Last play of GB Seattle

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

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

Bad angle. There's another angle facing them off the sideline that shows Tate had his left hand on the ball simultaneously as Jennings grabbed with two and maintained contact with the ball as they went down. Tate's right hand didn't make contact until they both landed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Matt

Take it up with Gerry Austin. He says differently.

Do you know when Gerry Austin was a deep wing?

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do you know when Gerry Austin was a deep wing?

Peace

He worked a Super Bowl as a side judge.

[Texref]

Jeff, in the NFL rules, per the case book plays cited, you can have possession in the ait. In the first play, the offense, A, controls the ball first and then the defense, B, attains possession and then they go to the ground. A ball. In the second, the defense ,B, gets possession first followed by the offense, A, and then they go to the ground. B ball. Clearly the NFL defines this differently than what your experience is, which means it is different from HS and ncaa.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texref

Jeff, in the NFL rules, per the case book plays cited, you can have possession in the ait. In the first play, the offense, A, controls the ball first and then the defense, B, attains possession and then they go to the ground. A ball. In the second, the defense ,B, gets possession first followed by the offense, A, and then they go to the ground. B ball. Clearly the NFL defines this differently than what your experience is, which means it is different from HS and ncaa.

You did not read your own example. It said that player A gained possession on the ground first. You quoted the Accepted Ruling not me. The ground is apart of this equation, not who has control in the air. That is all I am saying to you. And in the NFL there is more required to have a catch than at the NCAA or NF level.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I do. I think the call was horrid. Had the officials called it a touchback on the field immediately, there'd be *nobody* talking about this play right now.

Who gives a crap what people would have said. That is the problem with this discussion, what does the rule say? I would not ruled this in an NCAA game and would have felt good about it on replay.

Peace

[Texref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You did not read your own example. It said that player A gained possession on the ground first. You quoted the Accepted Ruling not me. The ground is apart of this equation, not who has control in the air. That is all I am saying to you. And in the NFL there is more required to have a catch than at the NCAA or NF level.

Peace

I'll post again since you are not reading the play correctly...

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

In both plays possession is gained in the air. In the first play "a2 controls a pass in the air" and then B3 gets control " before they land." As they land they fall to the ground...A ball and NOT a simultaneous catch.

The second play is worded the same except B3 gets the ball first.

I know its hard for you comprehend what I found in the NFL case book, but those arguing that the play should be an interception are correct under the second case play. And BY RULE, they would be correct.

[KMBReferee]

I think we are getting control vs. possession mixed up. You can have control in the air, as the case studies have shown. But that doesn't mean you have possession until you come down.

In the case studies cited, if you have clear control in the air and then it's grabbed by a player on the opposing team inbounds, then you don't have dual possession and the person who first had control has possession. The problem here is whether Jennings actually had control while airborne. Tate definitely had a hand on the ball simultaneously with Jennings having two.

Either way, we're dealing with a replay issue, in slow motion. I can't see how any official on the field could have anything other than dual possession in realtime. Although they screwed up with the conflicting signals, I believe the initial ruling was correct. Thes slow motion replay review is left up to judgement.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texref

I don't ref football, but yes I believe that both of these case plays were the play tonight. Both say possession in the air. Not sure what I'm missing, but I think it should be an interception by rule. Hs and ncaa, I don't have a clue, like I said, not a fb ref.

These are you words, not mine.

Originally Posted by Texref

I'll post again since you are not reading the play correctly...

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

In both plays possession is gained in the air. In the first play "a2 controls a pass in the air" and then B3 gets control " before they land." As they land they fall to the ground...A ball and NOT a simultaneous catch.

It says controls in the air, not has possession. There is a big difference as in order to have a catch completed. Even in NCAA Rules (2-4-3) talks about a catch not happening without possession and touching the ground under definitions of a catch(same basic language in NF Rules 2-4-1) . This might not be clear to you, but that is the wording of this play that you quoted and the rules at other levels.

Originally Posted by Texref

The second play is worded the same except B3 gets the ball first.

I know its hard for you comprehend what I found in the NFL case book, but those arguing that the play should be an interception are correct under the second case play. And BY RULE, they would be correct.

And the point is that neither of these plays say that this is simultaneous catch for a reason. It would only be simultaneous when both players have done all the same things at the same time in order to complete a catch. The play tonight was a play where one player came down first with feet and hands on ball and the other was still in the air. That is why I said you do not seem to understand the basic language of the rule you quoted. That is also why I said that touching proceeds touching.

Peace

[Texref]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I think we are getting control vs. possession mixed up. You can have control in the air, as the case studies have shown. But that doesn't mean you have possession until you come down.

In the case studies cited, if you have clear control in the air and then it's grabbed by a player on the opposing team inbounds, then you don't have dual possession and the person who first had control has possession. The problem here is whether Jennings actually had control while airborne. Tate definitely had a hand on the ball simultaneously with Jennings having two.

Either way, we're dealing with a replay issue, in slow motion. I can't see how any official on the field could have anything other than dual possession in realtime. Although they screwed up with the conflicting signals, the fact is that I believe the initial ruling was correct. Thes slow motion replay review is left up to judgement.

I would agree that it is up to individual opinion on who had control of the ball. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't care for either team, although I fall on the side of the play being an interception. I don't have a problem with the ruling on the field either. The refs are doing the best they can under the circumstances and I commend them for that.

My problem is someone arguing a point that is not relevant in this play. Both players possessed the ball once on the ground. To secure control, one does not have to have anything on the ground, ie a foot or both feet. That is necessary to obtain possession but not control. In my view of the play, it is obvious that the green bay player controlled the ball prior to Seattle player gaining control. With that mindset, yes the play was ruled incorrectly by time.
If you deem the Seattle player controlled at the same time as green bay player, then you have a simultaneous possession and the ruling on the field was correct.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texref

I would agree that it is up to individual opinion on who had control of the ball. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't care for either team, although I fall on the side of the play being an interception. I don't have a problem with the ruling on the field either. The refs are doing the best they can under the circumstances and I commend them for that.

This is not about individual opinion. Jennings was still in the air when the Seattle Receiver came back to the ground with both feet. That is a fact and slow motion even confirms it was not that close (in other words you can clearly see this fact). I also have no dog in this fight, but feel we need to be correct when making rulings and not just giving opinions. Possession cannot happen until you come to the ground and only the NFL requires two feet which Jennings did not have before the Seattle player was grabbing at the ball too.

Originally Posted by Texref

My problem is someone arguing a point that is not relevant in this play. Both players possessed the ball once on the ground. To secure control, one does not have to have anything on the ground, ie a foot or both feet. That is necessary to obtain possession but not control. In my view of the play, it is obvious that the green bay player controlled the ball prior to Seattle player gaining control. With that mindset, yes the play was ruled incorrectly by time.
If you deem the Seattle player controlled at the same time as green bay player, then you have a simultaneous possession and the ruling on the field was correct.

Someone was on the ground first. That is all I am saying and suggesting. And when the player comes down first, they win. That is why in reality this is not even about a simultaneous catch, it was about the offensive player came down first. And again the definitions in the NFL, NCAA and NF all say possession does not take place until you come down to the ground with possession of the ball.

Peace

[Texref]

Jeff according to the case plays it does not matter who landed first, it matters who controlled the ball first. Plain and simple. Even on the case plays for simultaneous catch, the wording is controlled in the air at the same time. It makes NO difference who landed first. In the case play it does NOT say anything about landing first. The only thing the landing has to do with is completing the catch. Both players legally completed the catch so it comes down to who controlled the ball FIRST. If one of them had come down OB, then it would be a different story.

I apologize for using the incorrect term previously, you are correct about that. However, I again stand by the fact that per the case play, if you determine that green bay controlled the ball first, the ruling was incorrect. If you determine that it was simultaneous, the ruling was correct. Again, who landed first is not relevant according to the case play. We will have to agree to disagree on this as I know you won't change my mind and vice versa.

[Texref]

Just as an fyi, here are case plays for simultaneous catch. Note they also do NOT say anything about landing together, just controlling the ball in the air at the same time.

A.R. 8.25 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, both players land on their feet and wrestle for the ball on their feet. Eventually, B3 takes the ball away from A2 and is tackled at the A38. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A38. Until one of the players in simultaneous possession of the ball goes to the ground or out of bounds, the ball remains alive.

A.R. 8.26 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players fall down to the ground. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. The ball is dead.

A.R. 8.27 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players land with one foot out of bounds. Ruling: Second-and-10 on A20. Incomplete pass

According to these, if either player had landed OB, the play is an incomplete pass. But none of them say anything about landing first.

So Jeff if I'm understanding what you are saying, we know Seattle player landed first. What you are saying is that if green bay had landed OB instead of IB, you would have still ruled the touchdown?

[JugglingReferee]

Oh how I miss Official Review on NFL Total Access.

[BigBaldGuy]

Originally Posted by 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

The Back Judge is in horrible position...why is he so far away from the "jump ball"?