GB vs SEA

[mhughes0021]

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1210517/refss_medium.gif

tates hand is on the ball first and he never lets it go. Just cause 1 guy has 2 hands on the ball after someone has one hand on the ball doesnt make it more of a catch. You guys are right it wasnt simultaneous...Tate had it first.

 

[zyxt9]

Equally bad? Dude, you're delusional...lol. Sorry.

And the call wasn't right by the way. It was wrong. It was so wrong that the regular referees are back tomorrow for Thursday Night Football. And don't give me that bullshit that it's all pressure on the NFL for that to happen. The regular referees could have gave the big fuck you to Goodell, but they didn't. The NFL needs to have these regular refs back. The integrity of the game was slipping with these other clowns in there. It took something bad to happen in order for these guys to come back.

i think you misunderstood the equally bad reference. they are/were equally bad to both teams without bias. they are/were obviously worse than the regular refs in terms of the on field calls, but both teams had to face that challenge equally, similar to playing in inclement weather.

i completely agree the integrity of the game as a whole had diminished. i think the obviously not improving replacement refs resulting in ever increasing media pressure which tarnishes "the shield" had a ton to do with the NFL racing to get the deal done. this one play was latched onto by the media out of convenience, taking advantage of the uproar to generate higher ratings regardless of whether the call was right or wrong. that is the way of the media, the truth matters less than generating higher ratings. if they go on the air stating the refs made the right call, they don't drive the ratings the way they were able to by trying to side with those claiming the call was horrible.

 

[Mitchrapp]

For it too be a simultaneous catch and one player has two hands on it, the other one needs two hands. If defensive player only had one you'd have a point. Which is why that site you linked is just as horseshit as the call.

 

[beez]

Tate never establishes control..you can't touch the football and claim control.

 

[beez]

Like I said,(well like Herm said) If the players were revered and Jennings was the wr and Tate was the defender this would not even be in question and they probably owuldn't even have reviewed it..if they did review it, it would have been a TD..no doubt.

 

[zyxt9]

For it too be a simultaneous catch and one player has two hands on it, the other one needs two hands. If defensive player only had one you'd have a point. Which is why that site you linked is just as horseshit as the call.

funny how it sure looks like jennings left hand isn't touching the ball, but is instead wrapped around tate's hand, so i argue that he didn't have two hands on it either.

regardless, you are not making your point as a WR is more than capable of establishing control with one hand. it happens all the time. we've already disproved your argument that he has to have two hands to establish control:

1. players make 1 handed grabs all the time, often without having 2nd hand ever touch the ball
2. there is NOTHING in the rules stating that in any situation the player must have 2 hands on the ball. i repeat NOTHING IN THE RULES.

you need to let go of this argument as it is completely moot.

i get it, you hate the replacement refs, but your hatred does not make the TD invalid.

 

[zyxt9]

Tate never establishes control..you can't touch the football and claim control.

he didn't "touch" it...he caught it. if he was simply touching it, i would agree with you, but your claim all he did was touch it is blatantly false as is evidenced in the video. he had both hands on the ball just as much as jennings did, for if you look closely you will see jennings left hand is on tate's left hand as much as it is the football.

your hatred for the replacement refs does not invalidate the TD.

 

[zyxt9]

Like I said,(well like Herm said) If the players were revered and Jennings was the wr and Tate was the defender this would not even be in question and they probably owuldn't even have reviewed it..if they did review it, it would have been a TD..no doubt.

that does not invalidate the fact tate had possession. the rules do not mandate a percentage of possession that must be met in order to be considered a catch. jennings was unable to wrestle the ball away on the ground, so it is quite evident tate had possession enough to prevent jennings - who even had the benefit of leverage - from being able to rip the ball away from tate.

again, your hatred for the replacement refs does not invalidate the TD.

 

[Mitchrapp]

funny how it sure looks like jennings left hand isn't touching the ball, but is instead wrapped around tate's hand, so i argue that he didn't have two hands on it either.

regardless, you are not making your point as a WR is more than capable of establishing control with one hand. it happens all the time. we've already disproved your argument that he has to have two hands to establish control:

1. players make 1 handed grabs all the time, often without having 2nd hand ever touch the ball
2. there is NOTHING in the rules stating that in any situation the player must have 2 hands on the ball. i repeat NOTHING IN THE RULES.

you need to let go of this argument as it is completely moot.

i get it, you hate the replacement refs, but your hatred does not make the TD invalid.

The only way that is a catch is if both had two arms around the ball. Jennings had it like he was trying to protect a baby but Tate didn't. Regardless of your one arm theory it doesn't hold water when the D player had two. That is the rule.

You make it sound like its the same as a WR catch a ball with one hand etc. It isn't.

 

[Mitchrapp]

the rules do not mandate a percentage of possession that must be met in order to be considered a catch.

If he was the only guy that had a hand on it but, when a D player has two arms around the ball and that's obvious, the O player also needs two arms around the ball.

 

[zyxt9]

If he was the only guy that had a hand on it but, when a D player has two arms around the ball and that's obvious, the O player also needs two arms around the ball.

show me the rule. come on, you keep spouting this like it is fact when it is just your opinion and you have nothing to back it up because there is nothing in the rules to back up what you are saying. you can claim whatever you want, but if it isn't in the rules then it doesn't mean jack.

 

[zyxt9]

If he was the only guy that had a hand on it but, when a D player has two arms around the ball and that's obvious, the O player also needs two arms around the ball.

according to rule...????? right, there is no rule at this time. maybe next year, but that will never change the ruling of a TD and the records of the teams. time to move on yet?

 

[Mitchrapp]

No shit they won't change a game result. Doesn't mean it was correctly made.

 

[mhughes0021]

For it too be a simultaneous catch and one player has two hands on it, the other one needs two hands. If defensive player only had one you'd have a point. Which is why that site you linked is just as horseshit as the call.

Now were just making up our own rules lmao...

You can catch the ball with 0 hands....

 

[zyxt9]

true, yet i still have not seen evidence showing definitively that it was incorrectly made nor any rules with the specifics you have used to support your position that it was incorrectly made. i completely get what you are saying, 2 > 1...yet there is nothing in the rules specifically stating that. if there are 3 hands that have possession, yes 66% is greater than 33% but there is nothing in the rules about percentage of possession. 33% is still greater than 0% and 33% is partial possession, albeit less. nonetheless the only thing in the rules is "shared possession", nothing dictating amounts or a specified minimum requirement.

i would not be surprised to see the rule adjusted to say something about 2 hands is greater than 1 for future use, but at this time that threshold is not a requirement. the "tie goes to the receiver" is lay terms that give a false impression of requiring 50/50 possession.

as a reminder from earlier post:

Article 3 item 5 from the rule book:

Simultaneous catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by 2 eligble 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.

nothing in there about %s or 2 hands vs 1 hand. tate never released possession of 33% and by the time the process of the catch had been completed tate increased his share of the possession to pretty much 50% by getting his second hand on it (exact %s would be impossible, worst case might have been around 40% for tate based on jennings position advantage, but still greater than 33% as he had gotten both hands on it by that point). this despite the attempts of jennings to wrench it free while initially having more % and eventually leverage to his advantage, he could not get tate to relinquish any of his possession.

by definition that is sharing possession and by definition of the rule that is the requirement that was met. TD, end of story. well, until they (maybe) change the wording to specify more clearly a minimum requirement for sharing possession from beginning to end of the entire process, but that is going to be pretty difficult for refs on the field to determine, is it not? granted the replay guys have a better chance to make a more accurate determination, but it would never be an exact measurement except in cases where it is clear one guy does not have any possession at all and is simply "touching" the ball, which tate was not despite what beez and others may claim.

 

[tonyballs]

he didn't have a "couple fingers", he had his entire left hand on the ball and it never left the ball and he clearly had enough control of it with his left hand and arm to prevent jennings from ripping it out of his possession despite jennings having leverage, especially after they both hit the ground. we see WRs make one-handed grabs all the time, stop using the "must have two hands on the ball to make a catch" excuse. there is NO rule in the NFL that requires 2 hands to make the catch nor any requirement to have a higher percentage of the ball in one's grasp or control.

video clearly shows tate made initial contact the same moment as Jennings and he never let go of that control with his left hand and arm. additionally, by the time his feet touch the ground he has both hands on it from that point on. that is simultaneous control and a TD as clearly documented by that website.

it appears your hatred for replacement refs - while not misplaced - prevents you from seeing the reality that it was a legit simultaneous catch and a TD.

My hatred for the replacement refs?? Give me a fn break, man. I don't hate them..lol.

And it wasn't a one-handed catch from Tate. Get your eyes checked, bud. I'm not saying that Tate never got his hand on the ball, but it looks like in the video that Jennings gets TWO hands on the ball while Tate gets like 3 fingers on it at the same time and manages to get his WHOLE hand on it eventually. If that's a simultaneous catch there's something wrong. It was a pathetic call.

 

[tonyballs]

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1210517/refss_medium.gif

tates hand is on the ball first and he never lets it go. Just cause 1 guy has 2 hands on the ball after someone has one hand on the ball doesnt make it more of a catch. You guys are right it wasnt simultaneous...Tate had it first.

No he didn't

 

[tonyballs]

true, yet i still have not seen evidence showing definitively that it was incorrectly made nor any rules with the specifics you have used to support your position that it was incorrectly made. i completely get what you are saying, 2 > 1...yet there is nothing in the rules specifically stating that. if there are 3 hands that have possession, yes 66% is greater than 33% but there is nothing in the rules about percentage of possession. 33% is still greater than 0% and 33% is partial possession, albeit less. nonetheless the only thing in the rules is "shared possession", nothing dictating amounts or a specified minimum requirement.

i would not be surprised to see the rule adjusted to say something about 2 hands is greater than 1 for future use, but at this time that threshold is not a requirement. the "tie goes to the receiver" is lay terms that give a false impression of requiring 50/50 possession.

as a reminder from earlier post:

Article 3 item 5 from the rule book:

Simultaneous catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by 2 eligble 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.

nothing in there about %s or 2 hands vs 1 hand. tate never released possession of 33% and by the time the process of the catch had been completed tate increased his share of the possession to pretty much 50% by getting his second hand on it (exact %s would be impossible, worst case might have been around 40% for tate based on jennings position advantage, but still greater than 33% as he had gotten both hands on it by that point). this despite the attempts of jennings to wrench it free while initially having more % and eventually leverage to his advantage, he could not get tate to relinquish any of his possession.

by definition that is sharing possession and by definition of the rule that is the requirement that was met. TD, end of story. well, until they (maybe) change the wording to specify more clearly a minimum requirement for sharing possession from beginning to end of the entire process, but that is going to be pretty difficult for refs on the field to determine, is it not? granted the replay guys have a better chance to make a more accurate determination, but it would never be an exact measurement except in cases where it is clear one guy does not have any possession at all and is simply "touching" the ball, which tate was not despite what beez and others may claim.

But it wasn't simultaneously caught. You're telling us that Tate snagged that ball from that angle with one hand? That's ridiculous, man. Jennings basket-catches that ball while Tate gets a hand, even maybe just a few fingers on it. Manages to keep his hand in there then somehow gets his right hand in there. Even when they fell to the ground, Jennings tourques his body and is holding on to the football while lying on his back. Tate is still holding on for dear life. I give all the credit to the world on Tate for holding on. He even managed to have that ball when the pile dispersed, but THEY DID NOT catch that ball simultaneously. Stop comparing it to a one-handed catch because it wasn't even close.

 

[tonyballs]

Bottom line.........

See what happens when something bad happens? This botched call is why the regular refs are back in the mix 24 hours later after that horrible call. If people are too blind to see that then this conversation should be over. The NFL fucked up and realized it. Sure, they won't admit it, but WE (or some of us) all know they did.

END of story..

 

[zyxt9]

But it wasn't simultaneously caught. You're telling us that Tate snagged that ball from that angle with one hand? That's ridiculous, man. Jennings basket-catches that ball while Tate gets a hand, even maybe just a few fingers on it. Manages to keep his hand in there then somehow gets his right hand in there. Even when they fell to the ground, Jennings tourques his body and is holding on to the football while lying on his back. Tate is still holding on for dear life. I give all the credit to the world on Tate for holding on. He even managed to have that ball when the pile dispersed, but THEY DID NOT catch that ball simultaneously. Stop comparing it to a one-handed catch because it wasn't even close.

1. i've already supplied the evidence of "simultaneous". you can choose to deny it all you want; however, keep in mind the REGULAR refs in the replay booth concluded there was insufficient evidence to overturn the ruling of simultaneous.

2. you do realize that by your description you either invalidate every 1 handed catch ever made or you support tate having possession, right? how many "ridiculous" 1 handed catches have we seen over the years? you cannot possibly try to say there is zero chance he could catch that ball one handed when we've witnessed guys make one handed grabs in far more unlikely situations whether the ball is thrown behind, above, too far below, or too far away...yet the receiver somehow makes a stab with only one hand and catches it.

3. there is no reason to not compare it to a one-handed catch regardless of your orders to stop making that comparison. what evidence have you presented to warrant your claims? none! show me that it wasn't simultaneous. show me that it is impossible to catch a football one handed. show me in the rules where it says anything about simultaneous catches only apply if you have both hands on the ball.

you have not provided an ounce of evidence that the call should have been reversed. there is nothing in the rule book to substantiate your claims that it should be. that isn't to say the rule should not be changed, i can understand that argument; however, in accordance to how the rules are written at this time there is nothing to point to that says it was not a catch. i've seen guys make catches with only their legs, use other players, even use the body of the ref/ump to make a catch. the only things a player cannot use to aid in catching the ball is the ground or something that is out-of-bounds. the fact that tate had one hand or even a fingenail on one side and used both of jennings hands as the aid to make the catch is immaterial as there is nothing in the rules that says he cannot use another player in the field of play to aid in making the catch, whether he has 100% or 0.000000001% of the ball is immaterial as there is nothing in the rules mandating a minimum of possession that must be met. the fact is he managed to maintain possession all the way through and as you pointed out this was despite jennings doing everything possible to wrestle it away which means he had a pretty good amount of possession as the process of the catch was completed.

no matter how upset you are over this, the fact is there is nothing you have presented to indicate the catch was not simultaneous nor is there anything in the rules that invalidate the catch. the refs actually made the right call, it is a shame the media witch hunt took control of this particular play when there are so many blatantly obvious calls the replacement refs got wrong that deserved this level of criticism instead.