Last play of GB Seattle

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

I do not necessarily agree with him as I am not sure where else he should be.

Peace

[bigjohn]

[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.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

This is a very good response; the last statement I think convinces me more than anything. I think it's dual possession, and the refs - despite all of the other circumstances involved - made the right call.

[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.

[Welpe]

I think one key component of the NFL rule here that makes this an interception:

The Green Bay defensive back controlled the ball in the air before the Seahawks WR gained any kind of control over it. Per the rule and case plays, this is not simultaneous possession.

What I also think:

This is not nearly as cut and dried as the clueless fans and media think it is.

OPI should've been flagged.

[zm1283]

1. OPI should have been flagged. It was blatant.

2. I'm with Rich and most of the others on here: It was a horrible call. Not only was it wrong, (As Gerry Austin pointed out) but they gave conflicting signals. I could have bought it a little more if they had communicated and then both gave the same signal, but the different signals looked AWFUL. It was about like having an "Out/Safe" signal by two baseball umpires.

3. The roughing the passer on the INT by Green Bay and the DPI on the Green Bay defensive back toward the end of the game were horrible as well. I am sick of hearing people on the radio talk about how "These replacements are getting better every week, just fire the regular officials". No, they're really not, and last night's game is evidence of that.

[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