All Forums | NFL Betting

Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 30159
Posts: 479
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #376
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:


So take it to the extreme. If he had two index fingers on the ball (for .5% possession) would you still agree with the interpretation of this rule? 

These rules are for general play when there is a dispute, not Hail Mary last second plays and there is a catch, a struggle, a pile up and replacement refs. At that point, the rule becomes more open to its spirit based interpretation to get a just outcome. Your 'zero-tolerance' stance is flawed.


Im actually the one without a zero tolerance stance.  Im the one stating this is not black and white.

I think the interpretation of possession is a spectrum.  2 fingers is less than a hand on the ball and having a player fall on top of you who only got one foot down.  How far on the spectrum?  I dont know.

But just the fact that we are having this discussion means it is not black and white.  I understand you think it was an INT, and I am not arguing that you are wrong.  I am just arguing that you cant say you are right.

You are a logical guy.  I know you are, I read your posts.  Surely you can acknowledge my logic here, even if you disagree on the outcome.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2011
Posts: 66
Posted: #377
https://distilleryimage8.s3.amazonaws.com/264b9e1e06c911e283b822000a1e8a6e_7.jpg
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2011
Posts: 66
Posted: #378
264b9e1e06c911e283b822000a1e8a6e_7.jpg
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6868
Posted: #379
You still have to make a judgement on the ruling. The rule book cannot cover thousands of situations per rule. As humans you have to make a judgement based on the applied rule. We are nit picking and that is ridiculuous. The Seattle defender had possession first which in the rules means it was an interception.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 4519
Posted: #380
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:

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.

That is not what the experts are saying all over the radio waves....retired refs etc.  Exact opposite is being said - the play could have been ruled an interception and reversed.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2004
Posts: 1375
Posted: #381
Tate never had posession of the ball.  Have you guy seen the play??  He took his arm off the ball on his way down than he grabbed jeenings arm.  Jennings caught the ball at its highest point and brought it to his chest.  Tate just simply tried to put his hands/arms on the ball to try and grab it.  Jennings never took his arms/hands off the ball...where is Tate did, on his way down. It wasnt close to a simulatanious grab. It was an INT and it was obvious.  Just because both people have hands on ball doesnt mean its a simultanious catch.  Jennings brought the ball into his body, against his chest and secured it.  Tate just had his arm on it...
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 4519
Posted: #382
I don't make the comment to disrespect you.....others yes.  Just sharing what is being said.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2005
Posts: 69
Posted: #383
There certainly was offensive pass interference on the play and the ball may have been intercepted but my question is if you're Jennings why would you, in that situation, even go for the interception instead of batting the ball to the ground or spiking it into the stands. By trying to make the interception, Jennings gave the replacement officials an opportunity to call it a Seattle touchdown and it cost the Packers a win. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2007
Posts: 8
Posted: #384
who cares about this joke called football and their replacement refs, baseball playoff are nearly upon us, lets go YANKEES!!!!!!!!!
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 145
Posted: #385
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

For those that definitively state that you KNOW what possession is, then please state it for us.  I have asked, and nobody can provide the definition.

So for me - I am saying that Tate had SOME possession, and Jennings had MOST of the possession.  And I also interpret that if the offense has 1% possesssion, it is FULL possession for the ruling.

So the discussion of whether Tate or Jennings had MORE of the ball is not the issue.  The issue is the definition of possession, and so far a lot of people here claim they know the rule, claim that they are 100% - but nobody can define it FULLY for the context of that play.

And until somebody can - or the league does - my position is simple.  Tate had some of the ball all the way through the catch. 

So Scal and others - Im not being argumentative or a troll.  The above is a very logical position.  If someone can tell me where exactly that goes wrong, I will concede.  And if someone can clarify how possession is defined EXACTLY for that situation I will concede.


Want a clear answer, contact this person :  Mike Pereira.

Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

https://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/page/Mike-Pereira-FOX-NFL-Rules-Analyst


He worked as top official so let him explain. And if you do not agree with him, you do no agree with anyone else.


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #386
Quote Originally Posted by jrgurgul:

As a Packer fan, I'm disappointed in the outcome but I agree with the final call.  Tate's 2 feet hit the ground before Jennings and both players had possession at the same time. Did Tate push off? Yeah, but Jennings came over the top too, could go either way.  It really shouldn't have come down to the final play, the Packers coaching staff failed to have a game plan for the pass rush that Seattle came with in the first half.  They made adjustments in 2nd half, but Seattle caused the same problems in the Cowboys game the week before and the Packers coaching staff should of been able to make those adjustments before the game started.  If the Packers score 10 in first half, then final play doesn't matter.

I won't insult you intelligence and accuse you of believing what you just said.  "William F. Buckley"
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 145
Posted: #387
Quote Originally Posted by fras:


Want a clear answer, contact this person :  Mike Pereira.

Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

https://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/page/Mike-Pereira-FOX-NFL-Rules-Analyst


He worked as top official so let him explain. And if you do not agree with him, you do no agree with anyone else.



Read more on this subject:  

https://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Seattle-Seahawks-stun-Green-Bay-Packers-on-Hail-Mary-TD-catch-by-Golden-Tate-from-Russell-Wilson-on-last-play-092412-
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #388
Jennings came over the top in the process of going up to catch the ball  AFTER the chuck that shoved the player to the ground.The refs missed the call plain and simple the result was the controversial play..How in hell did the ref miss the chuck the white ref was 15feet away and had a perfect view of the play prior to the ball coming down.General jocking for position is standard in hail mary situations and the refs let unintentional contact slide but that was obvious not incidental  contact..
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2005
Posts: 4705
Posted: #389
Vanzack, you must have quite a following, almost 400 posts in 12 hours after an NFL game?  Must be unprecedented.  I must say, I do think it is possible that the regular refs could have called it the same way.  When I have seen this type of play occur (and I have been watching football since the mid 1970s), unless the defender comes away TOTALLY with the ball, they give it to the offense.  Nobody usually notices it, of course this was a Hail Mary pass which decided the game with the replacement refs already under great scrutiny.  I have many more problems with other calls in the game, esp. the pass interference that wasn't called on that play  and the one was earlier called in that long yardage situation.  Of course, the regular refs screw up these calls also.  NFL doesn't really care, more people are watching than ever, not sure what it will take until we get the regulars back
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 145
Posted: #390
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:

Jennings came over the top in the process of going up to catch the ball  AFTER the chuck that shoved the player to the ground.The refs missed the call plain and simple the result was the controversial play..How in hell did the ref miss the chuck the white ref was 15feet away and had a perfect view of the play prior to the ball coming down.General jocking for position is standard in hail mary situations and the refs let unintentional contact slide but that was obvious not incidental  contact..

You are correct, to me right there the play should have ended, and even, un necessary roughness, for the calling, since there is no more time left for penalties, the play should have ended. By that play, regardless of what follows next. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2012
Posts: 66
Posted: #391
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

I think by rule the refs actually got that right.

But so ridiculous.  Just silly ending.



This was clearly NOT simutaneous possesssion. Simultaneous possesssion means that BOTH players have to have possession but in this case Jennings had the ball to his chest and tate put his arm around Jennings to grab some control of the ball. This was a HORRIBLE call they just came up with some bullshit to end the game
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #392
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

For those that definitively state that you KNOW what possession is, then please state it for us.  I have asked, and nobody can provide the definition.

So for me - I am saying that Tate had SOME possession, and Jennings had MOST of the possession.  And I also interpret that if the offense has 1% possesssion, it is FULL possession for the ruling.

So the discussion of whether Tate or Jennings had MORE of the ball is not the issue.  The issue is the definition of possession, and so far a lot of people here claim they know the rule, claim that they are 100% - but nobody can define it FULLY for the context of that play.

And until somebody can - or the league does - my position is simple.  Tate had some of the ball all the way through the catch. 

So Scal and others - Im not being argumentative or a troll.  The above is a very logical position.  If someone can tell me where exactly that goes wrong, I will concede.  And if someone can clarify how possession is defined EXACTLY for that situation I will concede.


 
16 pages of posts full of people claiming to KNOW the possession rule, but nobody can state it and source it.  For that exact situation, what defines possession?

Still waiting.  And no, I dont think Mike Perrerra is a covers poster, so that idea is shot.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #393
NFL officially supports the call....

"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."


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #394
So I guess those that thought I would be apologizing because the NFL was going to say it was a bad call need to come back in here and acknowledge that this is obviously not a black and white issue.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6868
Posted: #395
Did Tate not have a hand or arm on the ball for a split second while.Jennings had the ball against his chest with both hands on it? What do you think is a possession? Did your eyes tell you it was an interception?
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20553
Posted: #396

Van, its amazing how you keep clinging to this rule stuff. Obviously people in the nfl who know the rule better then you are saying it wasnt a td.

Could it be you just arent understanding the rule right?

Even seattle running back said it wasnt a td and that they didnt win game.

I know how you love to be right about everything, but i think this time you are clearly not understanding the rule or seeing something differnt that few people see

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #397
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

Van, its amazing how you keep clinging to this rule stuff. Obviously people in the nfl who know the rule better then you are saying it wasnt a td.

Could it be you just arent understanding the rule right?

Even seattle running back said it wasnt a td and that they didnt win game.

I know how you love to be right about everything, but i think this time you are clearly not understanding the rule or seeing something differnt that few people see



Im not clinging to anything.

Did you read the NFL statement on the call?  Go read post 397.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #398
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

 Obviously people in the nfl who know the rule better then you are saying it wasnt a td.






Here is what the NFL says.

"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.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #399
 The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.



Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #400
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

Van, its amazing how you keep clinging to this rule stuff. Obviously people in the nfl who know the rule better then you are saying it wasnt a td.

Could it be you just arent understanding the rule right?

Even seattle running back said it wasnt a td and that they didnt win game.

I know how you love to be right about everything, but i think this time you are clearly not understanding the rule or seeing something differnt that few people see



CD - stop patronizing me.  I understand it fine.  Im of average intelligence, I can grasp the debate.

Go back and try to refute my logic.  Grab one of my posts where I talk about the logic, and refute it. 

STILL WAITING ON THE POSSESSION RULE.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
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.