All Forums | NFL Betting

Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 30159
Posts: 479
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2003
Posts: 14414
Posted: #326
Should have never came to that .
Pass interference a few plays earlier should have never been called on Green Bay.

Worst call ever
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2012
Posts: 2297
Posted: #327
I'm pretty sure they wouldve reviewed the call a little bit longer and gotten it right if it was the Super Bowl....
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 6368
Posted: #328
One of the worst calls ever. And maybe the worst no call ever on Tate's PI.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 10863
Posted: #329
   How about the late GB td that was called back when the player reached for the pillon(spelling?) but his foot was out of bounds.  The initial call was TD. The comical thing was that the ref who called it a TD was within 2 feet of the play at a perfect angle to see the whole play.  On replay, they show the clown clearly focusing on the ball and pillon, not looking anywhere else.  Maybe too close to the play to get a full body angle?  Not sure, but GB scored after that anyway, just saying these guys are a fucking joke.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 28246
Posted: #330
I think they never call PI on those plays so it was smart of Tate to do what he did. A W is a W. Someone give Tate an Oscar. Get the real refs back in there.
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 517
Posted: #331
For someone who's allegedly smart and knows football to say that appeared to be simultaneous possession is a fucking joke, dude that started this thread may as well be a replacement ref....one arm off the ball the other groping him after the db catches it......not exactly caught at the same time...I don't play football but everyone that has talked about this who has have all said the same thing, forget the push off the other ref with the better angle got it right who was calling for a touchback...forget the betting ramifications and im not a Packer fan but fucking a team out of a victory when there are only16 games can't happen! by the way if anyone wants to kick Pete Carroll in the nuts they should be given an award...what a douchebag!!!
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 517
Posted: #332
refs didn't get it right btw, the replay that he was in bounds when the fucked the call up was all they got right...
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #333
The shove in the back should have ended the play right there Offensive interference NO Question ..replay showed that clearly regardless and it occurred BEFORE the play in question it has only been over shadowed because of the controversy of possession....
Why have instant replay? If the wording and rule of its use will not allow for post correction of obvious missed calls in critical situations what is the purpose of having it at all?
One thing is for sure the Seahawks did not deserve to win this game the refs here without question affected the outcome. I'm  done for a while tired of watching this crap....F#$k the greedy ass owners and the refs and books too! Yes, I had money on the Pac.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2008
Posts: 10550
Posted: #334
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Van, Jennings was higher than Tate, he caught the ball from the very start. Can't you see that? Jennings caught/touched, the ball first, and made a full catch. Now, going down is when Tate put his hands on the ball.

Thats not what I see.  I see what appears to be 3 hands on the ball at the same time.  You can have possession with one hand - one handed catches are an every week occurrance.

Going down is when Tate got his SECOND hand on the ball.  But that doesnt make a difference IMO - I THINK the refs ruled and will rule that there was simultaneous possesssion BEFORE the second hand of tate went on the ball.

 

The one-handed catches you see every week, do not include a 2cd player with 2 hands on the ball grasp against his chest, silly silly comparison.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #335
Granted the replacement refs have a brutal and thankless job but if we must bear the pain of having these refs struggle to make calls put an instant replay staff in place to over rule incorrect calls..the use of instant replay is restricted because television until the refs come back they should at least change the scope of its use.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 2532
Posted: #336
NFL officiating is a joke. 

Corrupted.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2003
Posts: 3476
Posted: #337
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

I think by rule the refs actually got that right.

But so ridiculous.  Just silly ending.



No even close to simultaneous possession.  Defense had the ball cradled, and offense had his hands on the ball.  Only one guy had the ball.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6868
Posted: #338
This is the dumbest argument. To start this thread and say Tate had possession is laughable. All Van is trying to do is start up a debate. In his heart of hearts he knows the truth. There are people out there that will argue its cloudy outside when the sun is shining just because thats who they are.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2012
Posts: 187
Posted: #339
get glasses the defender had the ball the whole way
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 2375
Posted: #340

That was clearly and interception. The play should have been over when the green bay player hit the ground because he was down on contact from hitting the Seatle player.

 The Seatle player tried to steal the ball after the play was over. This is a no brainer

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2007
Posts: 2486
Posted: #341

worst officiated game i have ever seen!!...and with these clowns reffing i am sure there are more to come!!

there was a pushing penalty on seattle and then a wrong call on the reception.....it was an INTERCEPTION!!!...how could the refs screw the "calls" up more~!!!!...

like they said it was  an interception for a touchdown to end the game..we gotta get rid of these "clowns" masquerading as nfl refs, or the integrity of the game is in question!

 

green bay got ROYALLY SCREWED!!...they should put an asterick after this game in the record book....seattle did not win that game!!!

 

these guys should be wearing  clowns uniforms instead of zebra uniforms...they are just AWFUL!!!!!

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 35
Posted: #342
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.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 2375
Posted: #343
just seen some still shots on twitter. this is not even a close call, wait till you see the pictures 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2007
Posts: 69
Posted: #344
Thank goodness the refs were right for once!! Those refs are making me some $$$$ this season!!!
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 12
Posted: #345

Refs got it wrong.  Its clear that GB caught the ball.  The SEA WR however had the presence of mind to get "entangled" with GB player and the ball to give the look of a simutanous catch - tie goes to the offense.

The only thing they got right was that it was not reviewable.

Now for the PAT...GB screwed that up...SEA had 11 guys named Mo on the field...GB could have blocked it, recovered, and taken in for a 2-point return to win the game.  However, they gave up the ghost.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2003
Posts: 3476
Posted: #346
Quote Originally Posted by RissyGold:

Refs got it wrong.  Its clear that GB caught the ball.  The SEA WR however had the presence of mind to get "entangled" with GB player and the ball to give the look of a simutanous catch - tie goes to the offense.

The only thing they got right was that it was not reviewable.

Now for the PAT...GB screwed that up...SEA had 11 guys named Mo on the field...GB could have blocked it, recovered, and taken in for a 2-point return to win the game.  However, they gave up the ghost.



Maybe somebody can help me out here.  The NFL says that ALL touchdowns are going to be reviewed.  They call this a TD.  Then they go ahead and review it, and confirm it's a TD.  My question is, what was not reviewable?



 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #347
I'm not going to read this whole thread, but what is simultaneous possession?  If one guys has both hands and arms around the ball pressed to his chest and the other guys has one hand, or even two hands, on the ball at the same time, is that simultaneous possession?  Doesn't seem like it ought to be and it I don't really see any clarity on this in the rule.  The rule talks about joint possession, but it doesn't seem to be defined.

One thing though, they couldn't reverse the call on review.  Can't reverse possession of the ball on a call like that.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #348
Looked around, I don't see simultaneous catch or joint control defined.  Very simply, if one guys has both hands and both arms around the ball to his chest and the other has two hands on the ball, is that "joint control".  What exactly is control?  I think logically most people see that and see that Jennings had control, Tate had a hand or two on the ball without control.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #349
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

I will watch it again on DVR in slow.

But I still think it was simultaneous.

I agree the defender had MORE of the ball - but I do not think the defender had it FIRST and then Tate took it from him.

In fact - just saw it again - tates hand was inside of the ball - so essentially there were 3 hands on the ball at the same time and remained there.  I think by rule - that is simultaneous.



Maybe.  I don't think the rule is clear.  And I don't think anybody knew that was the rule if in fact it is the rule.  Think about it.  The defender catches it and all the offensive guy has to do is make sure to affix one hand to the ball as the defender catches it?  Come on.  You can almost imagine the hilarity of that.  Defies logic and common sense.  It's not a simple rule interpretation because the rule doesn't seem to define simultaneous possession or joint control.  Those definition of those phrases are not obvious.
 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #350
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Everyone saying it was an INT.

Please tell me if there was ever a time that Jennings had the ball when Tate didnt.



What does it mean to "have the ball"?  If I've got the thing wrapped and clutched in my hands, arms and my chest and you've got a few fingers touching ball, is that actually joint control?

I've just never seen this called like this for any frame of reference.  And the rule is not clear at all.
All Forums | NFL Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.