|
On September 27 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 01:00 andrewlt wrote:
There is no way the replacements are making the same amount of mistakes as the regular officials. People are bringing up examples of the regular refs fucking up all the way to the 90s. If the replacements are making as many egregious mistakes in 3 weeks than regular officials did in more than a millennium, something's up. Normal refs make mistakes that make us holler from time to time. But they are far fewer. The normal refs have control of the game. Just watching it on TV you can notice the different play from players because of the replacements--they are far more aggressive. The normal refs also get a lot more of the complicated and mundane calls correct. There are a lot of rules in football that most of us don't know simply because they are rarely relevant. The replacement referees keep messing them up (as would I), yet the normal refs almost always get those right.
Another thing to note is the how long these games drag off to nowadays because of these new refs. Especially MNF. People who have work early morning Tuesday or classes can't be watching a game start from 8PM run all the way to 12:30. Takes forever for these guys to throw the flag, then agree on the penalty (if they do decided to explain what the call is). And the reviews. Ugh.
|
On September 26 2012 17:09 Jerubaal wrote:
The booth reviewer wasn't a "replacement" was he? I don't think I could have eyeballed that play.
Regardless, it inevitably morphs from "that was a questionable call" to "all these refs are terrible.
It's a union so they'd all be replacements.
But remember, simultaneous possession isn't a reviewable thing. And the reviewing ref actually made correct calls all around.
|
On September 27 2012 00:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 22:55 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Except read the novel above your post, Klive. It's NOT A FUCKING INTERCEPTION, BECAUSE JENNINGS DIDN'T POSSESS THE BALL IN THE AIR. Your opinion, based on an incomplete, misunderstanding of the rules of football doesn't make the officials wrong. Nay, it makes you wrong, and uninformed. The rules are out there, and you can find them through Google if you search right. I took those right off of NFL.com, and to the letter of the rules, the catch was correctly awarded to Golden Tate.
It's a crazy technicality, I'll give you that, and without actually seeing the rules, I can understand why people are confused. But this is very clear cut that the refs are correct. Simultaneous possession has always been a call that is only used during 50/50 catches where it is impossible to tell who has "more" control of the ball. It is obvious when you watch Tate's "catch" that Jennings has more control over it than he does. Even during Tate's most control over it, Jennings was able to rip it away from him when Tate tried to make it look like he had possession (on the ground, when Tate tries to keep it). Based on the way NFL referee's have implemented this rule over the past 20 years, it's 100% an interception. Once again: + Show Spoiler +It is clear that Tate does not have the ball seconds before he hit the ground. Remember the Calvin Johnson "catch" and the whole "process" bit we just went through last year? Two feet on the ground while he's touching the ball is NOT a touchdown. They have to be 50/50 throughout the play. Is there a point where it was 50/50? Yes. But that's not the requirement. It must be that way for the whole process. And it clearly wasn't during the play. On the ground there are several pictures from different angles showing that Tate only had an arm, while Jennings has both hands with the ball pressed tightly against his chest. This is not 50/50, and Jennings has more possession than Tate. That makes it not simultaneous possession.
I posted the rules, and you ignore them. Why do I bother? Also, pay close attention to the picture you posted. Notice the position of Jennings left leg. It's in midair. He has not established possession yet. By the time his second foot hits the ground, Tate has the ball in both hands, with both feet on the ground. Therefore, Tate officially gains control of the ball first. Not to mention that you don't need two hands to constitute possession. Here are the rules again, since you ignored them the first time.
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
It doesn't say anything about two hands. It says hands, but we all know that two hands are not actually required, or one handed catches wouldn't count, would they?
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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.
Notice how it says absolutely nothing about equal share of control. Again, there is no way to quantify portion of control of the ball. It's simply not possible. The NFL has moved to make the rules more objective over the past several years, and while that may have been the case in the past, it most certainly is not any longer, if for no other reason than portion of control is entirely subjective (also why ALL facemask calls are 15 yards now). Possession is all or nothing.
On September 27 2012 01:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 17:09 Jerubaal wrote:
The booth reviewer wasn't a "replacement" was he? I don't think I could have eyeballed that play.
Regardless, it inevitably morphs from "that was a questionable call" to "all these refs are terrible. It's a union so they'd all be replacements. But remember, simultaneous possession isn't a reviewable thing. And the reviewing ref actually made correct calls all around.
Also incorrect. There is a guy with a headset on the field (and they've said this a dozen times over the last three weeks) that communicates with an official upstairs in the stadium. There is a portion of officials that are, for whatever reason, not locked out. Whether or not the guy that the man with the headset communicates with is the same as the one who reviews in the booth is not known to me, but it very well could be.
Simultaneous possession IS reviewable in the end zone.
The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
See, what I'm posting are actual, factual rules that the NFL has written, and you're muddying up the thread with nonsense opinions based on your incorrect understanding of the rules. Here is the NFL's stand on this. I have copied and pasted the rules from this statement from the NFL (so they are accurate).
|
On September 27 2012 01:20 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Notice how it says absolutely nothing about equal share of control. Again, there is no way to quantify portion of control of the ball. It's simply not possible. The NFL has moved to make the rules more objective over the past several years, and while that may have been the case in the past, it most certainly is not any longer, if for no other reason than portion of control is entirely subjective (also why ALL facemask calls are 15 yards now). Possession is all or nothing.
Which is why I said you have to look to precedent. NFL refs have always called simultaneous possession when it is 50/50 throughout the catch. Anytime someone has more possession of it, it is their catch. And it is a process. Remember the Calvin Johnson touchdown? There are several points where it is clear that Jennings has more of it than Tate, and never a point where Tate has more of it than Jennings. That article that tries to explain it away is wrong. The play isn't dead until the process of the catch is finished. That didn't occur until they were on the ground when Jennings had it against his chest and Tate had the one arm on it.
It was the wrong call, no matter how you try to explain it away.
|
The real refs are back yay!
|
On September 27 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 01:20 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Notice how it says absolutely nothing about equal share of control. Again, there is no way to quantify portion of control of the ball. It's simply not possible. The NFL has moved to make the rules more objective over the past several years, and while that may have been the case in the past, it most certainly is not any longer, if for no other reason than portion of control is entirely subjective (also why ALL facemask calls are 15 yards now). Possession is all or nothing. Which is why I said you have to look to precedent. NFL refs have always called simultaneous possession when it is 50/50 throughout the catch. Anytime someone has more possession of it, it is their catch. And it is a process. Remember the Calvin Johnson touchdown? There are several points where it is clear that Jennings has more of it than Tate, and never a point where Tate has more of it than Jennings. That article that tries to explain it away is wrong. The play isn't dead until the process of the catch is finished. That didn't occur until they were on the ground when Jennings had it against his chest and Tate had the one arm on it. It was the wrong call, no matter how you try to explain it away.
Except that looking at precedent bases this on rules that no longer apply. If possession is all or nothing (which it is now, regardless of what it may have been in the past), then they both have possession. They are attempting to make the game as objective as possible. In doing so, it makes this the correct call, no matter how you try to discredit the explanation. The rule is quite clear, and does not state anything about equal or unequal possession.
If previous referees were using equal vs unequal possession since this exact rule was put into place, then we should be upset with the previous referees for inserting doubt and subjectiveness into the game. The exact purpose of the rules is to remove subjective opinion from the game, and make everything as black and white as possible. That's why this rule is written the way it's written, that's why the force out rule was eliminated, that's why all hits below a QB's knees are roughing calls, all facemasks are 15 yards, etc, etc. Precedent simply does not apply, because the rules have changed over the past couple of years to eliminate subjectiveness from officiating.
These are the exact reasons that the Calvin Johnson TD "drop" that DK posted was ruled incomplete. It's quite clear that Johnson had control throughout the play, but the officials are expected to call plays to the letter of the law, not to how what the "feel" happened on the field. It may have been called a TD five years ago, but it cannot be now. This play may have been called an INT five years ago, but it cannot be called as such now.
|
On September 27 2012 01:37 Mattchew wrote:
The real refs are back yay!
Not quite, but they made a significant step forward. They agreed to not hire on 21 additional refs, and instead to have a developmental program put in place.
Source
|
On September 27 2012 01:39 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 27 2012 01:20 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Notice how it says absolutely nothing about equal share of control. Again, there is no way to quantify portion of control of the ball. It's simply not possible. The NFL has moved to make the rules more objective over the past several years, and while that may have been the case in the past, it most certainly is not any longer, if for no other reason than portion of control is entirely subjective (also why ALL facemask calls are 15 yards now). Possession is all or nothing. Which is why I said you have to look to precedent. NFL refs have always called simultaneous possession when it is 50/50 throughout the catch. Anytime someone has more possession of it, it is their catch. And it is a process. Remember the Calvin Johnson touchdown? There are several points where it is clear that Jennings has more of it than Tate, and never a point where Tate has more of it than Jennings. That article that tries to explain it away is wrong. The play isn't dead until the process of the catch is finished. That didn't occur until they were on the ground when Jennings had it against his chest and Tate had the one arm on it. It was the wrong call, no matter how you try to explain it away. Except that looking at precedent bases this on rules that no longer apply. If possession is all or nothing (which it is now, regardless of what it may have been in the past), then they both have possession. They are attempting to make the game as objective as possible. In doing so, it makes this the correct call, no matter how you try to discredit the explanation. The rule is quite clear, and does not state anything about equal or unequal possession. If previous referees were using equal vs unequal possession since this exact rule was put into place, then we should be upset with the previous referees for inserting doubt and subjectiveness into the game. The exact purpose of the rules is to remove subjective opinion from the game, and make everything as black and white as possible. That's why this rule is written the way it's written, that's why the force out rule was eliminated, that's why all hits below a QB's knees are roughing calls, all facemasks are 15 yards, etc, etc. Precedent simply does not apply, because the rules have changed over the past couple of years to eliminate subjectiveness from officiating. These are the exact reasons that the Calvin Johnson TD "drop" that DK posted was ruled incomplete. It's quite clear that Johnson had control throughout the play, but the officials are expected to call plays to the letter of the law, not to how what the "feel" happened on the field. It may have been called a TD five years ago, but it cannot be now. This play may have been called an INT five years ago, but it cannot be called as such now.
I'll just requote your rule:
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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.
It's not all or nothing. Who has "more" control is completely relevant to interpreting and enacting the rule itself. There are points where Tate clearly doesn't have control as required by NFL rules to be a legitimate catch. There is an 'and' in their definition. You must meet all of those to have a catch or control. Tate was not.
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Therefore, when Tate lost control of the ball, he gave up his claim on possession and Jennings had control. The fact Tate got an arm in after is irrelevant because the second Tate gave up his position, Jennings became a prior catcher and simultaneous catch doesn't apply.
|
Bill Belichick getting fined 50k for his grab on the ref lol.
|
I saw someone suggest that Bill Belichick should pay the fine in pesos and call it "replacement money".
|
On September 26 2012 20:46 Damiani wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 18:55 Supamang wrote:On September 26 2012 16:59 Damiani wrote:On September 26 2012 16:24 Supamang wrote:Can someone explain the rules to me about possession and this ending controversial call? I conceded last night that the refs probably made the wrong call and talked to my friends about that, but they brought up other points and now I'm not so sure again. 1. Possession. Do you need 2 hands for possession? Does it need to be brought into your chest for it to count as possession? Do you have to be touching the ground and does the order in which people touch the ground matter in this case? 2. Contested pass. Does it have to be 50/50 or is it just as long as it isn't 100/0 that it counts as contested? Edit: oh and my boss showed me this link too http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/09/25/golden-tate-catch-frame-by-frame-look-and-the-nfl-rule-book/ The rule is. If two players simultaneously catches a ball with possession. Then the ball goes to the offensive team. In other words if some how two players jumps up for a ball and both players arm is wrapped up around the ball then the offensive team gets the td. But in this case it was clearly shown that the defensive player had both arms wrapped around the ball and the offensive player just happen to have one arm stuck in there. The NFL admit that it was a td but they can't overturn a referee judgement. Do you need two hands for possession? In this situation you do as it would be clearer to know who had possession. I mean if both players only had one arm each on the football then i'd understand a td call. Does it need to be on your chest? No it doesn't. It could be in any form of a catch. As far as possession is concern. Do you have to be touching the ground? Yes your foot needs to touch the end zone. If a player catches a ball in the end zone in mid flight and a defensive player hits him hard knocking the ball loose before landing it would be considered an incomplete pass.Order of catch? No doesn't matter who catches it first. If an offensive player catches the ball in mid flight first and a defensive player jumps up and sticks his hands in his clutch of catching the ball then whoever comes down with the ball and maintain possession gets the ball. But if in that case where they both have possession then the catch goes to the offensive player. But that rule doesn't apply in this situation because the defensive player had true possession of the ball. The offensive player had one arm stuck in there and the other arm wrapped around the defensive player arms not football. Thanks for the explanation. Just one more thing for clarification though, with the bolded text. You said that to have possession, you need your feet on the ground. You need 2 feet right? ![[image loading]](http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Screen-Shot-2012-09-25-at-12.56.26-PM.png) Doesn't Tate touch the ground with his arms around the ball first? Even if not, watch the video full time again. What would your call be after watching that once? I dont know either. Ok, so the guy called a TD on the field. Lets watch the slow motion replay. Is there clear evidence to overturn the ruling on the field? Refer to my questions above. Disclaimer here: Again, the PI Tate did against Shields should have ended the play hands down. My point here is that I find it ridiculous how people think its completely clear cut this catch was when it really wasn't. Like the guy above me says, it was a questionable call but people are blowing this out of proportion. And people really are using this as a reason to dislike the Seahawks and their fans, despite the exchange I had here earlier in this thread. People getting mad at Pete Carroll for doing what any coach would do and not saying anything to take away from the efforts made from his team. People getting mad at Wilson for the same thing. People mad at Tate for doing the same thing, and for doing what any player would do and continue fighting for the ball until he hears the call from the ref. And then you get people saying shit like: On September 25 2012 13:03 semantics wrote:
real refs would have penalized seahawks defense out of their dirty playing week 1, seahawk games turn dirty because their defense takes all chances it can get with these bad refs. But then again that's my opinion, man these tears are so delicious right... On September 25 2012 17:37 Probe1 wrote:
Dude I don't care for NFL at all. I watch it because it is technically football but ridiculous shit like this and the whole laundry list.. I prefer to just watch honest college football.
Seahawk fans are coming across as sleezy and dishonorable. They should be a little ashamed. No one is trying to take away your win because you didn't win. Everyone lost. Yeah, I'm sleezy and dishonorable by offering an opposing viewpoint as objectively as I can. I conceded yesterday that the call was probably wrong, but because I want to support my team I want to be absolutely sure about this. And I should be ashamed about this? Yeah I'll try being ashamed about this as soon as Steelers fans all beg for forgiveness and give our Lombardi trophy back from 2006. Back off dude. A catch made in the end zone requires two feet down and control of the ball on or past the goal line to be a touchdown
I've watched the replay many times and from every angle Tate never had total possession of the football. Remember the referee did not call it a touchdown instantly. They ran over looked at the players then looked at each other and one of them called a touchdown while the other guy called an interception. And the worse part was when they looked down it clearly should Jenning with possession of the football. I love the Seahawks. I'm a NFC west fan. Huge 49ers fan. I thought the Seahawks played an awesome defensive game. I even told all my buddies to watch out for the Seahawks and that they're a top 5 team in the NFC. But the one thing that pissed me off the most was the russel wilson and golden tate post game interview. They should of been smart and avoided answering those questions. A true veteran QB + WR would of admit that it was wrong and that they should of moved on. But these two are rookies to the league and they want the attention and spotlight. Can't blame them tho. Ask yourself this before you agree on the call. Say the NFL or ESPN never released that "rules on the simultaneous catch". Would you of seriously thought that was a TD? Because they released that rule people (especially seahawks) start to tell themself or give reasons as to why it was a TD.
Youre right, Tate never had possession of the ball, but I'm still not seeing definitive evidence/proof that Jennings did either. Tate came down with both feet in the end zone before Jennings did and had both hands on the ball by the time he did. To me this could easily suggest joint possession.
I'm not really sure what I would have thought if no one released the rules on simultaneous catches. All I know is that when I saw the catch I thought Tate had it when his back hit the ground, and then it was wrestled to the chest of Jennings, then it was wrestled back to Tate by the time the refs pulled people off. I also know that the announcers on ESPN were all saying it was a TD for Seattle, then not sure about it, and then all of a sudden theyre all saying "I was 10 feet away and I could see it was a pick". For being completely unsure 20 seconds ago, suddenly they're saying it was a clear cut call? Then they bring out the rule books and the old guys. Its still unclear and yet everyone around the world is saying that it was very clearly a terrible call.
My point again is that even if the proper call was that it was an interception, this call shouldnt have been any more controversial than many other calls made by real refs. It's only because it was a game deciding pass, and much more importantly people were looking for any reason to put more pressure on the NFL to bring the real refs back. Lets be honest too, Green Bay is among the most popular team in the NFL while Seahawks get maybe 1 play in the highlights reel on SC if theyre lucky. People wouldnt care nearly as much if it was against Seattle (see Super Bowl XL).
|
I'm almost expecting the announcement today that the regular refs will return on Sunday. Handful of tweets by owners leading me to believe it. As well as the regular refs already working on the preparation for their return. Fingers crossed, just sucks for the Ravens and Browns if its true lol.
|
On September 27 2012 01:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 01:39 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On September 27 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 27 2012 01:20 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Notice how it says absolutely nothing about equal share of control. Again, there is no way to quantify portion of control of the ball. It's simply not possible. The NFL has moved to make the rules more objective over the past several years, and while that may have been the case in the past, it most certainly is not any longer, if for no other reason than portion of control is entirely subjective (also why ALL facemask calls are 15 yards now). Possession is all or nothing. Which is why I said you have to look to precedent. NFL refs have always called simultaneous possession when it is 50/50 throughout the catch. Anytime someone has more possession of it, it is their catch. And it is a process. Remember the Calvin Johnson touchdown? There are several points where it is clear that Jennings has more of it than Tate, and never a point where Tate has more of it than Jennings. That article that tries to explain it away is wrong. The play isn't dead until the process of the catch is finished. That didn't occur until they were on the ground when Jennings had it against his chest and Tate had the one arm on it. It was the wrong call, no matter how you try to explain it away. Except that looking at precedent bases this on rules that no longer apply. If possession is all or nothing (which it is now, regardless of what it may have been in the past), then they both have possession. They are attempting to make the game as objective as possible. In doing so, it makes this the correct call, no matter how you try to discredit the explanation. The rule is quite clear, and does not state anything about equal or unequal possession. If previous referees were using equal vs unequal possession since this exact rule was put into place, then we should be upset with the previous referees for inserting doubt and subjectiveness into the game. The exact purpose of the rules is to remove subjective opinion from the game, and make everything as black and white as possible. That's why this rule is written the way it's written, that's why the force out rule was eliminated, that's why all hits below a QB's knees are roughing calls, all facemasks are 15 yards, etc, etc. Precedent simply does not apply, because the rules have changed over the past couple of years to eliminate subjectiveness from officiating. These are the exact reasons that the Calvin Johnson TD "drop" that DK posted was ruled incomplete. It's quite clear that Johnson had control throughout the play, but the officials are expected to call plays to the letter of the law, not to how what the "feel" happened on the field. It may have been called a TD five years ago, but it cannot be now. This play may have been called an INT five years ago, but it cannot be called as such now. I'll just requote your rule: Show nested quote +Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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. It's not all or nothing. Who has "more" control is completely relevant to interpreting and enacting the rule itself. There are points where Tate clearly doesn't have control as required by NFL rules to be a legitimate catch. There is an 'and' in their definition. You must meet all of those to have a catch or control. Tate was not. Show nested quote +A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). Therefore, when Tate lost control of the ball, he gave up his claim on possession and Jennings had control. The fact Tate got an arm in after is irrelevant because the second Tate gave up his position, Jennings became a prior catcher and simultaneous catch doesn't apply.
Could Jennings have pitched it, passed it or advanced with it either? Didn't Tate hit the ground first and have 2 hands on the ball by the time he hit the ground? Didn't the ball collapse into Tate as his back hit the ground and didn't Jennings immediately start wrestling it away?
These are things that I see when looking at the slo mo replays and images. Watch the replay of the catch at full speed. Do you think its plausible that a ref could have thought it a TD for Tate? Then watch it again in slow motion. Is there clear and definitive evidence to overturn that ruling on the field?
|
On September 26 2012 22:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:By the time Jennings reaches the ground, which is a requirement of possession, Tate has both hands firmly on the ball. This is clearly shown by the absolute fact that Jennings could not wrestle the ball out of Tate's hands.
![[image loading]](http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/506146606bb3f78055000021-960/golden-tate-controversial-catch.jpg)
What???????
No.
Tate had no possession of that ball.
And yes, the normal refs would not have called that a TD. Hell, they would probably have called an offensive PI on the play. I don't think all the commentators, NFL coaches and players, and fans across the country are seeing the old refs through "rose-colored glasses". This was a plainly awful call. Jennings had much better possession of that ball.
Let's examine this sentence you wrote again:
This is clearly shown by the absolute fact that Jennings could not wrestle the ball out of Tate's hands.
Tate had his hands wrapped mostly around Jennings arm. The fact that Jennings wasn't able to remove himself and the ball (which is very firmly wrapped into his jersey numbers) from Tate's hands means absolutely nothing. When they landed, Jennings had ball control, not Tate. This absolute fact is made clear via photographic documentation. By the logic of this sentence you wrote, anytime a receiver can weave his arms into the defender's arms after they land, after being intercepted, he'll just void the interception and turn it into a reception. Not being able to "wrestle" the ball away on the ground means nothing. Because this isn't wrestling.
|
On September 27 2012 04:40 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 01:53 BluePanther wrote:On September 27 2012 01:39 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On September 27 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 27 2012 01:20 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Notice how it says absolutely nothing about equal share of control. Again, there is no way to quantify portion of control of the ball. It's simply not possible. The NFL has moved to make the rules more objective over the past several years, and while that may have been the case in the past, it most certainly is not any longer, if for no other reason than portion of control is entirely subjective (also why ALL facemask calls are 15 yards now). Possession is all or nothing. Which is why I said you have to look to precedent. NFL refs have always called simultaneous possession when it is 50/50 throughout the catch. Anytime someone has more possession of it, it is their catch. And it is a process. Remember the Calvin Johnson touchdown? There are several points where it is clear that Jennings has more of it than Tate, and never a point where Tate has more of it than Jennings. That article that tries to explain it away is wrong. The play isn't dead until the process of the catch is finished. That didn't occur until they were on the ground when Jennings had it against his chest and Tate had the one arm on it. It was the wrong call, no matter how you try to explain it away. Except that looking at precedent bases this on rules that no longer apply. If possession is all or nothing (which it is now, regardless of what it may have been in the past), then they both have possession. They are attempting to make the game as objective as possible. In doing so, it makes this the correct call, no matter how you try to discredit the explanation. The rule is quite clear, and does not state anything about equal or unequal possession. If previous referees were using equal vs unequal possession since this exact rule was put into place, then we should be upset with the previous referees for inserting doubt and subjectiveness into the game. The exact purpose of the rules is to remove subjective opinion from the game, and make everything as black and white as possible. That's why this rule is written the way it's written, that's why the force out rule was eliminated, that's why all hits below a QB's knees are roughing calls, all facemasks are 15 yards, etc, etc. Precedent simply does not apply, because the rules have changed over the past couple of years to eliminate subjectiveness from officiating. These are the exact reasons that the Calvin Johnson TD "drop" that DK posted was ruled incomplete. It's quite clear that Johnson had control throughout the play, but the officials are expected to call plays to the letter of the law, not to how what the "feel" happened on the field. It may have been called a TD five years ago, but it cannot be now. This play may have been called an INT five years ago, but it cannot be called as such now. I'll just requote your rule: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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. It's not all or nothing. Who has "more" control is completely relevant to interpreting and enacting the rule itself. There are points where Tate clearly doesn't have control as required by NFL rules to be a legitimate catch. There is an 'and' in their definition. You must meet all of those to have a catch or control. Tate was not. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). Therefore, when Tate lost control of the ball, he gave up his claim on possession and Jennings had control. The fact Tate got an arm in after is irrelevant because the second Tate gave up his position, Jennings became a prior catcher and simultaneous catch doesn't apply. Could Jennings have pitched it, passed it or advanced with it either? Didn't Tate hit the ground first and have 2 hands on the ball by the time he hit the ground? Didn't the ball collapse into Tate as his back hit the ground and didn't Jennings immediately start wrestling it away? These are things that I see when looking at the slo mo replays and images. Watch the replay of the catch at full speed. Do you think its plausible that a ref could have thought it a TD for Tate? Then watch it again in slow motion. Is there clear and definitive evidence to overturn that ruling on the field?
I've watched the replay numerous times and don't see where Tate had full possession of the ball. Having his hand on the ball doesn't mean he has a good grip on it. The ball was against Jennings' body, under Jennings' control. Without Jennings's control, the ball would surely plop out and go out of bounds.
What makes the situation more aggravating is that the ref with a better view of the action was giving the signal for touchback. That ref was the back judge, and he has experience in both arena league and division 1, including one of the four major BCS Bowls. The side judge, who only has high school and juco experience, overruled him and ruled it a touchdown. That was the same side judge who missed Tate's offensive PI. I've seen some articles claim that a touchdown ruling in this instance overrules an interception ruling.
This same Wayne Elliott-led crew also messed up week 2's Redskins-Rams game. With 2 officials making different rulings, they should have huddled and had a long discussion before issuing a final ruling on the field.
|
Nearly every impartial informed commentator agrees it was an interception.
Sweetlemons this is for you:
simultaneous [ˌsɪməlˈteɪnɪəs (US) ˌsaɪməlˈteɪnɪəs]
adj: occurring, existing, or operating at the same time; concurrent
![[image loading]](http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2012/09/25/2019258874.jpg)
|
On September 27 2012 05:20 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 22:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:By the time Jennings reaches the ground, which is a requirement of possession, Tate has both hands firmly on the ball. This is clearly shown by the absolute fact that Jennings could not wrestle the ball out of Tate's hands. What??????? No. Tate had no possession of that ball. And yes, the normal refs would not have called that a TD. Hell, they would probably have called an offensive PI on the play. I don't think all the commentators, NFL coaches and players, and fans across the country are seeing the old refs through "rose-colored glasses". This was a plainly awful call. Jennings had much better possession of that ball. Let's examine this sentence you wrote again: Show nested quote +This is clearly shown by the absolute fact that Jennings could not wrestle the ball out of Tate's hands. Tate had his hands wrapped mostly around Jennings arm. The fact that Jennings wasn't able to remove himself and the ball (which is very firmly wrapped into his jersey numbers) from Tate's hands means absolutely nothing. When they landed, Jennings had ball control, not Tate. This absolute fact is made clear via photographic documentation. By the logic of this sentence you wrote, anytime a receiver can weave his arms into the defender's arms after they land, after being intercepted, he'll just void the interception and turn it into a reception. Not being able to "wrestle" the ball away on the ground means nothing. Because this isn't wrestling.
You realize the screenshot has them both still in mid air and possession is determined when either both feet are down or another part of their body touches first? Tate can still wrestle the ball out of his hands during this process. Just because Jennings may have had it first doesn't mean he came down with it.
|
On September 27 2012 06:24 Dknight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 05:20 Leporello wrote:On September 26 2012 22:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:By the time Jennings reaches the ground, which is a requirement of possession, Tate has both hands firmly on the ball. This is clearly shown by the absolute fact that Jennings could not wrestle the ball out of Tate's hands. What??????? No. Tate had no possession of that ball. And yes, the normal refs would not have called that a TD. Hell, they would probably have called an offensive PI on the play. I don't think all the commentators, NFL coaches and players, and fans across the country are seeing the old refs through "rose-colored glasses". This was a plainly awful call. Jennings had much better possession of that ball. Let's examine this sentence you wrote again: This is clearly shown by the absolute fact that Jennings could not wrestle the ball out of Tate's hands. Tate had his hands wrapped mostly around Jennings arm. The fact that Jennings wasn't able to remove himself and the ball (which is very firmly wrapped into his jersey numbers) from Tate's hands means absolutely nothing. When they landed, Jennings had ball control, not Tate. This absolute fact is made clear via photographic documentation. By the logic of this sentence you wrote, anytime a receiver can weave his arms into the defender's arms after they land, after being intercepted, he'll just void the interception and turn it into a reception. Not being able to "wrestle" the ball away on the ground means nothing. Because this isn't wrestling. You realize the screenshot has them both still in mid air and possession is determined when either both feet are down or another part of their body touches first? Tate can still wrestle the ball out of his hands during this process. Just because Jennings may have had it first doesn't mean he came down with it.
Not true. This is an official case study that goes alongside the rules.
A.R. 8.29: First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground.
Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.
That's black in white in my view. That case study is exactly what happened. Jennings clearly gets higher and gets the ball before Tate.
|
Honestly it was a call that could have gone either way. Since everyone wants the replacement refs out, its being played out to be huge. Every receiver considers that a catch, unless they play for the Packers. Every person who has played or coached defenses fault Jennings for not knocking it down. For every omg interception pick, you get pictures that show even more contention of the play being closer than it looks.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
As well more focus should be placed on the blown pi call, but as its been stated numerous times, its a ffa in the endzone on those plays.
Edit- Beanie Wells placed on IR, pick up Ryan Williams for all your fantasy needs!
|
I have to say there's just so much drivel being thrown around it makes me think that people just want to talk to hear their own voice. I don't want to hear jeremiads from people about how a labor dispute is actually a reflection solely of Roger Goodell's contempt for the working man. This is not some cosmic conspiracy to affront your intelligence. I also give 0 authority to any player who thinks that they have any idea what the fuck they are talking about. It doesn't matter how horrible or wonderful you think the NFL or the owners are, the players have a limited perspective, especially when they're constantly shooting out of both sides of their mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b469/ten_fiver/20120924_221621.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K4i5W.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/662257264.png?key=1023575&Expires=1348696292&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=Y-nyUj5EyYuEKQCcbBEw11SU-00onweLAeoYLXFmpUrJIlE9I4peQCW4cIdkd4TMiOsEzjKLLQI4285chAukCJxsU4dlR3jF3mccWT~opS1Rb8I469Ja~P9ut~aklx8JcLhmoQfps4DFh9vn5A1QhiTpeP-zsMMRfTIZxxBX8i4_)
