Last play of GB Seattle

[PSU213]

Part of the problem was the announcers (yeah, big shock)....

The not the BJ signaling time out and they said "that is what you signal before touchback. He is signaling an interception." Ummm, no.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Adam

On the OPI, I agree.

On the catch, I'm just not so sure. It looks like Tate has his hand in there from the moment the ball arrives. As crowder noted, there's no distinction with SP on who has better possession.

I'm not positive either way on this, but if the flag is down, it doesn't matter.

Is OPI loss of down in the NFL?

Ten yards from the previous spot. No loss of down, but the clock had expired. No untimed down.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

On the OPI, I agree.

On the catch, I'm just not so sure. It looks like Tate has his hand in there from the moment the ball arrives. As crowder noted, there's no distinction with SP on who has better possession.

I'm not positive either way on this, but if the flag is down, it doesn't matter.

Is OPI loss of down in the NFL?

OPI in the NFL is a 10 yard penalty from the previous spot. An offensive penalty on the last play of the game does not extend the game and the game should have been over.

From the NFL:

Joint possession IS reviewable in the end zone and not reviewable in the field of play. And they just agreed with the officials not overturning the call with the video evidence provided.

[APG]

NFL supports decision to not overturn Seahawks' touchdown - NFL.com

In Monday's game between the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks, Seattle faced a 4th-and-10 from the Green Bay 24 with eight seconds remaining in the game.

Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

Not really surprising

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

On the catch, I'm just not so sure. It looks like Tate has his hand in there from the moment the ball arrives. As crowder noted, there's no distinction with SP on who has better possession.

I'm not positive either way on this, but if the flag is down, it doesn't matter.

He has a hand in there...but I've never seen that considered enough for possession...especially when it comes to joint possession. Compare that to the DB who clearly has control of the ball with two hands on the ball. Seemed pretty evident to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't know what the other official had, and don't see how anyone does.



You could be right. I've only had one close TB interception, and I didn't use the stop the clock signal; but mine was close to an incomplete as the defender was running out of bounds.

While I don't think this is quite the "blarge," it does seem like it's close. If anything, it seems the one official wants to talk about it.

That is what I took out of this signal is the BJ felt they would discuss the play because he did not have possession either way. I think he gave the signal most of all out of surrender as he did not seem to have anything. I think he was just trying to find the ball and saw players on the ground with their hands on it.

Actually not sure how the BJ could see anything as there were other players in his way. And when I hear people ask him to be somewhere different, I am not so sure about that perspective at all. The BJ stays mostly in the middle of the field and would not have time on a deep play to get far over without getting in the middle of the play. I think people are just being nitpicky on this issue if they really think that a BJ is going to be in any better position. His goal is to stay on the end line and make sure someone is not touching the line and help if that is a factor.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

He has a hand in there...but I've never seen that considered enough for possession...especially when it comes to joint possession. Compare that to the DB who clearly has control of the ball with two hands on the ball. Seemed pretty evident to me.

The problem is you cannot have possession (which is the only word the rulebook uses) off the ground. You only have possession when you come to the ground. I just think the Seattle player got it first and hit the ground first with both feet and on his back before the GB player got both feet down. It might not be pretty, but that is the rule in this case.

And I would love to jump all over this to say, "See they screwed up." Unfortunately I think I have to have some integrity and support them when they get a rule right and they clearly have not gotten many right over the last few weeks.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by APG

NFL supports decision to not overturn Seahawks' touchdown - NFL.com



Not really surprising

I agree with everything they said. Although the "OPI should have been called" part flies in the face of them saying a few years ago that shouldn't be called in that situation.

[BktBallRef]

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Which is contrary to what Gerry Austin stated on ESPN last night.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem is you cannot have possession (which is the only word the rulebook uses) off the ground. You only have possession when you come to the ground. I just think the Seattle player got it first and hit the ground first with both feet and on his back before the GB player got both feet down. It might not be pretty, but that is the rule in this case.

And I would love to jump all over this to say, "See they screwed up." Unfortunately I think I have to have some integrity and support them when they get a rule right and they clearly have not gotten many right over the last few weeks.

Peace

With regards to joint possession with both players in the air, I believe I should have used control of the ball. You're right that he doesn't have possession of a loose ball...he's going to have to complete the "process of the catch" for that to happen. One can gain control of a loose ball before he has possession of it though. Whose feet hit first though does not matter if a player gains control of the ball before the other a la A.R. 8.28 and 8.29.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Which is contrary to what Gerry Austin stated on ESPN last night.

It could be a recent amendment to the rule...cause it's not the first time I've heard that said before. In fact, I want to say I've heard a referee give that announcement..even with the catch.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by APG

He has a hand in there...but I've never seen that considered enough for possession...especially when it comes to joint possession. Compare that to the DB who clearly has control of the ball with two hands on the ball. Seemed pretty evident to me.

Announcers keep saying the same thing... but we should not. There is no such concept as "better control" or "more control" - there is either Control, or NO Control. Given that Tate had the ball in a hand solidly enough that Jennings couldn't wrench it from him even with both hands. If Tate comes down alone with that ball, we ALL call it control and a catch. He has control of the ball when they come down - simultaneous possession is the correct call.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Which is contrary to what Gerry Austin stated on ESPN last night.

Not the first time that's happened.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Announcers keep saying the same thing... but we should not. There is no such concept as "better control" or "more control" - there is either Control, or NO Control. Given that Tate had the ball in a hand solidly enough that Jennings couldn't wrench it from him even with both hands. If Tate comes down alone with that ball, we ALL call it control and a catch. He has control of the ball when they come down - simultaneous possession is the correct call.

Absolutely.

BTW, are you the next to change your name.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Announcers keep saying the same thing... but we should not. There is no such concept as "better control" or "more control" - there is either Control, or NO Control. Given that Tate had the ball in a hand solidly enough that Jennings couldn't wrench it from him even with both hands. If Tate comes down alone with that ball, we ALL call it control and a catch. He has control of the ball when they come down - simultaneous possession is the correct call.

And that's just where we differ. I don't believe simply having his hand in there constitutes control. He doesn't have complete and firm control of the ball IMO. IMO, the DB has two hands on the ball and demonstrates complete and firm control of the ball. At best, IMO, one could argue the WR got control of the ball after the DB already had control.