NFL Week 3

[scarey]

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

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

Watch the from-mid-field perspective. Both players slap their hands on the ball at the same time. Both attempt to bring it into their bodies at the same time. Jennings basically lands on Tate and when he rolls over, you can make a case that Tate loses control of the ball. That's about it.

 

Also, please do not imply I have perception impairment or a mental illness.

[Banedon]

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

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/212/SeahawksCatch_original.gif?1348545245

 

On the second replay, it appears that tate and jennings hands hit the ball at the same time.

[scarey]

Yeah, that's the one I keep talking about.

[Soul]

Tate is so busy committing PI, he really just gets in a token stab at the ball. Sure, his hands touch it but Jennings has it.

 

Also, it's clear the refs run over afterwards and just blow the call, based on what they see on the ground. I don't think they ever see this angle.

 

It doesn't change anything for me.

[Banedon]

Tate is so busy committing PI, he really just gets in a token stab at the ball. Sure, his hands touch it but Jennings has it.

 

Also, it's clear the refs run over afterwards and just blow the call, based on what they see on the ground. I don't think they ever see this angle.

 

It doesn't change anything for me.

 

The PI is irrelevant. That was a blown call, no doubt, but it's not reviewable or relevant as to whether it's a TD once it goes to review.

 

What makes you think that the refs don't have this angle when they review it?

[SouthSideRyan]

I listened to the Seahawks call, and it's as if there was no controversy at all. If you were listening to Seahawks radio last night you were told Tate just came down with the ball, cleanly.

 

Because that's what happened.

[SouthSideRyan]

come on. anyone who thinks that's a catch is either just being a contrarian or has something wrong with their eyeballs.

 

By the time the players hit the ground, which is when possession is determined, both players had the ball. Simultaneous catch goes to the offense. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule.

Putting one hand on the ball doesn't mean Tate "had the ball".

 

I've seen him make one handed catches before

[bcl412]

I don't see dual possession on either replay but I can see how you'd think it was live action, I also understand that you can't overturn possession on a replay, if that was what was being reviewed.

 

It was a bad call that cost a team a game but to be fair, I've seen worse. I'm still sure why one ref was signaling touchdown and the other was signaling and INT though and why they just decided that touchdown was the right call.

[SouthSideRyan]

Bottom line, the call was not nearly as egregious as everyone's making it out to be. It may even be the right call.

 

Eh, it really was horrible. But it will now be debated and debated for days with every piece of detail put on the screen to a level that would not normally be done.

 

 

Good, now ESPN can talk for the next 3 days about a game between 2 mediocre teams rather than focusing on actual important stuff like MLB playoffs

[SouthSideRyan]

It doesn't change anything for me.

 

Yeah, I may never watch football again. You have broken my heart NFL. Broken my heart.

[scarey]

I'm still sure why one ref was signaling touchdown and the other was signaling and INT though and why they just decided that touchdown was the right call.

 

Really? Refs have conflicting judgements all the time and over rule each other. I'm not clear on how the process of over ruling is conducted, but it seriously happens quite often.

[abuck1220]

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

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/212/SeahawksCatch_original.gif?1348545245

 

On the second replay, it appears that tate and jennings hands hit the ball at the same time.

 

the rule says "gains control" not "hands hit the ball."

[Soul]

It doesn't change anything for me.

 

Yeah, I may never watch football again. You have broken my heart NFL. Broken my heart.

 

Here you go, some NBA news for you

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/20357546/the-nba-reacts-to-monday-night-footballs-replacement-ref-debacle

[Banedon]

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

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/212/SeahawksCatch_original.gif?1348545245

 

On the second replay, it appears that tate and jennings hands hit the ball at the same time.

 

the rule says "gains control" not "hands hit the ball."

 

It's still plenty debatable. I'm convinced the real refs would've made a mess of this one as well.

[scarey]

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

 

this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do.

 

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/212/SeahawksCatch_original.gif?1348545245

 

On the second replay, it appears that tate and jennings hands hit the ball at the same time.

 

the rule says "gains control" not "hands hit the ball."

 

It's still plenty debatable. I'm convinced the real refs would've made a mess of this one as well.

 

I agree.

 

I'm not saying what happened was right. Just like the Calvin Johnson play was not right. I'm just saying it was actually called correctly by the wording in the rule (whether the replacement refs got lucky on the call or not). Just like the Calvin Johnson play.

 

Also, I really think the NFL should look at that rule and reword it. Just like the rule involved in the Calvin Johnson play (which they did and didn't change...).

[abuck1220]

I'm just saying it was actually called correctly by the wording in the rule

 

no, it wasn't.

[Guest]

Regardless of whether it was a catch or not, the final score is what makes the play a thing of beauty.

 

Pretty sure it was an interception, but I don't think the refs get out of Seattle alive if they reverse that call.

[Banedon]

Regardless of whether it was a catch or not, the final score is what makes the play a thing of beauty.

 

Pretty sure it was an interception, but I don't think the refs get out of Seattle alive if they reverse that call.

 

Oh I think there's plenty of Seattle fans that expected it to be reversed. I don't think the outrage would've been all that.

[scarey]

I'm just saying it was actually called correctly by the wording in the rule

 

no, it wasn't.

 

I've pretty throroghly explained why, based on the wording of the rule, I think it was the right call. I would really like to hear your explanation on why you think it wasn't.

[abuck1220]

i've already explained. also, please refer to the 99.9% of the rest of the world that agrees with me.

[jersey cubs fan]

Regardless of whether it was a catch or not, the final score is what makes the play a thing of beauty.

 

Pretty sure it was an interception, but I don't think the refs get out of Seattle alive if they reverse that call.

 

I'm pretty sure they would all be alive if they reversed that call.

 

 

 

I'm just glad they didn't.

[Soul]

Regardless of whether it was a catch or not, the final score is what makes the play a thing of beauty.

 

Pretty sure it was an interception, but I don't think the refs get out of Seattle alive if they reverse that call.

 

I'm pretty sure they would all be alive if they reversed that call.

 

 

 

I'm just glad they didn't.

 

Heh. NFL outrage is kinda fun, I can't help but enjoy that part of it.

[UMFan83]

I almost forgot about this play. Hilarious....

 

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1805sm56tx7nngif/original.gif

 

The caption reads: "You know it was a good shot because it wasn't a red one."

What happened on that play anyways? Doesn't look like he got his feet tripped up by anyone. For a season, I thought he got shot in the leg by a sniper or something.

[scarey]

i've already explained. also, please refer to the 99.9% of the rest of the world that agrees with me.

 

You mean all the talking heads at ESPN? The same guys that, even after getting a full explanation on why the Calvin Johnson "catch" was not in fact a catch, still moaned and groaned, "Well... it's just not right. It doesn't pass the eye test."

 

I'll be interested to hear the statement from the NFL today.

[Banedon]

please refer to the 99.9% of the rest of the world that agrees with me.

 

Is that a valid argument in the movie thread?