NFL says call was correct

Agree.

Agree.

Disagree. Tate had both hands on the ball clearly before Jennings landed two feet.

Tate had one hand with control on the ball. You can catch a ball with one hand. Just because Jennings has two doesn't necessarily mean he has "more" control. Where in the rule books does it indicate this? It doesn't. It's a judgement call. His other hand established control AND by touching both feet, established possession BEFORE Jennings touched two feet. So who really caught it? Answer: It's not 100% clear. Ergo, simultaneous catch. The league agrees. Period. End of story.

The refs more then made up for the hump. The 3rd and 25 PI gave them everything back on the last drive. Seattle had the ball in the redzone with nothing overly funky going on with the refs and turned it over on downs. They got it back again and still couldn't get the ball legitimately in the endzone. They had their chances. Without a bad call they couldn't get it done.

Besides they got 8 sacks in the first half and should have been able to put this game out of reach by halftime so either GB's D is better then people give them credit for or Seattle's offense sucks. Eight sacks and 7 points? What?

That's a tough one for all you anti-Packer fans or Seattle homies, I know.

^ I can't even imagine how our guys on defense felt after they worked so hard only to get shafted big time. They must have been deflated, pissed, and discouraged all at once. I really hope they decide to take out their MNF frustrations on the Saints. That would lift our spirits and get us back in a winning frame of mind.

For all the Seattle groupies, you know damn well who really shoulda won that game. Hell, even your own players admit it was a joke of a call. When you get players/coaches/sports writers/commentators/owners/and the PRESIDENT of the USA to say it was a BS call......I think the sea chicken hommies can burry their heads in the sand for a while along with your d!ckhead classless coach. It WAS an interception, clearly. No regular ref would have called it otherwise. The unqualified ref wouldn't be calling a pee-wee game IMO.

Dirty bear.....how the hell does one guy with two hands on the ball have just as much control of the ball as the guy who supposedly had one handed control? Get real man.

This is my last post on this matter, as this dead horse has been thoroughly beaten:

Actually, we agree. Tate had both hands on the ball when he landed on the ground. And, he landed before Jennings. Agreed.

Agreed that one can catch a ball with one hand.

I do believe that Jennings had "more" control, so we disagree on this, but I agree that the rule book never mentions "more" or "less" control. It just says control. It also (page 13) mentions that control requires a "firm grasp" on the ball. But, other than several mentions of control being required for a catch, it never really defines what control is. That is too bad.

Your other comments about possession and landing two feet first have been well established by hundreds of published articles that this line of reasoning is not relevant. The NFL's statement simply offers a red herring to get themselves out of a sticky situation. Totally understandable. So, I disagree that possession matters in this particular debate or that the NFL "really" agrees.

In general, I find it amazing that folks continue arguing that Tate really caught that ball. I guess it's a big world out there and fans tend to be fanatic...

So, Dirty Bear: Consider the following: If Jennings had gone up and caught the ball. While he was still in the air, an offensive player came up behind him and tackled him to the ground in the endzone. While he was wrapping his arms around, his hands came into contact with the ball (as they normally would). Touchdown for the tackler? Or INT and a touchback? Seems silly to even ask, doesn't it? But your reasoning indicates a TD, no?

However, the story is ended. I agree on this, too.

Control is control. Last time I checked, 1 handed catches are allowed in the NFL. Show me where in the rule books where it says 2 hands on a ball > 1 hand on a ball.

No. At the moment of control (when the catch happens), you need to ask who's hands are on the ball? Tate had control of the ball with his left hand and never relinquished. Jennings had control of the ball with both hands initially, then only with his right hand as he came to the ground (as screen captures from an alternate angle that I saw this morning indicated).

Even had Jennings had control with both hands throughout the play, my point still stands. Two hands doesn't mean more control than one. There's nothing in the NFL rulebook that states this.

Regardless of what it looked like from replay, the call on the field was a TD. The other ref (contrary to what many believe) did not signal interception. He signaled clock stoppage (which is absurd, but that's another matter). When an INT is made in the endzone, referees signal a touchback, not time out. Go look at past footage from other games. You can clearly see this.

With the call on the field a TD, you need irrefutable evidence to overturn the call. I don't see how that could possibly be done when you consider two facts:

1. Tate's left hand actually caught the ball before Jennings even touched it. Frame-by-frame analysis shows this. The simultaneous catch is called because THREE hands were involved in the catch.

2. Tate's left hand never left the ball. Ergo, control throughout the play.

Show me a picture that Tate caught the ball before Jennings touched it.

Yup. This was established by Monday. INT, no catch, no debate.

Why is this a surprise? I have never understood it. So he's a fan. Every single ref in the NFL is a fan of one team or another. Don't kid yourself. The point is that their calls have to hold up under scrutiny, not which team's jersey they wear on weekdays.

It's called professionalism.