All Forums | NFL Betting

Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 30159
Posts: 479
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6867
Posted: #401
Van, did you expect the league to throw the replacement refs under the bus and say they botched the call?? If you think so, I pity your ignorance. You seem like you have a brain and you should know better than that.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #402
Quote Originally Posted by IgetMoney101:

Van, did you expect the league to throw the replacement refs under the bus and say they botched the call?? If you think so, I pity your ignorance. You seem like you have a brain and you should know better than that.


You cant have it both ways.

Many times in this thread, people said the NFL would admit the error.  I said if they did, I would concede.

The NFL not only admitted the error on the missed PI call, but they admit errors all the time.  So yes - I would expect them to say they got it wrong.

But they understand what I understand - and what most people here cant. 

Possession is obviously up for interpretation.

READ THAT AGAIN.

The NFL says it by reading between the lines on their statement.  There is not a single possession rule to cover ALL permutations.  The ref interpreted possession the way he did - and it was not wrong.

THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER HERE, NEITHER ANSWER IS WRONG.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 145
Posted: #403
Guess what?  On Thursday night we have the same refs officiating again, most probable. So what other surprise will they have again. 

Baltimore wins,  and Cleveland wins.  But their can only be one winner. 

Which will they decide on?  Unless Baltimore by 10 points, no argument there.  Ha ha ha 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 375
Posted: #404
Did we really think the NFL was going to apologize.  Jennings had posession first. Tate put one hand on the ball.  The 3 hands on the ball doesn't equall simultaneous posession to me.  But it is a done deal at this point. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 2557
Posted: #405
I agree with Van and the NFL. When I initially saw the play occur my initial reaction was simultaneous possession goes to the WR. Even on the replay, The WR did have some sort of possession.

For everybody saying NFL won't throw the referees under the bus since they are replacements. What about the ones bashing on the referees all of the "NFL'' experts, all 3 weeks every commentator has been bashing these replacements. You don't think a former NFL referee going to stand up for his union buddies and say the replacements had the call right?

Fact of the matter is NFL referees have made gross calls every year. The only difference is this year they have replacements and every single decision by the referees is being scrutinized and turned into a huge ordeal.

In the past, it was taboo for ESPN or commentators to excessively bash referees, but since it is replacements it is fair game.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #406
Im still waiting for someone to quote and source the possession rule that applies here.

400+ posts, everyone says the KNOW the possession rule, and nobody can state the applicable rule.

ESPN analysts throw out "he had possession", but they wont discuss the rule.  The game is governed by rules and interpretations.  This was an interpretation.  You can disagree with the interpretation, but you cant say it was WRONG until you quote the rule that states it was wrong.

I will continue to wait....


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 6349
Posted: #407
Life continues on...


Who cares what the rules are, especially when it is not being enforced properly. It is apparent the NFL does not care about the rules or doing the right thing even with replay. Every year there's always some controversial calls. The only people making a ruckus is degenerate gamblers who is at the bottom of the food chain....be happy...spend time with the family and away from the TV and forums.

unless you have nothing else to do but pound on your keyboards crying foul, then carry on.


 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 37007
Posted: #408

 If Tate had no part of the possession then why didn't Jennings just roll over & jump up with the ball?

 I've asked this question a couple times in other threads & haven't seen a response which tells me that those who vehemently claim it wasn't dual possession aren't sure about it.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 2557
Posted: #409
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Im still waiting for someone to quote and source the possession rule that applies here.

400+ posts, everyone says the KNOW the possession rule, and nobody can state the applicable rule.

ESPN analysts throw out "he had possession", but they wont discuss the rule.  The game is governed by rules and interpretations.  This was an interpretation.  You can disagree with the interpretation, but you cant say it was WRONG until you quote the rule that states it was wrong.

I will continue to wait....





Van, what do you expect from covers posters? This is a closed case, simultaneous possession is interpretation based and there is no rule against it saying the call was wrong. This happens all the time in major sports
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2011
Posts: 1805
Posted: #410
Quote Originally Posted by PokinSmot:

Life continues on...


Who cares what the rules are, especially when it is not being enforced properly. It is apparent the NFL does not care about the rules or doing the right thing even with replay. Every year there's always some controversial calls. The only people making a ruckus is degenerate gamblers who is at the bottom of the food chain....be happy...spend time with the family and away from the TV and forums.

unless you have nothing else to do but pound on your keyboards crying foul, then carry on.





 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20326
Posted: #411

Well i guess wilson will go down in history as the only qb to ever throw a game winning interception

 

NFL was not gonna say refs messed up, no way no how.  Now they can keep using these scab replacements.  Next they should say they are doing a great job in the games.

Or maybe the nfl can just pull people out of the stands evey game and make them refs for the day.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6867
Posted: #412
Why are the rules open for interpretation? So the zebras can interpret what Vegas needs???
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6867
Posted: #413
Why are the rules open for interpretation? So the zebras can interpret what Vegas needs???
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #414
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

Well i guess wilson will go down in history as the only qb to ever throw a game winning interception

 

NFL was not gonna say refs messed up, no way no how.  Now they can keep using these scab replacements.  Next they should say they are doing a great job in the games.

Or maybe the nfl can just pull people out of the stands evey game and make them refs for the day.



Still waiting for the possession rule that you are 100% sure about that you know.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 375
Posted: #415

Its rediculous to call posession undefinable, because inherrantly Tate could not have partially possessed the ball either.  It was simply a bad call.   If you feel like championing the call for the sake of contrarian thought, then go ahead.  I am contrarian to the core.  But this is not a defensible call.  But that's just my opinion. 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20326
Posted: #416

Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneous 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 control

 

I saw the packer player catching the ball and then he had it ripped from his hands while on the ground.

You saw it differntly.

Guess your right

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #417
Quote Originally Posted by pro-metheus:

Its rediculous to call posession undefinable, because inherrantly Tate could not have partially possessed the ball either.  It was simply a bad call.   If you feel like championing the call for the sake of contrarian thought, then go ahead.  I am contrarian to the core.  But this is not a defensible call.  But that's just my opinion. 



For the 100th time, what is the rule? 

You say it is ridiculous to call possession undefinable - then define it for us!!!!


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #418
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneous 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 control

 

I saw the packer player catching the ball and then he had it ripped from his hands while on the ground.

You saw it differntly.

Guess your right



For the 10th time, you quote the simultaneous possession rule.

This is not the rule that is critical to this debate.  POSSESSION is the key rule.

Now - you have stated - as have others - that you are SURE Jennings had possession and Tate didnt.  I am simply asking under what definition of possession?  Where is this definition?

If you cant answer that, it is clearly interpretation.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 105
Posted: #419
INT. Period.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2006
Posts: 3189
Posted: #420
I don't understand the argument here the officials initial call of simultaneous possession was wrong but once they call that it cant be overturned by the replay whats so hard to understand. Sure they got the call wrong on the field but after making that call there's nothing they can do with the replay you can't review to see if the pass was intercepted only to see if the ball was dropped or if the feet are inbound. The NFL didnt say that the refs made the right call on the simultaneous catch just that that was what was determined by the refs and they followed the proper guidelines afterwards
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #421
Where are all of the people who are so sure that there is only one right answer to this?  The only thing anyone can say about the NFL statement is that it is a conspiracy?

Why can nobody state the possession rule that they say they know so well?

Very strange.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6867
Posted: #422
My question is why the rules are left open for interpretation. If anyone can give me the real answer I will send you 50 dollars. Only explanation I can think of is there is wiggle room for error by the refs so someone like Van can dispute the call. Am I right?
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 37007
Posted: #423
 Case closed..........no one can answer mine or Vans question.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #424
Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:

I don't understand the argument here the officials initial call of simultaneous possession was wrong but once they call that it cant be overturned by the replay whats so hard to understand. Sure they got the call wrong on the field but after making that call there's nothing they can do with the replay you can't review to see if the pass was intercepted only to see if the ball was dropped or if the feet are inbound. The NFL didnt say that the refs made the right call on the simultaneous catch just that that was what was determined by the refs and they followed the proper guidelines afterwards


Under what rule of possession were they wrong?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20326
Posted: #425

Van, your right so theres no need to go further.

Clearly i need to go have an eye exam, because i saw the packer player with the ball. You saw tate had the ball. Your eye sight is obvioulsy better then mine.

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 - 2024 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.