Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Even M. Lynch knows the truth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iron Lion" data-source="post: 466009" data-attributes="member: 5995"><p>The first two sentences are correct.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>I say this because if Player X is offense, and Player Y is defense, then Player X does <strong>not</strong> 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 <strong>does</strong>.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As for the final statement, the disagreement in this controversy with the officials is in the <strong>judgment call</strong> 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.</p><p> </p><p>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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iron Lion, post: 466009, member: 5995"] 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 [B]not[/B] 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 [B]does[/B]. As for the final statement, the disagreement in this controversy with the officials is in the [B]judgment call[/B] 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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Voyageur
Today at 4:28 PM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
The Indiana Bears?
Latest: milani
Today at 4:00 PM
NFL Discussions
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Today at 3:31 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 2:51 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 1:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Even M. Lynch knows the truth
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
