I disagree as most jump balls a lot of things happen and with 5 officials? I am not so sure about it being called or seen.

Peace

Purposefully towards that area of the end zone to get into a better position to officiate the back of the end zone and help the other official as soon as he sees the ball going in that direction?

I can't understand why A.R. 8.29 seemingly is ignored by those who think it was legitimately a touchdown--including the NFL brass today, although I understand they may have a bit different agenda in all this.

He was on the end line the entire time. Again, do you have some reference that suggest he should be any other place? He does not have to be on top of the play to call the play. Actually closer is almost never better.

Peace

In a one-on-one jump ball, you're absolutely correct, it would be called, almost every time. (I say "almost", because... you know, sometimes it's blown.)

We would all like to think that the end-of-game situations don't permit action that would otherwise be inexcusable. The argument could be made that Jennings "played through" Tate on his way to attempt the catch, and that that should be called also.*

Given the options, I think holding the flags for everything except malicious or flagrant fouls in that situation is the preferred philosophy... until players start getting too violent, in which case the league will hopefully provide an intelligently crafted memorandum.

*I only have the 360i SD feed to watch the game on at home, so I couldn't tell a LOT of things until I looked on the computer screen. But someone in my office brought that up.

I didn't say "closer is better", rather, move "purposefully in that direction". And, I agree that standing on top of the play is rarely better. Being too close removes angle and perspective. That said, the BJ did end up in the back pocket of the play (which may have been warranted). My question is: why wouldn't he be moving purposefully in the direction of the play as soon as he saw the ball going that direction? I don't know if he should be according to NFL officiating mechanics, so I'd like to know why if he isn't to be moving that direction at that time. Seems like better perspective would give opportunity to present better information to the calling official that signaled TD. Am I way off with that line of reasoning?

edit: I just looked at the youtube vid of the play again. The BJ is breaking, rather quickly I might add, to be in position to rule and/or give info. Nicley done.

This still does not tell me what he should have done differently? Now I do not know if NFL mechanics are so drastically different than CCA Mechanics, but I see nothing he should have done differently. I was told to stay in the middle and even at some point stop to give yourself a still place to view the play. He never stops, but tries to help and all I am saying is that just seems nitpicky to say he was not moving with a purpose (before your edit). He should not be sprinting.

Peace

Hence my "edit" statement.

Agreed.

I know, that is why I referenced the edit. Then again you were not the only one that made this reference either.

Peace

The question seems to be whether or not he Jennings actually secured the ball without Tate's hand being in there. I'm not convinced the video is all that telling on this. The NFL simply stated the play should not have been reversed by replay; completely different than saying the call on the field was right.

And I think that issue honestly is up for debate. I know I can see both sides of this debate when it is based on rules. I just think that we have to use the rules to keep having that debate, not personal feelings about what we think it looked like. Football is much more a game of rules than most sports I know and you cannot just do things without support of rules.

Peace

And I think that they would have had the same comment if the ruling on the field would have been that it was an interception. There just wasn't enough indisuptable evidence to change the original call.

But the second sentence of simultaneous catch rule does not use the words "catch" or "possession." To me, that's the controlling rule. I think it's unfortunate that the terms switch so much in the various rules, but it uses "control," and it seems pretty clear that control is not intended elsewhere in the rules to be synonymous with catch or possession (or "completed pass").

To use a crazy hypothetical, a defender catches the ball and holds it to his body tightly, while having one foot on the ground IB. He tries to gain his balance to put his second foot IB. A second later, just before his second foot hits IB, a receiver reaches an arm in, and gets joint control as the second foot of the defender touches. I read the second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule to say that this is an interception.

The biggest question is how would two of the regular officials have ruled this play? :confused:

Of course, we'll never know.

I think even if there's no lockout and the regular guys are on the field, this play is still a huge mess. In some ways, it's a lot like the old tuck rule play that occurred with the Raiders-Pats. I wonder if this might result in a re-write of the rule, although the case play seems to address it.

If the call on the field would have been interception, the headlines would be reading, "Replacement officials screw up and take away last second TD Catch" . The media would be bashing them over the incorrect interception call. This was a no win situation. I agree that no matter if the regulars are in or replacements, this play would be used to raise ratings.