Last play of GB Seattle

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Matt

The only time there were four arms on the ball was after both players were on the ground.

Just saw the replay again. Gotta agree with this observation. I'll let you football stripes debate the application of the rules, though.

[Adam]

Play nice, kids.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

You guys are arguing with the White Hat on the broadcasts who worked 2 Super Bowls....

First of all the replay officials confirmed the call. Secondly a WH is a WH for a reason. They do not make many of those calls and he had not likely made those calls for several years. So yes I can take issue with his comments unless he gives an NFL difference in the rule. At the HS and NCAA level, that is a simultaneous catch based on the rules. You cannot intercept a ball in the air and then possession ends there. There were arms all over that ball and like someone else said, I could live with either call. But the Replay guys who are NFL guys from previous years made this call.

Peace

[Rita C]

What I saw was the one hand of the Seahawk on the ball simultaneously with two hands of GB. And as they came down, Seahawk got second hand on ball.

My husband and I were laughing at the ugliness of it all.

Rita

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

I get the dual possession. I don't get the lack of OPI on that play. The shove in the back was quite blatant.

You're just not going to get either DPI or OPI in a jump ball situation...

Nor should you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Oh, so he has to land with it all to himself for it to be an interception....I suppose it makes sense - kind of like that catch in the Super Bowl where the guy caught it, but the defender reached in and popped it loose, so no TD; the explanation was that he has to have the catch 'through the finish of the play' - one of those subtleties about football rules that most people don't know, I guess.

And making it worse is that it was not reviewable...?

It was a scoring play, it is reviewable.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Matt

Irrelevant, since he had possession on the ground.

He didn't have possession on the ground. By the time the receiver landed, his arms were wrapped around the ball. The defender only had one foot on the ground, then he fell on top of the receiver.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

You're just not going to get either DPI or OPI in a jump ball situation...

Nor should you.

Yes, you can, when the push is not incidental to the play. This is no doubt OPI.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

You're just not going to get either DPI or OPI in a jump ball situation...

Nor should you.

A receiver shoves a defender in the back and out of the way while the ball is in the air is permissible as long as it is a jump ball?

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

A receiver shoves a defender in the back and out of the way while the ball is in the air is permissible as long as it is a jump ball?

Sadly, a jump ball is known to be a free-for-all...

[JRutledge]

I would love to rip these guys, I truly would. But guys this is a tough play. This is a tough play for any football official at any level. And ESPN is doing what they do, they are giving part of the rule and not the entire rule I am sure. Because you cannot read simultaneous catch wording and then forget what it takes to have a catch in other parts of the rule. You cannot catch the ball in the air unless forward progress is stopped and still have to come in-bounds. You have to come to the ground and establish your feet in-bounds. If the player came out of bounds he would not have been able to complete the catch in NCAA or NFL rules that I am aware of. This was not even that bad either way, it was a call that would have been tough without any replay and probably called the same way. And I love how guys have never officiated a single football game now know more than guys that do. A guy giving a "stop clock" signal has nothing to do with anything but to stop the clock and to discuss what is going on. If there was a TB, then he would have giving the signal.

It is just sad that this play is being talked about when they do not even know what they are discussing in the first place.

Peace

[JRutledge]

I have ripped these guys several times and did so publicly. Again, it just shows how little some will ever know about football officiating because you do not even know what constitutes a catch.

Peace

[JasonTX]

I have a TD on the play. The receiver has both feet on the ground when his second hand moves in to have both hands on the ball. The defender you can still see his left foot still in the air. By then the process for completing the catch was made by the Seattle player.

Remember in the NFL you have to have control of the ball AND have both feet or something other than the feet touch the ground. You have to go through that whole process. The Seattle player was the first to complete the process. It wasn't even simultaneous it was a catch completed by Seattle.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It was a scoring play, it is reviewable.

It's a possession issue, which is not reviewable.

[Texref]

Rule 8, section 1, article 3, item 5. There is a difference between simultaneous and one where a player secures possession before the other. Who had possession is not reviewable, only if the ball was caught w/o hitting the ground and in bounds. Call would have stood under replay regardless of call on field.