Last play of GB Seattle

[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"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigBaldGuy

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

Where is he supposed to be?

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BigBaldGuy

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where is he supposed to be?

Peace

BBG is suggesting that upon seeing the ball in the air, the BJ should have made a better effort to get to the calling area to help with the ruling.

And I agree with him.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BigBaldGuy

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

Can't believe it took 6 pages for someone to say this. This was my initial thought.

[MD Longhorn]

Throw me in with the vast minority... I have a TD for all the reasons Jeff mentioned, as well as not clearly seeing Jennings with the ball first. He might have had BETTER possession (irrelevant to the rules), but there is no 2-hand requirement on possession or control, and we've all seen 1-handed catches many times. The left hand on the ball, that never came off the ball despite Jennings pulling at it, is enough to demonstrate control to me. No where in the rules does it say that if one player has 2 hands (or a chest) on the ball and another has 1, the guy with 2 gets it.

Put it this way - remove Jennings from the picture, and have Tate and the ball only - do you have a catch for Tate? I do - and that's enough.

My issue with the officials in this game was not the TD/INT at the end - it was the 2 blatantly wrong pass interference calls, and to a lesser degree it was the lack of Referee participation in the discussion of this call at the end.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Can't believe it took 6 pages for someone to say this. This was my initial thought.

Agreed.

In this situation, though, the official closest to the play (even if the BJ had been much much closer) still had the best look since he had a direct view of the 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

[hog]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I believe you miss the point. Yes, the play is reviewable to see if the ball hit the ground, feet in bounds, etc; but you cannot review the who has possession part of the play as was ruled on the field.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Make no difference Jeff. Gerry Austin stated that possession is not reviewable, even during a scoring play. The officials ruled the receiver has possession, therefore the replay official has no other choice than to confirm he is in the EZ and it's a TD.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Make no difference Jeff. Gerry Austin stated that possession is not reviewable, even during a scoring play. The officials ruled the receiver has possession, therefore the replay official has no other choice than to confirm he is in the EZ and it's a TD.

I see what you are saying.

Peace