PDA

View Full Version : Were the refs right on the Greenbay Seattle Catch?.. Please Clarify



MaekloTau
09-25-2012, 06:31 PM
Aside from the blatant OPI, I still don’t see how this is such an obvious interception according to the rule of the simultaneous catch. From what I see, they both touched the ball at virtually the exact same moment. Tate’s hand was behind Jennings’s, so if Jennings’s hand is 5 inches long, and the ball was travelling approximately 60 mph, it would have taken the ball about one half of a one hundredth of a second for the both players to be touching the ball. That being said, the ball does not stop moving forward until Tate is touching it, as you can see in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpV5xIJax4s This video shows nice HD slowed motion pictures.

From this point we can attempt to determine who has “more of the ball” and whose body the ball is closer to as many people do, but none of these factors are requirements for controlling the ball. The only requirement for control is to have the ball in at least one hand without it wiggling, which both Tate and Jennings have from essentially the apex of their jumps all the way to the ground. Although Tate’s right hand is not always in contact with the ball, his left palm is. Doesn't a one-handed palm-catch away from the body count for just as much of a catch as 2-handed grasping clutch near the body?

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am simply trying to educate myself and others.

Giants5699
09-25-2012, 06:37 PM
They missed the PI, but it was a simultaneous catch. I say it is a fair call and could have gone either way. If simultaneous catch would be a reviewable thing, the call also would have stood as called on the field because I saw no evidence that said otherwise.

NYFG
09-25-2012, 06:45 PM
They missed the PI, but it was a simultaneous catch. I say it is a fair call and could have gone either way. If simultaneous catch would be a reviewable thing, the call also would have stood as called on the field because I saw no evidence that said otherwise.

It was not a simultaneous catch. Tate never had possession of the ball. AND, Simultaneous catches are reviewable in the endzone, but not on the field of play

MaekloTau
09-25-2012, 06:49 PM
It was not a simultaneous catch. Tate never had possession of the ball. AND, Simultaneous catches are reviewable in the endzone, but not on the field of playAlthough Jennings clearly had possession of the ball in 2 hands, wasn't Tate holding the ball in his left palm all the way to the ground as well? Does this not constitute a simultaneous catch?

NYFG
09-25-2012, 06:53 PM
Although Jennings clearly had possession of the ball in 2 hands, wasn't Tate holding the ball in his left palm all the way to the ground as well? Does this not constitute a simultaneous catch?

Jennings had possession of the ball before Tate got his arm under the ball; Tate got his arm under the ball after Jennings (and the ball) were on the ground. Merely touching the ball does not mean possession.

BParcells777
09-25-2012, 07:15 PM
Who cares?..........you would need a high speed camera 5 ft from the play to get definitive info (clue- there was none)........its all conjecture and media hysteria

bigblue58
09-25-2012, 07:17 PM
Unfortunately, this is going to be the norm this entire year guys, so get used to it!
The owners are filthy rich, greedy and they don't give a damn about the job the replacement refs are doing!
The Refs won't concede any of their demands and the owners will never give them what they want.....so get used to it if u can hold your nose that long, because these replacements will be around to ruin the post season ,once they're done destroying the regular season.

Ntegrase96
09-25-2012, 07:28 PM
I wish refs would stop hiding behind technicalities when the answer is obvious. And this isn't just limited to replacement refs-- this goes for the pros, too.

Yes, sometimes there needs to be a technical breakdown of what constitutes a catch is it's truthfully uncertain.

But this interception was clearly not simultaneous possession and it's painfully obvious.

It's the same situation with Calvin Johnson's TD to end the Lions--Bears game two years ago.

Eliscruzzz
09-25-2012, 07:37 PM
I think they were definitely wrong but the media and fans are taking it to far... I mean everyone knows that they are still going to watch. I know GB has every right to be mad , but does anyone else think that they are just coming off as babies now I mean you still got a dangerous team coming into your house time to let it go, nothing can be done.... the NFL made their statement.

Giants5699
09-25-2012, 07:45 PM
This is only a big deal because it happened to the almighty Aaron Rodgers. If it had happened against the Seahawks, the media would say "ah human error... it happens."

Eliscruzzz
09-25-2012, 07:52 PM
This is only a big deal because it happened to the almighty Aaron Rodgers. If it had happened against the Seahawks, the media would say "ah human error... it happens."Yeah I wonder what would happen if it happened the other way around....good point.

BParcells777
09-25-2012, 08:20 PM
I enjoyed the game.....could care less who won. It was fun to watch.

My father once told me when I was a kid- don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.......The Seahawks had a piece of the ball too
What constitutes a simultaneous catch? The Sub ref stomping has to stop......its soooooooooooooo booooooooooring........how quickly how we forget how
biased and bad the "real Refs" were.........I like the loungerie guys........they dont call a gazillion holding calls off the ball

It almost makes you want to hear about Joe Paterno 24 hours a day for 5 months again

Joe Morrison
09-26-2012, 01:42 AM
I guess so, NFL reviewed and made it final.

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 09:42 AM
They missed the PI, but it was a simultaneous catch. I say it is a fair call and could have gone either way. If simultaneous catch would be a reviewable thing, the call also would have stood as called on the field because I saw no evidence that said otherwise.


SORRY DUDE....YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG ... just curious...what kind of coke bottle were you watching the game through?

MaekloTau
09-26-2012, 09:58 AM
SORRY DUDE....YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG ... just curious...what kind of coke bottle were you watching the game through? We are trying to discuss this like civilized people, please express your viewpoint in football terms without insulting.

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 11:16 AM
We are trying to discuss this like civilized people, please express your viewpoint in football terms without insulting.


That was civilized. Simple question. Sorry if its humor came off as insulting. Its just BEYOND ridiculous to say that was simultaneous possession. (ACCORDING TO VIDEO EVIDENCE AND THE DEFINITION OF THAT TERM ACCORDING TO THE NFL)

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 11:19 AM
I guess so, NFL reviewed and made it final.

the NFL has to cover their *****es because this season is in jeopardy of losing credibility. If they had said tyrees catch in the superbowl was incomplete would that make it so? i think not.

yoeddy
09-26-2012, 12:30 PM
I actually thought that it was reasonable to call it a simultaneous catch. At the point where Tate got both feet on the ground, he had both hands on the ball just as securely as Jennings...when they both finally hit the ground, Jennings twisted to try to wring the ball away from Tate, and if Tate did not have a good grasp on the ball, he would have lost contact with the ball completely at that point. Questionable? Maybe...but if that was the call on the field, the replay did not show enough to overturn it.

That said, they missed the blatant PI on Tate before they all jumped...the real refs probably would have called it an interception simply to make the outcome of the game correct (since the PI was not reviewable)...

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 01:18 PM
I actually thought that it was reasonable to call it a simultaneous catch. At the point where Tate got both feet on the ground, he had both hands on the ball just as securely as Jennings...when they both finally hit the ground, Jennings twisted to try to wring the ball away from Tate, and if Tate did not have a good grasp on the ball, he would have lost contact with the ball completely at that point. Questionable? Maybe...but if that was the call on the field, the replay did not show enough to overturn it.

That said, they missed the blatant PI on Tate before they all jumped...the real refs probably would have called it an interception simply to make the outcome of the game correct (since the PI was not reviewable)...

Rule 8 - Section 3 - Article 1 - Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

WATCH AGAIN. read the rule. that was totally not simultaneous since TAINT had no initial control. case closed.

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 01:25 PM
c'mon man since when does catching an arm count as possession? INTERCEPTION.

GameTime
09-26-2012, 01:59 PM
**** the packers. They have been the NFL faves for years now....

yoeddy
09-26-2012, 02:04 PM
Rule 8 - Section 3 - Article 1 - Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

WATCH AGAIN. read the rule. that was totally not simultaneous since TAINT had no initial control. case closed.

Does the person catching the ball need to get both feet on the ground for it to be ruled a catch or INT? If so, Tate had both hands grasping the ball and both feet on the ground first...

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 02:31 PM
Does the person catching the ball need to get both feet on the ground for it to be ruled a catch or INT? If so, Tate had both hands grasping the ball and both feet on the ground first...


"if a player gains control first"

which if the NFL is saying the catch WAS SIMULTANEOUS means jennings had to have control.

OX1
09-26-2012, 02:39 PM
Does the person catching the ball need to get both feet on the ground for it to be ruled a catch or INT? If so, Tate had both hands grasping the ball and both feet on the ground first...

That is what makes it muddy enough for me. Define "catch" and "control".

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 02:42 PM
**** the packers. They have been the NFL faves for years now....


and TRUE THAT as well

yoeddy
09-26-2012, 03:00 PM
"if a player gains control first"

which if the NFL is saying the catch WAS SIMULTANEOUS means jennings had to have control.

The rule says "If a pass is CAUGHT simultaneously", which to me says that it needs to be ruled a catch...which also says to me that both feet need to be down, and not just when the receiver/defender gets both hands on the ball.

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 03:51 PM
The rule says "If a pass is CAUGHT simultaneously", which to me says that it needs to be ruled a catch...which also says to me that both feet need to be down, and not just when the receiver/defender gets both hands on the ball.

agree to disagree on the interpretation of that rule. Glad we arent the refs...lol.

EddieBlue
09-26-2012, 04:06 PM
CLASSIC

yoeddy
09-26-2012, 05:22 PM
agree to disagree on the interpretation of that rule. Glad we arent the refs...lol.

Apparently the two of us were well represented on that play by the refs...!

MaekloTau
09-26-2012, 11:10 PM
agree to disagree on the interpretation of that rule. Glad we arent the refs...lol.

I think the part of the rule we need to focus on is as follows "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control." By the time the ball stopped moving forward from Wilson's initial throw, both Tate and Jennings had control. Jennings had firm control with 2 hands. Tate had weak control with the fingers of only his left hand. That said, the NFL rule book does not concern itself with degrees of control. Either you have control or you don't. It doesn't matter who has "more control." If a player is holding the football the fingertip of one hand, he HAS control of the football, albeit weak control. Therefore, because control of the football was obtained by both Tate and Jennings at the virtually the exact same time, it is in my opinion, a simultaneous catch. I invite anyone to challenge my viewpoint, and correct me in the place I have gone wrong. Until then I will remain open to the idea it was a simultaneous catch.

MaekloTau
09-26-2012, 11:13 PM
Does the person catching the ball need to get both feet on the ground for it to be ruled a catch or INT? If so, Tate had both hands grasping the ball and both feet on the ground first... Yes but this is not the issue of concern. The only issue of concern is who gained "control" of the football first. The completer act of catching the ball and obtaining control of the ball are two different things. Please see my response to EddieBlue above.

MaekloTau
09-26-2012, 11:22 PM
That is what makes it muddy enough for me. Define "catch" and "control". Catch: the full act of catching the ball meaning from the moment you gain control (see below for definition) to when you get 2 feet in and go to the ground etc. THIS IS NOT AN INSTANTANEOUS MOMENT.

Gaining control IS an instantaneous moment in time. Control is gained the moment you have the ball in your hand or hands without it moving around or wiggling. Control can be gained on a weakly grasped one handed finger catch away from the body just as much as it can on a strong 2-handed near the body. There are no degrees of control. You cannot have "more control" than another player.

I hope this is helpful.

Rodgers12
09-27-2012, 02:26 AM
If the Giants get screwed like this I will laugh my butt off. I can see the Eagles beating you guys sunday night.

P_Simms_#11
09-27-2012, 03:02 AM
If the Giants get screwed like this I will laugh my butt off. I can see the Eagles beating you guys sunday night.

What happened to Mr nice guy Packer fan? Seems like you're showing your true colors now.

Rodgers12
09-27-2012, 03:09 AM
What happened to Mr nice guy Packer fan? Seems like you're showing your true colors now.
I will be doing the Eagles chant loudly sunday night.

ashleymarie
09-27-2012, 03:29 AM
If the Giants get screwed like this I will laugh my butt off. I can see the Eagles beating you guys sunday night.

As always your kindness is just too much.

EddieBlue
09-27-2012, 09:40 AM
If the Giants get screwed like this I will laugh my butt off. I can see the Eagles beating you guys sunday night.


must suck to be you. Arron doublecheck rodgers getting manhandled ...losing first round of the playoffs to us last year...seahawks working yall ....glad you picked the eagles....BET BIG TOO!!

yoeddy
09-27-2012, 12:17 PM
If the Giants get screwed like this I will laugh my butt off. I can see the Eagles beating you guys sunday night.

It's not like this hasn't happened to the Giants before...see Greg Jennings' "touchdown" last December...

BParcells777
09-27-2012, 12:28 PM
If the Giants get screwed like this I will laugh my butt off. I can see the Eagles beating you guys sunday night.

We were screwed like this by the refs in our regular season GB game last year.......photographic evidence clearly showed Ballard's knee was in for a TD.

We are morphing into total powerhouse, so the Eagles are not a huge concern, to be honest. We'll be seeing you guys on 11/25 in the Meadowlands.
I do not think you will be laughing too much afterwards. We'll see.......you guys appear to have severe Oline problems

BParcells777
09-27-2012, 12:30 PM
What happened in the 2011 playoffs.....did you guys "beat yourselves" LOL

Rodgers12
09-27-2012, 05:14 PM
I love seeing Giants fans cry over the refs against us last year. Too bad so sad.

Eliscruzzz
09-27-2012, 06:44 PM
I love seeing Giants fans cry over the refs against us last year. Too bad so sad.It's funny cause I don't remember our players crying as much as the Packers are I think Aaron Rodgers is still crying.... he is such a baby man wawawawa sorry fans this and that he is just as much as a diva as Farve. Maybe he shouldn't have done the six shooters ****y loser they got what was coming to them....but hey you got your little butt buddies back so you'll probably get every call cause of lord Rodgers so you should be happy.

blueomaha
09-27-2012, 08:59 PM
it could have gone either way...IMO, it's not a catch until the receivers ("O" or "D") feet hit the ground....

BParcells777
09-28-2012, 08:34 PM
With Tate's leg blocking the view of his hands we will never know

All of the "Experts" who got the same blocked view we got, and the replay official got are shooting in the dark

The Official with the best view of who had hands on the ball made the call.....why he is so mistrusted is beyond me

It had the effect of ending the strike, and it also paid GB back for the blown calls in our game last Dec 11th........so lets move on

Rusty192
09-29-2012, 02:38 AM
I love seeing Giants fans cry over the refs against us last year. Too bad so sad.cmon Lambeau i thought you were alright.

now you are talking a ton of trash on us and sound pretty bitter. Are you really that obsessed with our team?

Drez
09-29-2012, 02:50 AM
it could have gone either way...IMO, it's not a catch until the receivers ("O" or "D") feet hit the ground....For it to be a simultaneous catch 4 hands must reach the ball at the same time. If one player has possession first, then the second also gains possession before hitting the ground, it is not a simultaneous catch. The team that the player that first came into possession of the ball is given possession.

Drez
09-29-2012, 02:51 AM
cmon Lambeau i thought you were alright.

now you are talking a ton of trash on us and sound pretty bitter. Are you really that obsessed with our team?
No, it's his Friday night Tear in My Beer ritual.

MaekloTau
09-29-2012, 11:18 AM
For it to be a simultaneous catch 4 hands must reach the ball at the same time. If one player has possession first, then the second also gains possession before hitting the ground, it is not a simultaneous catch. The team that the player that first came into possession of the ball is given possession. I agree with this statement except for where you say "4 hands must reach the ball at the same time." Why can it be 3 hands? Are catches solely made with one hand not considered catches?

ShakeandBake
09-30-2012, 08:22 PM
Hahaha refs screw over Green Bay again!