Quote:
Originally Posted by KMBReferee
I think we are getting control vs. possession mixed up. You can have control in the air, as the case studies have shown. But that doesn't mean you have possession until you come down.
In the case studies cited, if you have clear control in the air and then it's grabbed by a player on the opposing team inbounds, then you don't have dual possession and the person who first had control has possession. The problem here is whether Jennings actually had control while airborne. Tate definitely had a hand on the ball simultaneously with Jennings having two.
Either way, we're dealing with a replay issue, in slow motion. I can't see how any official on the field could have anything other than dual possession in realtime. Although they screwed up with the conflicting signals, the fact is that I believe the initial ruling was correct. Thes slow motion replay review is left up to judgement.
|
I would agree that it is up to individual opinion on who had control of the ball. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't care for either team, although I fall on the side of the play being an interception. I don't have a problem with the ruling on the field either. The refs are doing the best they can under the circumstances and I commend them for that.
My problem is someone arguing a point that is not relevant in this play. Both players possessed the ball once on the ground. To secure control, one does not have to have anything on the ground, ie a foot or both feet. That is necessary to obtain possession but not control. In my view of the play, it is obvious that the green bay player controlled the ball prior to Seattle player gaining control. With that mindset, yes the play was ruled incorrectly by time.
If you deem the Seattle player controlled at the same time as green bay player, then you have a simultaneous possession and the ruling on the field was correct.