All Forums | NFL Betting

Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....

Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 30159
Posts: 479
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 4519
Posted: #476

Gabbo...your version of the events as described in the previous page defies belief.  May I recommend corrective lenses.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 8177
Posted: #477
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

This is the game that brings the real refs back.

Can you imagine Ed Hocculi at home right now?  He just popped a bottle of Crystal.


Seriously, those refs must be just loving this right now. However did you see the NFL's statement on the catch? Unreal
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 652
Posted: #478

Quote Originally Posted by Gabbo:

Haha, Tilt, I would say The US fans are either wusses or not really fanatical enough. Soccer fans would definitely have rioted last night.

The game was in Seattle, dumbass. What are the fans going to right about? Getting a break on a bad call to win the game?

 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #479
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Come on D2!  YOu are an attorney!!

Follow this in a legal sense.  Help a brother out here.  If there is an interpretation by a judge because a law doesnt exactly apply to a situation, many times there is no clear cut black and white answer.

That is my position on the ruling last night.  There was no black and white answer.  It was an interpretation.  Until I see the "law" that governs the key part of this case, the ruling has no precedent.



First, I had Seattle and I hate GB, so I was happy with the result.

The rules quoted that I've seen still seems vague to me.  I haven't seen a definition of simultaneous possession and joint control.  I guess you could see that ambiguity and leave open the interpretation, as you put it, 1% possession is still possession and if it's simultaneous then it's joint control and it goes to the offense.  But also consider that rulings usually involve not only the rulebook but also precedent interpreting it.  It doesn't happen all that frequently, but you see situations like this happen from time to time in the NFL and I can't ever recall a situation where the rule was interpreted to mean that the receiver with a hand on the ball is the equivalent to the defender with two hands, two arms and ball to the chest.  Is it a valid interpretation if the rule has never been interpreted by an NFL official in this way before?

You're making the proper argument for your side of the ledger, but if I'm sitting as a judge, I'm looking at precedent interpreting the rule (and common sense if that's allowed) and saying that that was not simultaneous possession.
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.