MNF: Packers at Seahawks [Merge]

[stat2883]

That's my point all they can really do is say yeah sorry we blew it we will try to do better the next time.

I thought you were implying that they wouldn't do it to the regular refs either. My bad. Maybe my reading comprehension is broken this morning.

[Gavin]

It may have never been done before, but are we or they interested in whats never been done before or getting the call right? They need to right this wrong, acknowledging a wrong but not fixing that wrong is pointless because your just gonna wrong again (and those refs obviously will)

[colt_fan]

There's no doubt in my mind that Jenning's intercepted that ball, and that the Packers should have won. I'll be very interested by how the NFL addresses this and if they take accountability for the bad call, or if they will try to make some type of excuse saying that Tate had simultaneous possession when most of us agree he didn't.

[GoColts8818]

It may have never been done before, but are we or they interested in whats never been done before or getting the call right? They need to right this wrong, acknowledging a wrong but not fixing that wrong is pointless because your just gonna wrong again (and those refs obviously will)

Even when they are wrong you can't start over turning games at the league office it under cuts all the officials authority and opens the door for any team that loses with what they think was a bad call to put pressure on the league and say over turn this game like you did for the packers. You just can't go down that road.

[Gavin]

Even when they are wrong you can't start over turning games at the league office it under cuts all the officials authority and opens the door for any team that loses with what they think was a bad call to put pressure on the league and say over turn this game like you did for the packers. You just can't go down that road.

you sure can if you want the call right this is on Goodell he needs to right this and who cares if it under cuts the officials authority if there egos are so sensitive about that then they should not be refs to begin with, they got the call wrong it should be corrected, its a black eye under Goodells watch (another one) whats more important, correcting some refs that wont be around the league forever or aknowledging the wrong that was done both to the Packers organization as well as there fans and to the integrity of the game and correcting it?

[Yehoodi]

It's ok. We must have looked at different videos.

perhaps we are looking at different videos, but as the nfl rules go, i have not seen a video which shows that Jennings has clear and undisputed independant possession of the ball . . . i just see two guys lying on the gound fighting for the ball . . . it may not be a just ruling surely, but the refs can only adjudicate as the rules provide . . .

[CrazyCaliColtFan]

After thinking about this like everyone else.... its amazing to me the outcome of this game. It certainly will be talked about for a long time. I think there is no coincidence with the new " review scoring plays" and the lock out. That being said I bet you anything these temp ref's have been told to let anything close be called a TD... except they missed the fact that last plays like this are not subject to review and it failed them. There is that and the fact one was looking to the other for a call and when one moved their hands the other put their up !!

Its appalling to me and it is degrading the game. I love football like no other sport. I just wish the fans and players could refuse to watch/play until this was rectified. Until then , the NFL doesn't care. In fact they probably love this drama even more because it sells!

Everyone who goes to a game should start a chant " BRING BACK THE REF'S , BRING BACK THE REF'S BRING BACK THE REF'S" '

[GoColts8818]

you sure can if you want the call right this is on Goodell he needs to right this and who cares if it under cuts the officials authority if there egos are so sensitive about that then they should not be refs to begin with, they got the call wrong it should be corrected, its a black eye under Goodells watch (another one) whats more important, correcting some refs that wont be around the league forever or aknowledging the wrong that was done both to the Packers organization as well as there fans and to the integrity of the game and correcting it?

No you can't because then anytime there is a bad call teams are going to look to the league office and say over turn it. It won't even have to be the last play of the game to do so it can be any missed call during a game that a team feels cost them. Example a few years ago we played the jags in 2008 they got a pick six in the 2nd or 3rd quarter that was product of a clear missed pi call because Mathis pulled Marvin out of the way to get the ball. We lost on a last second kick. So if the league overturns last nights game and say what i just said happens again in two weeks you would have the colts in the league office the next week going we lost on a bad call over turn our game too! You can't open the door to that that will do way more long term damage to integrity of the game than last night will. On top of that there is no process that lets teams get games over turned so in order for that to happen you are asking the league to make a drastic rule change in the middle of the season many would say that hurts the integrity of the game as well.

[Gavin]

No you can't because then anytime there is a bad call teams are going to look to the league office and say over turn it. It won't even have to be the last play of the game to do so it can be any missed call during a game that a team feels cost them. Example a few years ago we played the jags in 2008 they got a pick six in the 2nd or 3rd quarter that was product of a clear missed pi call because Mathis pulled Marvin out of the way to get the ball. We lost on a last second kick. So if the league overturns last nights game and say what i just said happens again in two weeks you would have the colts in the league office the next week going we lost on a bad call over turn our game too! You can't open the door to that that will do way more long term damage to integrity of the game than last night will. On top of that there is no process that lets teams get games over turned so in order for that to happen you are asking the league to make a drastic rule change in the middle of the season many would say that hurts the integrity of the game as well.

Then thats what the league should do overturn wrong calls no matter if its in the middle of a season or not

[hawkeyes]

It may have never been done before...

Officiating in nearly every sport is subjective including football - the ref made a call & its a call that involves something that can not be reviewed! Time to move on ...

[GoColts8818]

Then thats what the league should do overturn wrong calls no matter if its in the middle of a season or not

No way on earth that happens if you think the officials get treated poorly now wait and see what happens if teams think the league doesn't have confidence in them and will start over turning calls on a dime. Also you don't think the Seahawks won't go crazy if they are the first team in the nfl to have a game over turned against them? The first thing they will do is point to thier super bowl and say the official admitted to mistakes in that game over turn that too and scream bias if the league doesnt. You can NOT open this door if you are reall concerned about integrity of the game.

[mvbighead]

Then thats what the league should do overturn wrong calls no matter if its in the middle of a season or not

You're absolutely wrong if you're looking at this from a post game stand point. You cannot overturn a ruling when the game has been finalized. There are just too many things at work and that will simply cause way too many problems.

To me, the answer was best put by someone else who I will basically regurgitate what they said:

The NFL needs to make all calls reviewable. To me, if a coach has a problem with a ruling on the field, and challenges (or within two minutes the challenge is initiated above), they should be able to make the correct judgement on the field, all things considered.

So to me, you have Tate clearly shoving a defender to the ground. And you have questionable possession in the end zone. Most likely scenario is the offensive pass interference gets enforced, and the possession is re-examined. At that point, no TD, replay the down at the worst or interception is the call on the field, based on what they find with possession.

To me, a challenge should be able to take a bad call and turn it into a good call, regardless. None of this you can't challenge X, Y, or Z. You've got 2 (3 if you are right on the first 2) challenges. If a holding penalty is missed that negates the 3 and out your defense just forced, then it should be challenge-able. When you run out of challenges, you're done. And, in this particular case, it would've been an automatic challenge from the booth anyway.

As it is, letting a judgement stand as the call on the field seems ridiculous, as seeing things at full speed can be hit or miss. At least allow them the opportunity to get the call right. If they can have a 3-4 guy pow-wow to talk it out and figure out the proper ruling, they ought to include a 4/5th guy in the booth who has watched the play in slow mo from 5 different angles.

[Vance]

not no correct, the runner who wins the race is the runner who was first seen by the officials to have crossed the finish line . . .the fact that someone else might of actually finished first but outside the sight of the officials my have actually won the race, but we go by who is the first seen by the refs to be leading the race at the end . . .

it is no different than the Pierre Woods example in my prior post #296 . . ."the fact" that pierre woods had possession of the ball prior to the giants turning him over and stealing the ball doesn't change the end result of the refs seeing the gman with the ball . . . the mistake was made by ref Carey by not calling it pats ball when woods fell on the ball . . .

nor is this any different than a scrum after a fumble . . . surely about 15% of the time someone, in reality, has possession of the ball first, but possession is not given until the refs have visual evidence who has possession which, in that 15% of time may have changed has several times from the intial recoverer, but that does not matter, it is who has possession of the ball once the refs have their first visual evidence, which 15% is not the initial recoverer . . . .might not be fiar but it is how it works . . . this is the reason why players fight for the ball and don't want to get off the scrum until the refs make a call and all know it is undecided until the ref see the ball . ..so all will still fight for it . . .

So in that 15% of the time I can not say to you the following "player one falls on the ball first and gains possession and then a scrum ensures, who has possession"? . . . in realily, like the first runner to cross the finsih line in your example, is the first person who has possession, but how football is administered, it is who is first seen by the refs to have possession . . . just or not . . .

You're just completely missing the point.

Simultaneous means at the SAME TIME. Jennings had the ball first. Tate did not gain what looked like possession until they were both on the ground.

It does NOT matter that they were both in the air, didn't hit the ground, whatever, Jennings had possession FIRST - and by rule - it is HIS ball.

[Yehoodi]

You're just completely missing the point.

Simultaneous means at the SAME TIME. Jennings had the ball first. Tate did not gain what looked like possession until they were both on the ground.

It does NOT matter that they were both in the air, didn't hit the ground, whatever, Jennings had possession FIRST - and by rule - it is HIS ball.

sorry but you missed the point, one does not have possession until you get your feet down . . . its possession 101 and contrary to your thinking or wishes holding on to the ball in the air is not possession . . . plain and simple . . . i won't even get into you have to control the ball when going to the ground to be credited with possession . . . .

there are simply too many people today on forum boards and the telly that think possession is achieved merely by grabbing a ball in mid air . . . it is the moment possession is first achieved by Jennings that we look to see if it is sole or joint . . . and if we can see it, and if we can't see it (i.e the ball) then we look to the earliest point in which it becomes clear its joint or sole (which gets into the whole point of the ref can't do anything until he gets over to and stands over the ball and then and only then does he see the ball for the first time post possession (i.e the moment which both players hit the ground)) . . .

and btw, it is called simultaneous possession, which can not be deemed to have occured until there is a possession . . . just saying . .. and as such what happens in the air ( prepossession) does not count . ..

[trsean]

You're just completely missing the point.

Simultaneous means at the SAME TIME. Jennings had the ball first. Tate did not gain what looked like possession until they were both on the ground.

It does NOT matter that they were both in the air, didn't hit the ground, whatever, Jennings had possession FIRST - and by rule - it is HIS ball.

It absolutely matters that they were both in the air - what league have you been watching? Just because a receiver catches the ball in the air, it is never officially a catch. ESPECIALLY in the endzone. Why don't you ask Calvin Johnson when does it become an official catch in the end zone.

He did not have sole possession once on the ground. Tie goes to runner. What happens in the air - before it's actually a catch - is inconsequential.

But whatever. I'll echo Mooch's words when the refs screwed the Giants in the 2003 game and flat out admitted they were wrong and apologized to the Giants......"Bummer."

[FireJimCaldwell]

NFL Statement on the Immaculate Interception

NFL STATEMENT ON FINAL PLAY

OF GREEN BAY PACKERS-SEATTLE SEAHAWKS GAME

In Monday’s game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks, Seattle faced a 4th-and-10 from the Green Bay 24 with eight seconds remaining in the game.

Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. 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.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

The result of the game is final.

Applicable rules to the play are as follows:

A player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch listed here.

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

© 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.).

When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

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.

[Gavin]

In other words blown call and the NFL backs it up

[Stephen]

nfl blew the call and backs it up *

[trsean]

Pass interference occurs in every hail marry. Never called.

Simul possession was the right call.

[House]

So they WERE allowed to review possession of the ball on a simultaneous catch in the endzone, and still blew the call?

Fail.

[Blackhawk4]

To any who thought it was TLDR I can sum it up to you. NFL pretty much said to everyone "____ yo couch."

I guess they get some credit for going all in on the denial....

[-JJ-]

wow. thanks to Yehoiodi and trsean for the enlightment and reminder control doesn't happen in the air:)

Looks like the NFL statement is correct. Blown PI (dems the breaks with no replay) and simul possesion "on the ground"

[-JJ-]

So they WERE allowed to review possession of the ball on a simultaneous catch in the endzone, and still blew the call?

Fail.

No thats just the rules. One is reviewable, the other not.

[Yehoodi]

NFL Statement on the Immaculate Interception

NFL STATEMENT ON FINAL PLAY

OF GREEN BAY PACKERS-SEATTLE SEAHAWKS GAME

In Monday’s game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks, Seattle faced a 4th-and-10 from the Green Bay 24 with eight seconds remaining in the game.

Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. 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.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

The result of the game is final.

Applicable rules to the play are as follows:

A player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch listed here.

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

© 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.).

When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

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.

Bingo! . . . glad the NFL stuck to its guns and its rules . . . I give 1000 props to the NFL for not backing down and following the rules of the game as enacted, and not listen to the masses to just satisfy the complainers . . . I just find it extremely sad that all of media and so called experts simply do not, or refuse to acknowledge, the rules of the rules of the NFL . . . all the bufoonery on the television last night just amaze me, nobody knew the rules, just sad. . . it kind of funny that all of people criticized the refs when it was the refs that had it correct per the rules and they had it wrong . . . well haters are going to be haters and sometimes don't want to follow the rules and report them as such . . .

yes it is sad that it was not a pick . . . but seeing that you could not see the sole possession prior to the ref getting over to the two players, you have to go with what they saw, which is joint possession, and hence goes to the offense, TD, play dead, game over . . .

we just got to face it is an offense league, tie goes to the offense and the burden is on the defender to show sole possession after possession has been obtain . . . if we can't see that and we see joint possession the first moment the ball is observed, then is farily easy call . . . might not be just in some peoples mind, but nor is a players that has possession of the ball under the scrum is down by contact but has the ball stolen by an opponent and they are credited with the recovery . . . sometimes sports, when administered by the rules might not seem fair . . .

thanks for posting FJC . . .

[hawkeyes]

So they WERE allowed to review possession of the ball on a simultaneous catch in the endzone, and still blew the call?

Fail.

No they were not able to review that!

[hawkeyes]

It absolutely matters that they were both in the air - what league have you been watching? Just because a receiver catches the ball in the air, it is never officially a catch. ESPECIALLY in the endzone. Why don't you ask Calvin Johnson when does it become an official catch in the end zone.

He did not have sole possession once on the ground. Tie goes to runner. What happens in the air - before it's actually a catch - is inconsequential.

100% correct !!!! Amazing the masses want to ignore that important point and pile on the bandwagon against replacements!

Jennings had the ball but both his feet were in the air - Tate had one arm / hand in there, when the players touched the ground they both had hands on the ball - that equats to simultaneous possession! The mistake here was the two refs who each made a different call - the back judge made his move AFTER the side judge started to rule TD which as it turns out was the correct call!

[Vance]

sorry but you missed the point, one does not have possession until you get your feet down . . . its possession 101 and contrary to your thinking or wishes holding on to the ball in the air is not possession . . . plain and simple . . . i won't even get into you have to control the ball when going to the ground to be credited with possession . . . .

there are simply too many people today on forum boards and the telly that think possession is achieved merely by grabbing a ball in mid air . . . it is the moment possession is first achieved by Jennings that we look to see if it is sole or joint . . . and if we can see it, and if we can't see it (i.e the ball) then we look to the earliest point in which it becomes clear its joint or sole (which gets into the whole point of the ref can't do anything until he gets over to and stands over the ball and then and only then does he see the ball for the first time post possession (i.e the moment which both players hit the ground)) . . .

and btw, it is called simultaneous possession, which can not be deemed to have occured until there is a possession . . . just saying . .. and as such what happens in the air ( prepossession) does not count . ..

It's actually called a simultaneous catch. Read the rules.

What you are saying is that if a guy jumps in the air to catch a ball, another guy can jump in the air and as long as he looks like he has some sort of possession before the first guy touches the ground, it's a simultaneous catch, even if the first guy CLEARLY caught it before the other.

Which I guess we will see that happen a lot now.

And another thing, how do we even know what the original ruling on the field was? One said interception while the other said TD...LOL

[House]

No thats just the rules. One is reviewable, the other not.

Not sure what your saying here. But I'll explain my post further.

Just listened to the breakdown on the radio paragraph by paragraph of the NFL statements, and they established that A) a simultaneous catch in the open field is not reviewable for possession B) a simultaneous catch in the endzone is reviewable for who has possession.

So I'm of the opinion Jennings intercepted the ball ( we can agree to disagree but it's plain as day as far as I'm concerned) so if all that is the case in the NFL's eyes, they blew it. Twice.

[House]

No they were not able to review that!

The NFL's official statement disagrees with you.

It says in the statement the reviewing official was able to review possession because of simultaneous possession in the endzone.

[Vance]

omg...

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;

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

So we're not even talking about possession...or even a catch...just CONTROL...and in this case...Jennings had clear CONTROL of the ball over Tate...interception.

Unless you want to call "CONTROL", "CATCH", and "POSSESSION" all the same friggin' thing

[-JJ-]

omg...

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;

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

So we're not even talking about possession...or even a catch...just CONTROL...and in this case...Jennings had clear CONTROL of the ball over Tate...interception.

Unless you want to call "CONTROL", "CATCH", and "POSSESSION" all the same friggin' thing

You cited a) but not b) which is the second part.

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

© 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.).

[Vance]

You cited a) but not b) which is the second part.

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

© 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.).

I didn't have to. I was only trying to make my point about what the word "control" means. You can gain control and then lose control. Jennings had control first, and never lost it.

Sorry, I'm going off of what my eyes tell me, the rules, John Gruden, Steve Young, Herm Edwards, ESPN's rule official, and many others say about it.

The NFL HAS to back up the refs because if they don't it's a complete breakdown of the system. I've already pointed out why the rules don't really explain that TD call.

Edit. I'm done talking about it. Agree to disagree.

[trsean]

I didn't have to. I was only trying to make my point about what the word "control" means. You can gain control and then lose control. Jennings had control first, and never lost it.

Sorry, I'm going off of what my eyes tell me, the rules, John Gruden, Steve Young, Herm Edwards, ESPN's rule official, and many others say about it.

The NFL HAS to back up the refs because if they don't it's a complete breakdown of the system. I've already pointed out why the rules don't really explain that TD call.

Edit. I'm done talking about it. Agree to disagree.

A lot of people dug in their stance when Calvin Johnson got a touchdown overturned and were convinced it was wrong, too.

It wasn't.

The outcry this time will yield the same result. None.

[Yehoodi]

It's actually called a simultaneous catch. Read the rules.

What you are saying is that if a guy jumps in the air to catch a ball, another guy can jump in the air and as long as he looks like he has some sort of possession before the first guy touches the ground, it's a simultaneous catch, even if the first guy CLEARLY caught it before the other.

Which I guess we will see that happen a lot now.

And another thing, how do we even know what the original ruling on the field was? One said interception while the other said TD...LOL

I know the rules, but thanks for asding . . .

catch and possession are the same thing . . . you cant have a catch unless you have possession, but when you have possession you have catch . . . i am not going to worry about names over substance . . . I was responding to your point in which you thought it was possession (and thus a catch that can not be taken away by another player) once Jennings grabbed the ball in the air, which it is not the case . . .

you need possession to have a catch . . . and that did not occured until both are on the ground . . . now if you want to call it the "moment of the catch" or the "moment of possession", it does not matter to me, as there are interchangable . . . . I was using the word "possession" simply becuase that is the word commonly used wen you all watch football games, . .. when announcers are rying to determine if the players caught they use the word does he have possession of the ball . . . or say '"oes he maintain possession of the ball" if you loose/dont have possession its not a catch . . .

but regardless of what name one uses, nothing can be ruled upon until the ref see the ball when heis over he the players . . .

as for the two refs getting two different signals, it happens, they just conferenced and ruled with the TD ref . . .

as for WR getting the ball after the DB has touched it first, it has already happened a lot, and i mentioned in an earlier post, 331, where i made a point that if this was Larry Fitz stealing the ball from a noname CB on MNF in the second qtr, the Mike T would be praising his game saying something like . . .

"and Fitz steals the ball and prevents the INT, what a smart play by Larry Fitzgerald"

and and then coach Gruden would say. . .

"this guy Larry Fitz is a monster, he wont back down from anybody and has a nose for the ball and wont quit, and even takes an INT out of a DB's hands man what a play by Fitz"

funny how an agenda can get in the way, last night they were all going after the refs like a crime had happened . . .

[southwest1]

Looked like a pick to me too.

Still wow.....

Refs are almost as entertaining as the game itself

OMG. Speechless.

All I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tomorrow will be a heyday, Packers clearly won that

Thats an interception by the Pack and a Pack win.

Disgusting.

What I do know is that I have become fast disillusioned and I have no interest in watching any more scab-ball.

Okay, the NFL looks arrogant, incompetent, and bloodthirsty greedy now. I thought I was gonna erupt like a volcano on Sunday night when the Ravens clearly missed the FG and now 2 zebras in the same endzone fail to sort of their vantage points and rule the play a Packers interception, game over...The Cheese Heads win.

Professionalism Vs Incompetence which ideal will ultimately win? The first statement that popped into my head "The chickens have come home to roost"by civil rights leader Malcolm X. No, I'm referring to President JFK's assassination in 1963, just the NFL's acceptance of poor officiating to save a few million dollars in revenue that the owners wouldn't even feel at all. It's about the money and which entity the owners or the zebras get to keep the largest pile of it.

1 last point: The referees are to be silent and not heard. Keep the game accurate, honest, and flowing smoothly. They are a cog in the machine of football officiating not a spectacle as a result of a situation too big for them to handle and comprehend effectively. I blame the owners for this not the replacement zebras

[Vance]

I know the rules, but thanks for asding . . .

catch and possession are the same thing . . . you cant have a catch unless you have possession, but when you have possession you have catch . . . i am not going to worry about names over substance . . . I was responding to your point in which you thought it was possession (and thus a catch that can not be taken away by another player) once Jennings grabbed the ball in the air, which it is not the case . . .

you need possession to have a catch . . . and that did not occured until both are on the ground . . . now if you want to call it the "moment of the catch" or the "moment of possession", it does not matter to me, as there are interchangable . . . . I was using the word "possession" simply becuase that is the word commonly used wen you all watch football games, . .. when announcers are rying to determine if the players caught they use the word does he have possession of the ball . . . or say '"oes he maintain possession of the ball" if you loose/dont have possession its not a catch . . .

but regardless of what name one uses, nothing can be ruled upon until the ref see the ball when heis over he the players . . .

as for the two refs getting two different signals, it happens, they just conferenced and ruled with the TD ref . . .

as for WR getting the ball after the DB has touched it first, it has already happened a lot, and i mentioned in an earlier post, 331, where i made a point that if this was Larry Fitz stealing the ball from a noname CB on MNF in the second qtr, the Mike T would be praising his game saying something like . . .

"and Fitz steals the ball and prevents the INT, what a smart play by Larry Fitzgerald"

and and then coach Gruden would say. . .

"this guy Larry Fitz is a monster, he wont back down from anybody and has a nose for the ball and wont quit, and even takes an INT out of a DB's hands man what a play by Fitz"

funny how an agenda can get in the way, last night they were all going after the refs like a crime had happened . . .

Agree to disagree

[stat2883]

nuts Basically what the NFL backed was the replay official's assessment that there was inconclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. So we're right back where we started - who thinks Tate had possession and who didn't. Regardless of what the rules state, there just ins't enough video evidence to definitively say one way or the other. My gut still says Tate never really had possession, but I can't point to anything between the ball's arrival and them both landing on the ground that would support it beyond all doubt.

[stat2883]

A lot of people dug in their stance when Calvin Johnson got a touchdown overturned and were convinced it was wrong, too.

It wasn't.

The outcry this time will yield the same result. None.

according to the letter of the law, Calvin's TD was no good. People's "common sense" interpretation ruled otherwise. But yes, letter for letter that was the right call....just like the tuck rule. The problem here though is that the idea of possession is still subjective because no one really saw it for sure. Even though the rules define possession, no one got a good enough look at it, even the two refs standing right there.

[GoColts8818]

according to the letter of the law, Calvin's TD was no good. People's "common sense" interpretation ruled otherwise. But yes, letter for letter that was the right call....just like the tuck rule. The problem here though is that the idea of possession is still subjective because no one really saw it for sure. Even though the rules define possession, no one got a good enough look at it, even the two refs standing right there.

That's why I said from the start I would have gone with the call on the field whichever way it was. I think you can make a case for the refs calling it either way when seeing it LIVE. Like I said watching it live I thought it was a catch. I can easily see how the regular refs making the same calls the replacement refs made yesterday.

[House]

Former NFL referee, 26 years as an official, 3 time Super Bowl referee, Gerry Austin said call was wrong. He said the requirements of simultaneous catch were never met on the play, and it was clear Jennings had possession of the ball.

I'm going to go with him on this lol.