Skip to comments.Green Bay v. Seattle last play 09/24/2012
Posted on 09/24/2012 9:05:50 PM PDT by FoxPro
click here to read article
BS BS BS!
The push off was blatant!
Persistence paid off for Seattle. The touch down call came when there was simultaneous possession. Rule 8 - Section 3 - Article 1 - Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.
It may have looked like M.D. Jennings had possession first, but possession did not occur until Jennings had both feet on the ground. If you review the replay, Jennings had one leg way up in the air as he was coming down with Tate. By the time both feet were on the ground Golden Tate had already taken possession. Thus, it was ruled simultaneous possession and the ball goes to the offensive receiver. Touch down.
But do we know at what instant the photo was snapped?
I will defer the judgement to referee on the ground versus some picture snapped who knows when. It could very well have been snapped well after the referee had blown the whistle.
Anyways, it is just a game for entertainment, not a life and death event. We all had a good debate and I am now looking forward to another entertaining game next weekend.
One was clearly a touchdown call.
The other looked like the “pass completion” call.
I don't know what the hand signal is for “intercepted pass in the endzone” or “touchback,” but one of those refs was definitely NOT calling a touchdown.
With two conflicting calls in the endzone, it seems like a video Review would have been mandatory.
Comments from anyone?
I'm certainly not an expert on this.
There is no possession until there’s possession. The defender had two hands on the ball but was in the air. By the two two feed came down the receiver had at least one hand on the ball and from what I’ve seen had two hands on the ball. I personally could live with the call going either way! What the refs completely blew were the two instances of blatant pass interference by the offense during that play!!
Unions, in any and all forms, are evil. Unionism is just another facet of communism. The DemonRAT party is financed by the extorting thugs of Big Labor. When (and if) sanity returns to our country, Patriotic Conservatives need to apply the full force of RICO Laws to abolish all traces of unionism.
Until both the defenders feet touch the ground he has not gained control. Here is a pic from a different angle:
Both of Tates feet are down and he is clearly doing more than just touching the ball.
In post 82 the Green Bay player has the ball.
And in this pic, Tate has the ball.
Both pics are meaningless as they came after the play was over.
Go Boltz! Go replacements!
If anyone wants to leave a message to the NFL commissioners office here you go. 212-450-2027 #MNF #NFL
Revenge for Super Bowl XL.
(Signed, Vindicated and defiant Seattle fan)
That's different from catching the ball at the same time and showing that he had control.
That's what the picture shows.
That’s what my wife and I said too!! Of course this game doesn’t compare in importance to the Super Bowl.
I liked Tate’s answer on if he thought it was a touchdown. Something like “Hey - we went too far for it NOT to be a touchdown”. My reply would have been “Well - the ref is always right”.
Right. So before anybody boo-hoo’s too much for Green Bay, ask the
Seahawks about Super Bowl XL.
“The GB player was still upright when Tate grabbed the ball.”
It seemed to me (haven’t looked at it again) that Tate had both hands on the ball (along with the GB player) before the GB player touched his feet to the ground.
Terrible call, the NFL needs to get the real Refs back on the field pronto!
The Offensive player never had possession, it clearly was an interception.
How does the post game grading of replacement officials compare with that of prior seasons?
Bad call. But I love it anytime when it is stuck to Packer fans.
Come on, now. There is such a thing as a call deciding a game. This one put one side ahead with zero seconds remaining. If it goes the other way, the other side wins. That is decisive.
You can argue whether this or that earlier would have led to this or that alternate ending. But that does not change the fact that the last play was decisive, and that the call decided the winner.
It’s really not subjective when you push a player in the back with both hands and knock him on the ground.
As for simultaneous possession, okay, but that doesn’t apply when one side catches it first, as happened here, nor when the other side never has true possession, as also happened here.
By the time Jennings hit the ground Tate had his hand and arm on the ball too, and he was under Jennings. So I believe it was dual possession which goes to the offense and the call was correct.
Should have maybe been a pass interference call on both the Packer who pushed number 14 and Tate for pushing a defender on the play too.
That call for hitting the QBs legs on the last drive was ridiculous. If they can't hit the QB high or low, what can the defender do?
Packers up 12-7 should have given up an intentional safety. This would have run time off the clock and allowed them to kick off, probably putting the ball further back in field position then they did punting the ball. Bad coaching mistake there.
Catches can be made with one hand though.
As a GB fan, I'd have to agree. A horrible call? Yes. But any time you put the other team in position to win on one play, you shouldn't be surprised if you lose. I've seen too many games in my life (62) to get upset over one particular call. And I've seen too many Packer and other Wisconsin sports fans use bad officiating as a reason for defeat. The Packers should have never been in the position to be beaten on a last-second play.
2nd worst call ever.
1st?... Immaculate deception
wtf were you watching ?
Jennings had possesion with two hands and with its close to his body, Tate only had a hand on it and his other was on Jennings arm. So there was no “tie”
What you failed to see was that Tate took the ball from Jennings after they were on the ground. The one ref was calling a INT/TB when the other bozo re came in from a few yards away to call it a TD.
Thanks for the laugh!
Unlike college you cannot return a blocked PAT for any points.
That was my thought too, Have the punter run around the endzone to burn time off the clock also. Seattle would have gotten it on their own 40 vs. the Packers 40
TD’s are automatically reviewed in the booth by the “real” NFL crew.
The booth reviewers are union, not back ups. They did not overturn. So people blame the back ups. Go figure.
There is no doubt this game should also be taken away from the Seahawks.
Any Seattle fan that thinks they won that game has zero integrity as a man.
Well, that statement is definitely off the mark.
If that were true, and I were an OC, I would have 1 primary receiver and 3 or 4 “clearers”. send the cleerers into the endzone to tackle, trip, sweep, push all the defenders to the ground, leaving my receiver to catch the ball unmolested.
The push was obvious, the defender was in position to make a play, and it happened right in front of the official. A blatant violation that was rewarded, and thereby erodes the credibility of the product.
Not bad for a part-time job. The work about 6 months per year and when they are working that only includes about 20 - 25 actual working days. I think that is well paid.
That is obviously not true - Let’s say a defender catches the ball all alone, then as he is being tackled 5 yards down the field, the receiver rushes in and puts his hands on the ball - it is definitely NOT ruled a completion.
Possession in this case is the same as other cases. Once possessed, it must clearly change possession - the defender clearly caught the ball initially, and thus possessed it. At that point, Tate had to clearly change the possession to himself before the defender hit the ground, not merely put his hands on the ball. A little bit of careful thought will answer the question - otherwise, all a defender must do if a pass is intercepted is get his hands on the ball to establish joint possession.
Initial touching of the ball is of no consequence, true - but initial CATCHING or possessing of the ball is everything. “The GB player was still upright when Tate grabbed the ball” EXACTLY - therefore, the possession was NOT simultanious, as the defender possessed the ball BEFORE Tate grabbed it.
Yes, but merely grabbing the ball after the defender has it does not constitute simultaneous possession. This term is intended to mean they both caught the ball at the same time, and both retained possession until they hit the ground. If one player grabs the ball, and while in the air the other player puts his hands on the ball it is NOT simultaneous. The defender must RETAIN possession until he hits the ground, and nobody disputes that the defender kept the ball. Hands on the ball is not possession and putting hands on the ball AFTER the defender has pulled the ball in is not simultaneous.
“If a pass is caught simultaneously..”
si·mul·ta·ne·ous Show Spelled[sahy-muhl-tey-nee-uhs, sim-uhl-] Show IPA adjective existing, occurring, or operating at the same time; concurrent: simultaneous movements; simultaneous translation.
The ball clearly was NOT caught at the same time. Once caught, the catcher must retain control until he comes down - the defender did so, regardless of Tate coming in AFTER the catch (not simultaneously, or at the same time) and getting his hands on the ball. Establishing contact after the catch does not constitute simultaneous possession.
If the Packers take the safety then it’s 12-9, and all Seattle needs is a Field Goal to tie the game and send it into overtime. So, I disagree with you about that. All Seattle would have had to do is get to the GB 40 to attempt a 57-yard FG.
You are confusing gaining control, simultaneously catching and retaining control.
The person catching the ball must gain control (catch the ball) and retain control (keep the ball) all the way to the ground for it to be called a reception or interceptioon. That’s the gain and retain part. Gain happens first - that is what must be simultaneous. Retain is what happens next, and they both must retain simultaneous possession - THEN the rule comes into play.
If a player gains control of (catches) the ball, but is hit and loses the ball before coming down, it is ruled incomplete. You’re statement that he can’t gain control until both feet touch the ground is just false. He must RETAIN control until such time as he touches the ground for it to be ruled a completion (or interception). But the simultaneous possession rule talks about GAINING control at the same time. If the rule meant what you say it means, it would talk about GAINING control, and another player holding or touching the ball SUBSEQUENT to the initial catch and BEFORE hitting the ground. That’s not how it is stated. It is stated as catching simultaneously and both retaining control.
Once a player gains control of (catches) the ball, another player must clearly take possession AWAY from the first player to possess it - regardless of how possession was gained in the first place.
Simultaneous possession ONLY apples when both players CATCH the ball at the same time.
Here is what happened:
Defender CATCHES the ball.
Defender pulls the ball into his body
Receiver gets his hands on the ball after the defender has caught and pulled the ball into his body (simultaneous possession rule does not apply).
Defender keeps the ball held to his body as he hits the ground. (Receiver did NOT establish possession by TAKING the ball away from the defender - remember, simultaneous possession rule does not apply)
The official calling touchdown blew the call.
The replay officials could not (by rule, as I understand it) overturn the possession ruling - which was clearly incorrect.
There was no catch until both feet were on the ground. Tate had both feet on the ground and was touching the ball. Jennings did not have both feet on the ground before Tate touched the ball. All you need to do is have a hand on the ball which was what the officials saw and ruled it a touchdown.
You could not be more wrong. Simultaneous possession rule clealy states simultaneous catch.
For the catch to be ruled a completion or an interception the player must retain possession until coming down (butt, back, feet). But for simultaneous possession, the CATCH must be made at the same time.
“Jennings did not have both feet on the ground before Tate TOUCHED (my emphasis) the ball. All you need is to have a hand on the ball...” That is most certainly not true. To make a completion (or interception) you must first catch (gain control) then retain control. For the simultaneous possession rule to be in effect, both players must SIMULTANEOUSLY gain contral (catch the ball) and both must RETAIN shared control. If either element is missing - if they don’t both catch it at the same time, or if they don’t both retain constant control until the play is dead - the rule does not apply. Since they both did not catch the ball at the same time, the rule is not in effect. Tate must then clearly take control of the ball away from the defender before they hit the ground (ending the play) and he did not.
A person can catch a ball, then lose control before it can be ruled a completion. You are confusing the meanings of words used to describe moments in the play (...simultaneously catch...) with the official end result (completion).
The rule says: “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 your interpretation was correct, there would not be the phrase “...and both players RETAIN it...” (emphasis mine) nor “...if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint contro.”
The rule states the exact situation - a player gained control and an opponent subsequently gained joint control - ergo, simultaneous possession rule DOES NOT apply.
Yeah, a caller on the local sports radio this morning brought that up and too and got your answer.
Frankly, I didn’t know that. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.