+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    retirement home in Dallas (my son married a Texas gal. Woe is me)
    Posts
    1,151
    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.

  3. #3
    Starter
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Giants5699 View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by NYFG View Post
    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
    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?

  5. #5
    Starter
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by MaekloTau View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Giants5699 View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by EddieBlue View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Quote 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)

  9. #9
    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

  10. #10
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts