I would not use the word "caught" in your post. A catch is defined as having control of the ball and two feet or something other than the feet down inbounds. By rule a player CANNOT catch a ball while being in the air. All he can do in the air is gain control. A catch is not completed until he comes to the ground. In the play, only 1 foot touched down. The Seattle player had both feet down.

You heard it here first. Mark my word. If and when the regulars get back on the field the media will bash them even worse. "These guys are messing up just as bad as the replacments were." Anything to drive up the ratings.

Agreed.

Peace

NFL rules suck altogether. There are many changes made during the season that aren't in the printed rulebook. Memos, interpretations, etc. are sent to the officials during the season that are in all actuality rule changes, but they aren't in the public version of the rule book. What those of us non-NFL officials, fans, and media have access to is not the complete version of rules that those officiating in the NFL get. This is one reason why you should never trust what the media is trying to feed you. You'll learn more about football no matter what the level is if you turn off the volume.

Got it. My husband and I couldn't understand why that touchdown wasn't overruled.

Rita

I see nothing in the rules that make this play non-reviewable. The rule (Rule 15 section 9) is a rule of exclusion. It lists reviewable plays and provides that anything not in the list is not reviewable, with a note containing a nonexhaustive list of 7 unreviewable plays.

Section (a)(3) makes reviewable "Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone! and end line.". There is no exclusion for "possession," and indeed possession is frequently part of a review. None of the 7 exclusion examples include possession or anything like it.

This seems like a reviewable play. If Austin says possession is not reviewable, my conclusion fron the book is that he is in error, unless he means it in a different sense than I understand. We frequently see the call that the receiver "did not maintain possession through the catch" on instant replay. Can't see how this is different.

They do not have the final say normally, but the replay guys (who are regular guys in that position lockout or no lockout) have been more involved to help the replacements out. I think if there was a way to change this if wrong, they would have IMO.

Peace

But did B (Jennings) actually have control though? Jennings had two hands on the ball vs. A (Tate)'s 1 while airborne. Can you clearly say that Jennings had control over Tate from the initial contact of the ball?

Isn't this the exact reason why we have a dual possession rule in football? Because there is really no way to truly know who had clear control?

In his example the ball is given to A, not to B in the first play which mirrors the example tonight. I am not sure he realizes what example he quoted.

Peace

Actually, I don't think either does.

The question here is does one person have more control over the ball with two hands vs. a player with one? Unless they can point to a rule defining which is control and which isn't when both a receiver and defender have contact, then I doubt you can have anything but dual control/possession.

I say yes and yes.

A difficult call to be sure, but I thought it was an interception in real time, even though I was sorta wishing for the Packers to lose. (Aaron Rogers' commercials have ruined him for me.) I thought replay verified it, with the last straw being when the receiver takes the one hand off the ball, even briefly.

Trying to make sense of this, looks to me like the Packer had possession first?

http://brianschaefer.net/temp/mnf.jpg

and everyone clearly is inbounds when they land...

http://brianschaefer.net/temp/mnf2.jpg

We can see whether or not the NFL takes this down, but here's the clip as of now: Seahawks vs Packers controversial touchdown - YouTube

Doubt they'll take it down (unless they are going for copyright issues.)

They have their own guys on their own website with the video talking about how this is a horrific call.

You cannot have possession of a football in the air. And the GB player is in the air in the first two pictures.

Peace

Take it up with Gerry Austin. He says differently.