Last play of GB Seattle

[JRutledge]

Simultaneous possession ends everything. Touching proceeds possession and it looked to me like the right call. The GB player did not come down in the field of play with the ball.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Simultaneous possession ends everything. Touching proceeds possession and it looked to me like the right call. The GB player did not come down in the field of play with the ball.

Peace

Really?

So one player can outright catch it in the air, and another player can come in clearly afterwards and as long as he gets a hand on the ball it's simultaneous?

I'll take your word for it, Rut - you've reffed football probably as long as I've been alive - but to this casual fan it seems like a strange rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Really?

So one player can outright catch it in the air, and another player can come in clearly afterwards and as long as he gets a hand on the ball it's simultaneous?

I'll take your word for it, Rut - you've reffed football probably as long as I've been alive - but to this casual fan it seems like a strange rule.

First of all you do not catch the ball in the air. You catch the ball when you come down with it. Again, you said you were not a football official right?

I do not care what casual fans think because that is silly when it moves to basketball either. Basketball fans think that it is a foul on a defender if he moves. And I am a deep wing in college and a Back Judge in high school and rule on these kinds of plays all the time. Players always go up for the ball and it does not mean anything until they come down to the ground.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all you do not catch the ball in the air. You catch the ball when you come down with it. Again, you said you were not a football official right?

I do not care what casual fans think because that is silly when it moves to basketball either. Basketball fans think that it is a foul on a defender if he moves. And I am a deep wing in college and a Back Judge in high school and rule on these kinds of plays all the time. Players always go up for the ball and it does not mean anything until they come down to the ground.

Peace

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.

The broadcasters only mentioned it once during initial occurrence, and then briefly discussed it while GB was getting back onto the field for the try.
The concept of simultaneous possession is that if A and B both achieve possession of a loose ball at the same time, then possession is awarded to A and the ball is dead immediately. Essentially the side judge ruled that both A and B had the ball, and so it belonged to A. In NCAA and NFHS, it is irrelevant who had it "more", as the broadcasters were discussing. I'm not sure if that applies at all in NFL, but this is such an old, basic, and infrequently-applied rule, that I'd be surprised if it's different. What is not irrelevant is if B grabbed it and then A just stuck his hands onto the ball. I can see why the officials would take a look at the situation on the ground, since they have to make a call on the field.

It would be a cluster even if the regular officials were in place.

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

[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

[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

[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"?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It was a scoring play, it is reviewable.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

But it is a scoring play. And all NFL scoring plays are reviewed. Now maybe Jansen can quote the rulebook for the NFL which he has done in the past, but they review all scoring plays to my understanding. I believe this would be reviewable in NCAA too. I will look up the later to be sure.

Peace

[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.

[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

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Really?

So one player can outright catch it in the air, and another player can come in clearly afterwards and as long as he gets a hand on the ball it's simultaneous?

I'll take your word for it, Rut - you've reffed football probably as long as I've been alive - but to this casual fan it seems like a strange rule.

I don't think it was 'clearly afterwards'.

They were both still in the air when there were four arms around the ball. The 'four arm' situation continued onto the field of play.

I don't have a problem with the call either way.

If I had to guess how the NFL wants this particular play called, I bet there will be a downgrade on a certain LOS offical. The call would have been a much easier sell had we not had differing, simultaneous signals from the covering officials. Verbal communication prior to a signal would have helped considerably here.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

I don't think it was 'clearly afterwards'.

They were both still in the air when there were four arms around the ball. The 'four arm' situation continued onto the field of play.

I don't have a problem with the call either way.

If I had to guess how the NFL wants this particular play called, I bet there will be a downgrade on a certain LOS offical. The call would have been a much easier sell had we not had differing, simultaneous signals from the covering officials. Verbal communication prior to a signal would have helped considerably here.

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

[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.