Even M. Lynch knows the truth

[bozz_2006]

Straight from the NFL rulebook:

"It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control."

What you're saying about getting both of his feet down first is completely irrelevant to the topic. You're debating what constitutes a catch, but that's not what this is about. It's about control (possession).

Jennings gained control first, then Tate's hand got stuck against Jennings' chest, which I supposed you could call joint control, on some level. But that didn't happen until after Jennings gained control first.

And as you stated, "The Packer DB clearly caught the ball first in a physical sense," and you're right that this doesn't constitute a catch. It constitutes control. Tate, at some point after, gains joint control, and when they hit the ground, it's a catch. For Jennings.

 

[longtimefan]

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first (MD had both hands on the ball way before Tate had 2 hands on it)and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.


MD had the ball with both hands on the ground, while tate only hand one hand on it

Explain how Tate's left arm hand can be on the ball here?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[longtimefan]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[dansz15]

The Packer DB clearly caught the ball first in a physical sense. But this is not a catch. It is not a catch until he gets both feet down. By the time that happens, Tate has both of his hands on the ball.

Obviously your guy had "more" possession of the ball. However, that is not relevant to the rules, it is not an issue that pertains to the rules, it has nothing to do with the rulebook. It can be 99% possession by one guy and 1% by another and that is still simultaneous possession. It comes down to a judgment call, and the bottom line is that Tate had both hands on it by the time the DB finished the process of the catch.

You may want to check out the picture on jsonline.com today. I think that could change your opinion. Tate had 1 arm in Jennings chest on the ground. Not two hands on the ball. Refs made a home-team call. End of story we lost lets move on to NO this week, that is now more important.

 

[SpartaChris]

OK so it's becoming apparent to me I should've come in here crying and betching last year when my Lions lost @GB for the several totally blown calls in favor of your team? Stop crying lol learn the rules, simultaneous possession does not apply until the defender gets both feet down and by that time Tate has his 2nd hand on the ball. But I guess whining goes well with cheeseheads.

There was nothing simultaneous about the possession. MD Jennings clearly had full possession of the ball all the way to the ground.

 

[longtimefan]

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first (MD had both hands on the ball way before Tate had 2 hands on it)and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.


MD had the ball with both hands on the ground, while tate only hand one hand on it

Explain how Tate's left arm hand can be on the ball here?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

where is tates arm?

Not on the ball

Where are Jennings arms?

 

[13 Times Champs]

Tates arm is under the ball as a consequence of Jennings catching the ball and pinning both the ball and Tates hand to his chest.

 

[Alex]

I mean to say he did not have possession first. He did have possession, but not before Tate did.

what are you smoking? I want some

 

[PFanCan]

It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first (MD had both hands on the ball way before Tate had 2 hands on it)and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.


MD had the ball with both hands on the ground, while tate only hand one hand on it

Explain how Tate's left arm hand can be on the ball here?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Tate's left arm in underneath Jennings. Where else could it be, unless it is made of rubber?

His right arm is probably touching the ball, but clearly the palm of his hand is facing towards Jennings body-- probably his upper chest or neck.

The rulebook is clear (paraphrased below):

1. A catch is made if a player controls the ball and maintains that control through landing on the ground with two feet or body (page 13).
2. Control only requires a firm grasp on the ball. It is only one requirement of a catch. This is mentioned throughout the rulebook within clarifications of various rules (see Article 7, page 13 for an instance). Do not confuse the two terms. The NFL official response confuses the two on purpose (I believe) in order to offer a red herring and get out of a sticky situation.
3. A simultaneous catch is not possible if a player controls the ball before the other. (page 47). Jennings had control first, and never relenquished control throughout the entire process. Therefore, not only did he invalidate any simultaneous catch claim, but he actually was the only person who caught the ball.

 

[PFanCan]

Imagine the following:

1. Defensive player jumps high to intercept a pass in the opponent's endzone. No one else even tries to catch the ball.
2. He grabs the ball and tucks to his chest in mid-air.
3. Just prior to landing on both feet, an offensive player reaches in from behind in order to make a tackle and prevent a return out of the endzone. As he does so, both hands scrape against the cradled ball.
4. After landing, the defensive player shakes off the tackle and runs away with the ball.

Is the play immediately ended and the offense awarded a touchdown? Ridiculous to even think so!

But, this is essentially the argument the NFL is taking!

It gets less absurd when the arms and bodies are tangled throughout the jump and a scrum occurs at the end of the jump. But, the fundamentals are the same!

 

[milani]

Seahawks fan here. I’ll come out and say it: there is no way we deserved that touchdown, and that was the single worst call I’ve ever seen. At first I stood up and cheered, and upon seeing the replay I thought “Oh, never mind, they’re going to overturn that, damn it, we lost,” which was followed up a second later with “Holy (expletive), they didn’t reverse it?!!” If you look solely at that play as the only bad call, clearly you guys should have won the game. I think however that there were so many bad calls in that game that there isn’t a legitimate result one way or another. In the second half Green Bay got away with holding on almost every play, which explains why Seattle suddenly stopped getting sacks. The PI call against Chancellor on third down which enabled your touchdown drive was also completely bogus. The PI against Shields was absurd as well. When Brandon Browner body slammed Jennings to the turf and the fight ensued, Browner should have been ejected from the game. Those are just a few examples. Therefore in my opinion the score of 14-12 is not legitimate, and the score of 12-7 that existed right before the final play was also not legitimate, and it is simply impossible to know who would have won the game with real officials. For what it’s worth, I take no pride in this win, and frankly it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Best of luck to the Packers going forward.[/quote

I agree about the penalties. You had 14 and we had 10. It seemed like the refs were trying to even out their calls against both teams just so they did not look biased. The players probably knew what they might get away with in pass blocking and pass defending. Then out of nowhere they throw a flag.
The interference on a Hail Mary rarely gets called on either side unless it is blatant.
It did happen in the Lions favor several years ago.
But the play in question was not about a penalty call. It was about catching and possessing a thrown football. And that is the difference. Replay has no part in addressing fouls. It does have the ability evaluate the position of the football and that of a player.

 

[CharlieCobra]

Regardless, it was a horribly called game all the way around. I'm a Hawks fan and am not even a little bit happy with the results. Will we take the W? Yep, so would anybody else. I'm just pissed that a potentially great game was marred by those striped clowns... The Pack will bounce back and soon, of that I am sure.

 

[PFanCan]

Regardless, it was a horribly called game all the way around. I'm a Hawks fan and am not even a little bit happy with the results. Will we take the W? Yep, so would anybody else. I'm just pissed that a potentially great game was marred by those striped clowns... The Pack will bounce back and soon, of that I am sure.

Thanks for the message, Charlie. I couldn't agree more. Can't wait until these two teams meet up again in the post season with the real refs. (and in GB!!!!!!)

 

[FrankRizzo]

Such a crime.
My only wonder is why Jennings didn't immediately roll away from Tate.
Did he not think of it, or was he not strong enough to.
Tate didn't appear to have a good position here to hold him off, or of course hold the ball in a tug of war.

Regardless, it was so obvious that for the NFL to not overturn it via replay that night, or Goodell overnight, it tells me the only explanation is FOLLOW THE MONEY. That's what is usually at the bottom of fishy things like this.... I heard more than 75% of the betting money was on Green Bay. Meaning had we won, Vegas would have lost $.

Vegas is not in the business of losing money. I do know that.

I can't imagine Goodell of course being corrupt in this manner. True many politicians (almost all on both sides) are corrupt (bribeable), so maybe it's not beneath Goodell. But I don't think so.

I do know more refs are corrupt than just Tim Donaughy.

I find those reasons more believable then them BEING BLIND to ALL THE EVIDENCE.

 

[GreenBayGal]

Tate even said in an interview he had both hands on it at all times..

Really?

Maybe he meant he had his hand on both of his balls. They sure weren't on the FOOTball.

 

[Iron Lion]

Straight from the NFL rulebook:

"It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control."

What you're saying about getting both of his feet down first is completely irrelevant to the topic. You're debating what constitutes a catch, but that's not what this is about. It's about control (possession).

Jennings gained control first, then Tate's hand got stuck against Jennings' chest, which I supposed you could call joint control, on some level. But that didn't happen until after Jennings gained control first.

And as you stated, "The Packer DB clearly caught the ball first in a physical sense," and you're right that this doesn't constitute a catch. It constitutes control. Tate, at some point after, gains joint control, and when they hit the ground, it's a catch. For Jennings.

Yeah but I think the problem is that what you're quoting is outside of the "in the air" section. There's also a "going to the ground" section. I agree that Jennings had control first. But there is no catch at the point in time that there is only control and that the process is not completed.

"Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously 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 joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball."

What that's trying to say is that if Player X completes the process of a catch, and then opposing Player Y gains simultaneous possession, the ball belongs to Player X.

You can't just advance the ball by chucking it downfield. You have to have the process of a catch completed before the ball is considered advanced. At the moment that Jennings was in the air with control of the ball, he had not completed the process of the catch and the ball was still not yet advanced. At this point in time the ball was essentially tipped, as it was not possessed and hence not advanced, but had been contacted by a defender. By the time the ball was possessed, there was simultaneous possession, and the ball is awarded to the passing team by rule.

The play is deceiving because Jennings had "more" of the ball. In earlier eras it would have been ruled an INT. But we all saw Megatron "not complete the process of the catch," and that is what happened here.

 

[PFanCan]

Such a crime.
My only wonder is why Jennings didn't immediately roll away from Tate.
of

He knew he had the INT. let the party begin. He had no idea what was about to occur...

 

[areacodes]

Yeah but I think the problem is that what you're quoting is outside of the "in the air" section. There's also a "going to the ground" section. I agree that Jennings had control first. But there is no catch at the point in time that there is only control and that the process is not completed.

"Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously 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 joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball."

What that's trying to say is that if Player X completes the process of a catch, and then opposing Player Y gains simultaneous possession, the ball belongs to Player X.

You can't just advance the ball by chucking it downfield. You have to have the process of a catch completed before the ball is considered advanced. At the moment that Jennings was in the air with control of the ball, he had not completed the process of the catch and the ball was still not yet advanced. At this point in time the ball was essentially tipped, as it was not possessed and hence not advanced, but had been contacted by a defender. By the time the ball was possessed, there was simultaneous possession, and the ball is awarded to the passing team by rule.

The play is deceiving because Jennings had "more" of the ball. In earlier eras it would have been ruled an INT. But we all saw Megatron "not complete the process of the catch," and that is what happened here.

Let me see if I follow correctly.

You agree that Jennings had control first, correct?

Then you quote a rule that states: "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control." Correct?

Next you say, that Player X must complete the process of the catch before Player Y gains joint control for Player X to have possession of the ball. Am I following correctly?

Lets do a hypothetical scenario then. So Player X (defense) is a few feet away from Player Y (offense) when he controlled the football in the air (as you agree that Jennings did) and before he touches the ground with two feet, Player Y also gets his hand on the football. Now, Player X would not have possession of the ball? Instead possession should go to Player Y because of the Simultaneous Catch rule? Please explain, because that is essentially what happened at the end of the game except it was in a group of players.

 

[Wills29]

Seahawks fan here. I’ll come out and say it: there is no way we deserved that touchdown, and that was the single worst call I’ve ever seen. At first I stood up and cheered, and upon seeing the replay I thought “Oh, never mind, they’re going to overturn that, damn it, we lost,” which was followed up a second later with “Holy (expletive), they didn’t reverse it?!!” If you look solely at that play as the only bad call, clearly you guys should have won the game. I think however that there were so many bad calls in that game that there isn’t a legitimate result one way or another. In the second half Green Bay got away with holding on almost every play, which explains why Seattle suddenly stopped getting sacks. The PI call against Chancellor on third down which enabled your touchdown drive was also completely bogus. The PI against Shields was absurd as well. When Brandon Browner body slammed Jennings to the turf and the fight ensued, Browner should have been ejected from the game. Those are just a few examples. Therefore in my opinion the score of 14-12 is not legitimate, and the score of 12-7 that existed right before the final play was also not legitimate, and it is simply impossible to know who would have won the game with real officials. For what it’s worth, I take no pride in this win, and frankly it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Best of luck to the Packers going forward.

I was at the game and for the most part Seattle fans were cool and the atmosphere was incredible. I think many Seattle fans were a bit surprised by the Packer Nation, but that damn stadium of yours just kept getting louder and louder. Besides the obvious anger against the refs, I was also curious why they never showed the replay once at the stadium. My thought is they knew it wasn't a catch and they didn't want to show the home crowd. We just stood here wondering WTF is going on.

 

[Iron Lion]

Let me see if I follow correctly.

You agree that Jennings had control first, correct?

Then you quote a rule that states: "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control." Correct?

Next you say, that Player X must complete the process of the catch before Player Y gains joint control for Player X to have possession of the ball. Am I following correctly?

Lets do a hypothetical scenario then. So Player X (defense) is a few feet away from Player Y (offense) when he controlled the football in the air (as you agree that Jennings did) and before he touches the ground with two feet, Player Y also gets his hand on the football. Now, Player X would not have possession of the ball? Instead possession should go to Player Y because of the Simultaneous Catch rule? Please explain, because that is essentially what happened at the end of the game except it was in a group of players.

The first two sentences are correct.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying in #3. If you remove "before Player Y gains joint control" then I certainly agree that "Player X must complete the process of the catch for Player X to have possession of the ball." For your unedited statement to be true it depends on who Player X is and who Player Y is, because "ties go to the offense." Just like in baseball the "tie goes to the runner." Just like in Mortal Kombat if two characters hit each other at the same exact time then port priority is enacted and Player 1 gets the hit.

I say this because if Player X is offense, and Player Y is defense, then Player X does not have to complete the process of the catch before Player Y gains joint control for Player X to have possession of the ball. However, Player Y does.


As for the final statement, the disagreement in this controversy with the officials is in the judgment call with regards to the simultaneous possession. Simultaneous possession is a judgment call, i.e. it is subjective and not objective. This is why it is not reviewable. It is not in the enforcement of the rules that is in question on this play. You are arguing that their judgment was off, just like how OPI is a judgment call and the refs' judgment on the lack of OPI was wrong. But when you argue that the ref's judgment call is off, you really have nowhere to go with it. It's not something like the ball clearly breaking the plane but being ruled not a touchdown. That situation is not a judgment call.

Also there is a misunderstanding that because Jennings had "more" control of the ball, he should have been awarded possession at the end. But there is no gray area on this issue. It is either simultaneous possession or not, regardless of who has "more." If a player has "more" possession to a certain extent then he has full possession, and this is why there's no simultaneous possession when, for example, a defender swats at the ball in an offensive player's hand (even though he has actually touched the ball, he never possessed it).

 

[DevilDon]

The first two sentences are correct.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying in #3. If you remove "before Player Y gains joint control" then I certainly agree that "Player X must complete the process of the catch for Player X to have possession of the ball." For your unedited statement to be true it depends on who Player X is and who Player Y is, because "ties go to the offense." Just like in baseball the "tie goes to the runner." Just like in Mortal Kombat if two characters hit each other at the same exact time then port priority is enacted and Player 1 gets the hit.

I say this because if Player X is offense, and Player Y is defense, then Player X does not have to complete the process of the catch before Player Y gains joint control for Player X to have possession of the ball. However, Player Y does.


As for the final statement, the disagreement in this controversy with the officials is in the judgment call with regards to the simultaneous possession. Simultaneous possession is a judgment call, i.e. it is subjective and not objective. This is why it is not reviewable. It is not in the enforcement of the rules that is in question on this play. You are arguing that their judgment was off, just like how OPI is a judgment call and the refs' judgment on the lack of OPI was wrong. But when you argue that the ref's judgment call is off, you really have nowhere to go with it. It's not something like the ball clearly breaking the plane but being ruled not a touchdown. That situation is not a judgment call.

Also there is a misunderstanding that because Jennings had "more" control of the ball, he should have been awarded possession at the end. But there is no gray area on this issue. It is either simultaneous possession or not, regardless of who has "more." If a player has "more" possession to a certain extent then he has full possession, and this is why there's no simultaneous possession when, for example, a defender swats at the ball in an offensive player's hand (even though he has actually touched the ball, he never possessed it).

This will help you clear things up for Lions and Hawks fans alike:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/related/
Jennings had control and Tate did not.

 

[Iron Lion]

Yes I get it, you're coming at me with the same line:

“It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”


I'm still not sure that this applies to a situation in the air but I see your point.

The word "catch" is in there, and that means a whole process where control is just one part of it. I think it needs to be rewritten, honestly.

 

[bozz_2006]

if Player Y is defense... then Player Y does... have to complete the process of the catch... before Player X gains joint control to have possession of the ball.

This is where you're getting hung up. You misunderstand the rule. You're saying it's a simultaneous catch because as they're going to the ground, both players complete the process of the catch, right? Simultaneous catch does not mean only that the process of the catch is completed simultaneously by both players, but also that control of the ball (in the air, on the ground, doesn't matter) is secured simultaneously by both players.

If one player gains control of the ball before first, then another player gains subsequent control, it is not a simultaneous catch. This catch was not simultaneous because, as you said, Jennings had control of the ball before Tate. If that "before" enters into the conversation, it's not a simultaneous catch.

 

[PFanCan]

...

I say this because if Player X is offense, and Player Y is defense, then Player X does not have to complete the process of the catch before Player Y gains joint control for Player X to have possession of the ball. However, Player Y does.


As for the final statement, the disagreement in this controversy with the officials is in the judgment call with regards to the simultaneous possession. Simultaneous possession is a judgment call, i.e. it is subjective and not objective. This is why it is not reviewable. It is not in the enforcement of the rules that is in question on this play. You are arguing that their judgment was off, just like how OPI is a judgment call and the refs' judgment on the lack of OPI was wrong. But when you argue that the ref's judgment call is off, you really have nowhere to go with it. It's not something like the ball clearly breaking the plane but being ruled not a touchdown. That situation is not a judgment call.

Also there is a misunderstanding that because Jennings had "more" control of the ball, he should have been awarded possession at the end. But there is no gray area on this issue. It is either simultaneous possession or not, regardless of who has "more." If a player has "more" possession to a certain extent then he has full possession, and this is why there's no simultaneous possession when, for example, a defender swats at the ball in an offensive player's hand (even though he has actually touched the ball, he never possessed it).

Firstly, in your first paragraph, you state that the outcome is different whether the offensive guy completes the catch vs. the defensive guy first. No where have I seen this mentioned in the rule book (see Page 47, there are no distinctions between offensive player or defensive anywhere). I believe you are incorrect. BTW, I have not seen this argument anywhere else these past few days.

Second paragraph: Simultaneous possession is reviewable. See the NFL's announcement ("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.")

And, lastly, you are of the opinion that a hand on a ball constitutes some level of control. This position has been taken by some Seahawk fans as well. Too bad the rulebook does not clarify this point. It only states that "control" requires a "firm grip". Can a player single-hand grab a ball out of the air? Yes. But, it's thin ice, at best, imo.

 

[PFanCan]

Click on the link in Devil Don's post above. The article analyzes the rules and exposes the NFL's statement perfectly. Couldn't have written it better.