Even M. Lynch knows the truth

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.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
No, there was never once simultaneous possession. Catching the guy who caught the ball is not "Simultaneous possession." PFT had a solid write up explaining that particular rule, and the FACT of the matter is Golden Taint never once had "Simultaneous possession" of the ball. Even the eye test tells you Jennings clearly had the ball caught and possessed in his chest first, well before Taint ever once slipped a hand on the ball. Pretty simple, really.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/

In reality, the outcome was determined before the players hit the ground. That’s when Jennings first gained “control” of the ball, regardless of whether Tate eventually secured simultaneous “possession” of it.
The relevant portion of the official 2012 rules comes from Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5: “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the officials determined that Tate and Jennings jointly had “possession” when they landed; the question is whether Jennings “gained control” first.
The NFL’s statement likely omitted that fact because the video shows Jennings “gained control” first. This video shows the best angle; Jennings caught the ball with both hands while Tate had only one hand (his left) on the ball. Tate eventually got his right hand on the ball, but after Jennings “gained control” of it.
The league’s most recent casebook, which is posted at NFL.com, specifically addresses this situation at A.R. 8.29, under the all-caps title NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH: “First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.” (Emphasis added.)
 

jaybadger82

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
837
Reaction score
83
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.

Well, here's the current NFL rulebook. See Rule 8, section 1, article 3, item 5: Simultaneous Catch.

Jennings established control of the football before Tate. Any subsequent control obtained by Tate becomes meaningless under the rule. Jennings feet have nothing to do with the analysis except in determining whether the pass was incomplete or intercepted.

If you think another portion of the rulebook should be applied then please identify it or ****.

The overwhelming popular consensus on the error of that call indicates the stupidity of your post.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
Lol, Taint now. OK. Come on guys you have had some major BS calls go your way in the past to majorly swing games, try to have a little class in the face of controversy going the other way. Need I remind you of the Samkon Gado "incomplete pass" or whatever the hell that was? Need I remind you of the muffed punt return last year that was ruled a catch? Need I remind you of the Titus Young TD that was ruled incomplete? And the list goes on.

Jaylover, I have identified it. Go back and read or ****.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top