Last play of GB Seattle

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

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.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All the media has done a great job in making everything into a major case as if they would not complain otherwise. This is why these guys IMO should have never done this in the first place. The s**t storm is coming no matter what they do. And many of their careers will basically be over as they know it. That is OK for a guy or two that only did this at the very end of their career and had nothing to lose, but for those that still could work, now they will be marred with this crap for some time.

Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

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

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

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.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

If you're talking about the Jennings play, the crew did.

The replay guys in the NFL don't have the final decision. The R is tasked with that decision after reviewing the available film and getting input from the booth.

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

Rita

[rulesmaven]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

If you're talking about the Jennings play, the crew did.

The replay guys in the NFL don't have the final decision. The R is tasked with that decision after reviewing the available film and getting input from the booth.

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

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by Texref

From 2011 case book for NFL:

A.R. 8.28 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 controls a pass in the air at the A40. B3 then also gets control of the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as A2 gains control first and retains control.

A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control. (B

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

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

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

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?

I say yes and yes.

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?

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.

[brainbrian]

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



and everyone clearly is inbounds when they land...



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

[Matt]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.