground to establish possession before M.D. Jennings establishes possession. Tate’s butt hits the ground, and at this point, he still has control, possession and is in the end zone for a good touchdown. Tate pushed off for an uncalled offensive pass interference that would have ended the game, but this is irrelevant when history shows no referee in football will make such a call on a Hail Mary. Seattle’s win is legit."

This quote implies that if two people catch the ball with their feet in the air, then the person who reaches the ground first gains possession. The full version of Kacsmar's article does make a logical and correct conclusion under the rules if you make one key assumption: that Tate had "control" of the ball first. Kacsmar believes, that touching the ball with one hand establishes control in the same way making a one handed catch does. Very few people agree with that assumption. Also it is unclear who touches the ball first (I think it went Jenning's fingertips, Tate's left palm, both of Jenning's hands), but it shouldn't matter who touches the ball first it is who controls the ball first.

I wouldn't mind including Kacsmar's minority interpretation of the play, so long as it either didn't imply an incorrect interpretation of the rules or was accompanied by a correct statement of the rules. Most importantly, there needs to be clarification that who touches the ground first has no effect on who had control first. And only whoever had control first could establish possession. Kacsmar believes Tate had control first (fine, that's his opinion), but if Jennings had control first (what the majority believes) and Tate touched the ground first then Tate touching the ground would have no effect on possession and Jennings touching the ground second would establish possession.

Kacsmar's quote would not be as misleading if it only said "Golden Tate had the first control of the ball, catching it with his left hand, which never loses control of the ball throughout the entire process of the play ... for a good touchdown. Tate pushed off for an uncalled offensive pass interference that would have ended the game, but this is irrelevant when history shows no referee in football will make such a call on a Hail Mary. Seattle’s win is legit." However his discussion of touching the ground first implies a rule that does not exist.^[1]

I have tried to add clarifying details or alternatively deleter this paragraph, but my changes have been reverted without any explanation.69.122.44.23 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The CHFF article is a legitimate source (the most comprehensive analysis of the play I've seen, in fact) and the opinion should be included. To delete it would violate WP:BALANCE and WP:NOTCENSORED. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 22:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally pretty "meh" about the CHFF article, as it's not a major media outlet and the quoted analysis is pretty long for a minority viewpoint. And while it is "comprehensive," that in no way means it's legit as a source - a blog by any Joe Schmo could write a long analysis too. But I've never tried to remove it because there is legitimacy to the balance argument. That said, the PFT analysis this IP has been attempting to add appears entirely legitimate and worth including. I've been meaning to re-add it myself, but #1, I'm lazy, and #2, I've been mulling over the idea of putting the CHFF and PFT info into a separate "Analysis" section, where the info would make more sense and better streamline the "Controversy" section, IMO.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added an "Analysis" section, citing both CHFF and PFT.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved some more info into that section. I don't know about anyone else, but I really think this arrangement works well.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Including this quote as is presents an unbalanced presentation of the "touching the ground" issue. I suggest citing the article without quoting it. The point of the article cannot be understood correctly by this quote. Also, to ensure balance the Mike Forio and/or the NFL Casebook should be cited.69.122.44.23 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The community deciding against moving this article to Fail Mary last year because of NPOV concerns. However, since that time, Fail Mary has become the vernacular name for this play and is regularly used by neutral and reliable sources such as ESPN, NFL.com, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and NBC. The Wikipedia navigation boxes for both the Packers and Seahawks use the term "Fail Mary" to link to this article. I think it's time to reconsider whether the name Fail Mary still violates NPOV. BostonPatriot (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

While renaming the article to "Fail Mary" might actually mesh with our WP:COMMONNAME policy (who really refers to the incident as the "2012 Packers-Seahawks officiating controversy"?), I'm not sure I'd agree with the change, because you could argue the controversy surrounding the play, rather than the play itself, is what's in fact notable... if that makes sense. That said, if "Fail Mary" has become the default way of referring to the play in the media, then the nickname should be mentioned in bold in the lead.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)