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: 59804
Posted: #426
Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:

 Case closed..........no one can answer mine or Vans question.


Nobody even tries.  Im begging for someone to respond.  They keep beating the same drum - the one that they have no backup for.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 2557
Posted: #427
I love how ignorant and stupid most NFL fans and gamblers are. They see where all of the analysts are calling it a blown call and they just blindly follow like sheep without giving any thought into the actual rules. Anybody who can think for themselves look at the rules objectively and watch the play would come to the conclusion that the play was interpretation on simultaneous possession. Covers is fortunate to have someone like VAN here who has the patience to deal with mind blowing retards who do not have the brain capacity to think rationally about something. Every time I see a post from Vanzack I know it is going to be informative and most likely against conventional wisdom (IE. morons).

Most people hate Vanzack because deep down he is usually right. I love how he makes posts recommending an intentional safety last night. It definitely was a +ev move to do that, but 99% of the world would say what a total moron that coach was for doing that only needing a FG to tie. It is sad where the world we live in for the most part is full of idiots. Vanzack continue providing positive +ev posts, I don't have the patience like you do for the people on here but it is great seeing your posts. 

btw.... When are you going to become a clock coach for an NFL team??
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #428
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

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.



How pathetic.  This is your last resort.

I never said you were wrong, you said I was wrong.  My eyes arent better than yours - we see different things.

I never said I was right.

This is absolutely a pathetic attempt to not address any questions in this thread.  You cant source your rule that you know with 100% certainty, while at the same time you cant admit that it is an interpretation and not a rule.

What can I say to that?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 2557
Posted: #429
I am watching CNBC right now and someone mentioned there being class action lawsuits on people who lost on the game.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 3310
Posted: #430
watched the replay over and over, Packer fan ya, did i lose money, no. there is no one in this world that will convince me that Tate had that ball.

Jennings caught the ball with two hands, pulled it to his chest, got pulled to the ground, (play is dead at this point) then Tate stripped him.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2006
Posts: 3189
Posted: #431
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:



Nobody even tries.  Im begging for someone to respond.  They keep beating the same drum - the one that they have no backup for.




Answer this Van how is it simultaneous possession if Jennings catches the ball first and then Tate gets his hand on it? How is simultaneous possession if Tate loses all possession of the football momentarily on the ground while Jennings maintains possession the whole way. It's pointless because its like ur watching a different play.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20326
Posted: #432

Van, what more can i say. I said what i saw and what i thought the rule was. Clearly am wrong.

I listened to what one of the nfls best refs said about the play and i agreed with what he saying. I clearly saw the packer player have the ball controlled up against his chest.  You say tate have his hands on the ball.  Sorry but i didnt see what you saw. Am wrong and your right, so enjoy the victory

Honestly am sorry i even posted in this thread

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 375
Posted: #433
Van your cute logic isn't appealing to me.  I only stated that if it's undefinable for Jennings then the same goes for Tate.  The gig is up. Maybe you should go ref some games.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #434
Quote Originally Posted by kingpincarbs:

I love how ignorant and stupid most NFL fans and gamblers are. They see where all of the analysts are calling it a blown call and they just blindly follow like sheep without giving any thought into the actual rules. Anybody who can think for themselves look at the rules objectively and watch the play would come to the conclusion that the play was interpretation on simultaneous possession. Covers is fortunate to have someone like VAN here who has the patience to deal with mind blowing retards who do not have the brain capacity to think rationally about something. Every time I see a post from Vanzack I know it is going to be informative and most likely against conventional wisdom (IE. morons).

Most people hate Vanzack because deep down he is usually right. I love how he makes posts recommending an intentional safety last night. It definitely was a +ev move to do that, but 99% of the world would say what a total moron that coach was for doing that only needing a FG to tie. It is sad where the world we live in for the most part is full of idiots. Vanzack continue providing positive +ev posts, I don't have the patience like you do for the people on here but it is great seeing your posts. 

btw.... When are you going to become a clock coach for an NFL team??


Thanks for the kind words.

On this issue - I honestly started the thread as just a discussion point.  I wasnt sure, and knew more would come as time went by.  At this point, 12 hours later - I am even more convinced that there is no governing possession rule that can be applied with 100% certainty - and while some might say it didnt look right - if the ref felt that Tate had SOME possession, he needed to rule it a TD.

That logic (as you state) is hard to follow for a lot of folks.  It goes against emotion.  Herm Edwards wants to have a rant, Stuart Scott wants to scream and yell - as do covers posters.  But until someone can clearly state why the possession interpretation was WRONG (not grey, but black or white), then it comes down to a judgement call that cant be disputed - only discussed.

So I know that I have a very unpopular stance on this one.  But I am bolstered by the fact that 12 hours and 400+ posts later - not one person can state the possession rule and how it applies in this situation.  This alone makes me confident in my conclusion.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #435
Quote Originally Posted by pro-metheus:

Van your cute logic isn't appealing to me.  I only stated that if it's undefinable for Jennings then the same goes for Tate.  The gig is up. Maybe you should go ref some games.


"Cute logic".

I love it. If that isnt a white flag I dont know what is.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 17
Posted: #436
As a forewarning I have not read this entire thread.  The rules are left open to interpretation because it is hard to define every rule in every situation.  Even the U.S. Constitution was written to be open to interpretation.  It is simply too expensive, too time consuming, and in many cases not even practical to try to handle the scope and complexity of defining all outcomes.  It seems simple for the NFL to have dual possession clearly defined in the rulebook but you have to look at the rulebook and see how many other terms are not clearly defined and how difficult it would be to apply a strict definition to the terms in every conceivable situation.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2005
Posts: 7407
Posted: #437
Looks like TD to me
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20326
Posted: #438

Metalbill, thats exactly how i saw the play over and over again.

Its clear we didnt see the correct thing.

I think am gonna start just listening to the games on radio, then i wont have to see the silly plays, cant see them anyways

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #439
Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:



Answer this Van how is it simultaneous possession if Jennings catches the ball first and then Tate gets his hand on it? How is simultaneous possession if Tate loses all possession of the football momentarily on the ground while Jennings maintains possession the whole way. It's pointless because its like ur watching a different play.


At the risk of repeating myself for the 1000th time.....

Define possession for me.  Not simultaneous possession - but the possession rule as it applied in that situation.

Can you have possession in the air?  Can you have possession if one of your feet touches in the end zone and you land on another player?  When does possession actually occur?  Can you have possession with one hand?  Is the end zone possession rule different than the on field rule, and how does that apply in this situation?


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6867
Posted: #440
Right don't fade me. Everything is left open for interpretation so therefore an argument can be made for a td catch even though people know what really happened. There is no definite answer to his question because the people who wrote the rules didn't make it 150% clear. As humans it is a judgement call and that right there gives the league office the balls to back the call. End of story.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 20326
Posted: #441
Van forgot about the possession rule.  clearly the refs screwed up first on the simultaneous possession rule
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 375
Posted: #442
Sure it's a white flag Van  lol.   Cute was a euphemism . Guess we are all  entitled to an opinion. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2006
Posts: 3189
Posted: #443
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:



At the risk of repeating myself for the 1000th time.....

Define possession for me.  Not simultaneous possession - but the possession rule as it applied in that situation.

Can you have possession in the air?  Can you have possession if one of your feet touches in the end zone and you land on another player?  When does possession actually occur?  Can you have possession with one hand?  Is the end zone possession rule different than the on field rule, and how does that apply in this situation?




you don't know what possession is now?  Possession of the ball its obviously not a catch until he gets two feet down. In order for a catch a player must have possession of the ball and two feet down. Jennings clearly jumped caught the ball with two hands which is possession then Tate gets possession and of course you can have possession with one hand but doesn't matter because first person too have possession has the ball which is Jennings.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2010
Posts: 4260
Posted: #444
everybody is having fun making such a huge deal about this call... but there are two realities people don't want to accept here...


1) the "bang bang" play on the field did look like simultaneous possession (i.e., when it happened live, it was very easy to see it as simultaneous)...

2) once that mistake is made, it cannot be over-turned... you cannot overturn a call that is based on "simultaneous possession"...




i am personally of the STRONG opinion that ESPN is making such a big deal about it simply because they are on the side of the refs and are trying to get the lockout ended on their behalf... for some of them (people like Steve Young, etc.) to make it out like football died last night... it's fucking retarded...

it was a bad call... we've all seen bad calls before... and yes, we've seen bad calls that decided the outcome of the game...

this isn't the end of the world... and the call wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be, even if it was wrong...
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #445
Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:



you don't know what possession is now?  Possession of the ball its obviously not a catch until he gets two feet down. In order for a catch a player must have possession of the ball and two feet down. Jennings clearly jumped caught the ball with two hands which is possession then Tate gets possession and of course you can have possession with one hand but doesn't matter because first person too have possession has the ball which is Jennings.


Im going to take a wild guess here and assume this is not a quote from the rulebook.


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2006
Posts: 3189
Posted: #446
sorry not gonna go look in a rule book for common sense. If you don't know what possession of the football is that's your fault. We have seen plenty of plays in football where a player gains possession of the football but doesn't get two feet in or where a player gets possession of the football first and then another player gets it also and its not a simultaneous catch.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #447
Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:

sorry not gonna go look in a rule book for common sense. If you don't know what possession of the football is that's your fault. We have seen plenty of plays in football where a player gains possession of the football but doesn't get two feet in or where a player gets possession of the football first and then another player gets it also and its not a simultaneous catch.


Let me guess.....  You are not an attorney?  You weren't in the debate club in high school?


Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2007
Posts: 941
Posted: #448

The League LOVES this, everyone focused on the call in the end zone, that Van and others elegantly say is correct, a beautiful spot for the League, 50/50 on right or wrong.  MEANWHILE back at the beginning of the possesion, a blatant bad call, that scares me into not wagering aymore on NFL, clearly a leagal tackle on Wilson and an interception.  My wife cannot understand why I yelled FUCKERS at the TV with no money on the game.  WWE in play, but you boys that take the Shield to bed with you, keep your eyes closed.  Fuck the NFL until they sort of the Officials.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #449
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

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.


Van the question of possession of the ball may not be black and white but the missed chuck call sure was. I think some people's point here is that.. it was obvious that Seattle did not win the game on the field. It was won by the ref's missing a obvious call and then doing a poor job of making the correct call, the refs could have and should have gone into conference prior to the signal of touchdown by the one ref at that point it could have been decided by review. No excuse a terrible turn of events that most everyone now that have reviewed the tape in still and motion have deduced that the arm wrap actually occurred on the ground and not in the struggle to the ground.

The more important question is as gamblers can we trust that games in the future will not be settled the same way and if mistakes are made will they be settled in such an inequitable fashion.The books could have made this game a NO ACTION after the whole mess I am sure that had the bulk of the action been on Seattle some may have tried...it just another slap at the face of those who believe all contests in professional sports are without pre-determined results..who is to say if the touchdown ref bank account did not just get fatter!

In closing a friend sent me this he picked up off a tweet:

"Tim Donaghy didn't FIX NBA games up this much when he was actually fixing them."
 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59804
Posted: #450
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:

Van the question of possession of the ball may not be black and white but the missed chuck call sure was. I think some people's point here is that.. it was obvious that Seattle did not win the game on the field. It was won by the ref's missing a obvious call and then doing a poor job of making the correct call, the refs could have and should have gone into conference prior to the signal of touchdown by the one ref at that point it could have been decided by review. No excuse a terrible turn of events that most everyone now that have reviewed the tape in still and motion have deduced that the arm wrap actually occurred on the ground and not in the struggle to the ground.

The more important question is as gamblers can we trust that games in the future will not be settled the same way and if mistakes are made will they be settled in such an inequitable fashion.The books could have made this game a NO ACTION after the whole mess I am sure that had the bulk of the action been on Seattle some may have tried...it just another slap at the face of those who believe all contests in professional sports are without pre-determined results..who is to say if the touchdown ref bank account did not just get fatter!

In closing a friend sent me this he picked up off a tweet:

"Tim Donaghy didn't FIX NBA games up this much when he was actually fixing them."


I state multiple times in this thread that they missed the PI call.  NOBODY has disputed that.  The NFL concedes that.  That is not the discussion here.

Whether you "trust" the product is a whole other discussion.  It will only be proven if fans stop spending money.  Gamblers will still bet on the games.


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 - 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.