Actually the last sentence is what I believed happened. The problem for the defense is he did not have possession first.

Peace

Yes. I have seen officials give the "stop clock" signal immediately followed by the "touchback" signal. The back judge obviously wasn't signalling a touchdown since he gave the "stop clock" signal, so he had something different than the guy who signaled touchdown.

I agree. I just don't see how the Seattle WR had control/possession of the ball in the same way the Green Bay DB did. I still think this call was awful and the mechanics were awful.

Are you trying to say that Tate came back to the ground first and "completed the process of the catch" before the DB did? Seems to me that the since he controlled the ball first, assuming he completes the process of the catch, he goes to who gets it first...regardless of if the second player returns to the ground first.

Just as the Green Bay DB puts both hands on the ball on the way down, Tate's right hand grabs the GB DB's arm/wrist. His left arm is out of the picture, but it would be impossible for him to have that hand on the ball because of where it is. As they hit the ground, Tate sticks his right hand on the ball while the GB DB still has it clutched to his chest.

I just don't buy it.

You are not going to signal a TD if you do not have a TD. That means that if he cannot tell, he is not going to give a signal. That is basic stuff in 7 man mechanics as his line was not threatened (meaning no one crossed or touched the line) and if he cannot see any catch, he is not going to rule anything. All he can do is offer some information, but he only should be signalling a TB if he has one and that was not his signal. And to say "I have seen a TB signal after a stop clock signal" is irrelevant because he never gave any TB signal by all accounts. If it was me, I would probably have done a similar thing if I wanted to discuss the situation. I probably would have been doing this earlier, but that is only based on seeing the video. But if he had a TB and only a TB, then he would have come up with that signal. But I do not think he even saw the completion of the catch and that is why he did not signal anything that said he had a TD or TB.

Peace

I am not asking you to buy anything. Just stating that you cannot have a catch completed until you come to the ground. Again that is the part of the rule many do not seem to want to deal with, but mention all these other non-factor issues like how many arms are on the ball. How many arms on the ball mean nothing in any catch, that is obvious if you watch much football.

Peace

What do you mean?

LOL!!!

Peace

I thought I was the only one in the world that thought that. And I didn't even think it was all that close, but I didn't know the NFL rule for sure.

Had this happened in an NCAA game and I was the calling official, I would have ruled it a TD.

He really did screw this up. It's one thing for the idiotic talking heads and football jocks on ESPN to screw this up; it's entirely another for an established veteran official - one that's supposedly an assigner as well - to get up there and blow it. He's supposed to know this stuff; I imagine that's why ESPN hired him.

OK Welpe, you are next. Names are falling like flies around here. :D

Peace

In High School this 100% would have been called a TD as you cannot have possession until you hit the ground. Again, I don't know the NFL rule nuances such as control vs possession and what not, so I am not qualified to talk about the ruling on the field.

But in HS 100% a TD.

BTW, the guy that was the Back Judge, he is a former Big 12 and Arena Football League Official. That is the kind of guy that actually gets hired in the NFL as the Arena League was often used as a training ground for NFL prospects and current NFL officials.

And the formation was set to the opposite side of the field with trips, so I want to know where he else he was supposed to be located?

Peace

Pretty sure that OPI would have been called in most HS games!