Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Were the refs right on the Greenbay Seattle Catch?.. Please Clarify

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by MaekloTau View Post
    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)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Joe Morrison View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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)...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by yoeddy View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            c'mon man since when does catching an arm count as possession? INTERCEPTION.
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #21
              **** the packers. They have been the NFL faves for years now....
              "Measure Twice......Cut Once"
              You couldn't be more full of **** if you were break dancing in a Port-a-Potty.......Kruunch

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by EddieBlue View Post
                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...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by yoeddy View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by yoeddy View Post
                    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".
                    Last edited by OX1; 09-26-2012, 12:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GameTime View Post
                      **** the packers. They have been the NFL faves for years now....

                      and TRUE THAT as well

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by EddieBlue View Post
                        "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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by yoeddy View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            CLASSIC
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by EddieBlue View Post
                              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...!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by EddieBlue View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X