Game Recap: Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers — Week 8 2025

Philadelphia, PA — October 27, 2025 After a game filled with controversy and debate following the Philadelphia Eagles’ Week 8 victory over the New York Giants, the NFL has stepped forward to address the officiating concerns. Senior Vice President of Officiating Walt Anderson officially reviewed the five disputed plays and confirmed that each call made on the field was consistent with league rules. “We reviewed every angle, every frame, and every rule application,” Anderson said. “While some plays were difficult in real time, all five rulings made by the officiating crew were correct under NFL guidelines.” Below is a breakdown of the five controversial moments and how the NFL justified each decision: 1. The “Tush Push” Fumble Ruling The Giants appeared to have stripped the ball from Jalen Hurts during a quarterback sneak, but officials ruled the play dead due to forward progress being stopped. Anderson confirmed the decision was correct. pic.twitter.com/gfzptM1HBb — PEP (@pahrduve) October 26, 2025 “Once a quarterback’s forward progress is halted by defenders, the ball is immediately dead,” he explained. “Even if the ball comes loose afterward, it’s not a fumble. That’s the correct enforcement.” This aligns with Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1 of the NFL rulebook, which states that once forward progress is declared stopped, possession cannot change. 2. The “Tush Push” Sequence and Missed False Start Fans argued that Eagles lineman Tyler Steen moved early during Philadelphia’s second “tush push” attempt, but no penalty was called. Anderson clarified that the motion observed on replay was “legal anticipation”, not a false start: “A player can shift weight without simulating the start of a play. That’s not a foul,” he said. “Officials correctly identified that the movement did not cause the defense to react.” Per Rule 7, Section 4, Article 2, minor pre-snap movement that does not simulate the snap or draw defenders offside is legal. 3. The Offensive Pass Interference on Darius Slayton The Giants lost a potential touchdown when WR Darius Slayton was flagged for offensive pass interference late in the fourth quarter. Many analysts called the penalty “soft,” but Anderson defended the call. Insane: Jaxson Dart just found Darius Slayton for a long touchdown and it's called back because of OPI.The Giants are getting SCREWED by the refs.pic.twitter.com/jpNVABNmzX — Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) October 26, 2025 “Slayton extended his arm and created clear separation — that’s textbook offensive pass interference,” Anderson explained. “It’s the same standard applied across all games.” NFL Rule 8, Section 5, Article 4 prohibits offensive players from initiating contact to gain separation, even if minimal. 4. The Neutral Zone Infraction Against the Giants In a crucial second-quarter play, the Giants were flagged for a neutral zone infraction, giving Philadelphia a free five yards. Fans claimed the Eagles moved first. Neutral zone infraction pic.twitter.com/mxn54JeDFj — Talkin’ Giants (@TalkinGiants) October 26, 2025 Anderson stated that replay confirmed defensive encroachment: “The Giants defender entered the neutral zone before the snap and caused the offense to react — that’s an automatic foul. The call was correct.” According to Rule 7, Section 4, Article 6, any defender entering the neutral zone and causing an offensive lineman to flinch must be penalized. 5. The Missed Holding on the Giants’ Final Drive New York argued that Eagles LB Nakobe Dean held a blocker during a potential touchdown run, but no flag was thrown. Nakobe Dean was held to death and tackled to the ground on that Skattebo TD.. no call. pic.twitter.com/I5N072lbYe — Eagles Nation (@PHLEaglesNation) October 26, 2025 Anderson clarified that contact was “within the legal engagement zone” and that both players maintained balance and hand placement inside the frame: “There was no restriction or jersey pull. That’s legal hand fighting between linemen,” he said. This interpretation follows Rule 12, Section 1, Article 3, defining holding only when a defender materially restricts the opponent’s movement. In closing, Anderson emphasized that while emotions run high in divisional games, the officiating crew handled a difficult matchup correctly and professionally. “It’s our job to ensure the integrity of the game,” Anderson said. “And in this case, the officials got it right on every call.”