- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 33
So what you guys are saying is:
1. There was initial control by Jennings, which should trump the "fact" that there was simultaneous possession at some point.
2. This should have been reviewable since it was in the endzone, and the replacement official totally blew the replay call.
What I'm saying is:
1. Once the process of the catch was completed, there was simultaneous possession. The ball was not caught only by Jennings; it was caught by both, and awarded to the offensive player.
2. The quote about it "not being simultaneous catch if one player first has control" is something I have to look into because as I've said, I'm skeptical that it applies to the case where the feet are not down in bounds. I think it's talking about a situation where having control automatically constitutes a catch due to the other conditions being satisfied. I think the quote is taken out of context in the book. If it's not, then the rules are not clear on this issue and should be revisited.
1. There was initial control by Jennings, which should trump the "fact" that there was simultaneous possession at some point.
2. This should have been reviewable since it was in the endzone, and the replacement official totally blew the replay call.
What I'm saying is:
1. Once the process of the catch was completed, there was simultaneous possession. The ball was not caught only by Jennings; it was caught by both, and awarded to the offensive player.
2. The quote about it "not being simultaneous catch if one player first has control" is something I have to look into because as I've said, I'm skeptical that it applies to the case where the feet are not down in bounds. I think it's talking about a situation where having control automatically constitutes a catch due to the other conditions being satisfied. I think the quote is taken out of context in the book. If it's not, then the rules are not clear on this issue and should be revisited.