Last play of GB Seattle

[just another ref]

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

The rule is in place so that we will not be splitting hairs over who had the ball first when they have not fulfilled other parts of the catch. I think the rule is fine, this was just on National TV and ESPN has their panties in a bunch over this call on their network (remember they get ratings buy ranting about this all day).

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule is in place so that we will not be splitting hairs over who had the ball first when they have not fulfilled other parts of the catch. I think the rule is fine, this was just on National TV and ESPN has their panties in a bunch over this call on their network (remember they get ratings buy ranting about this all day).

Peace

I know I'll be listening to music on the radio tomorrow.

But part of the problem is, whether this was the right call or not, the credibility of the officials has been destroyed over the last few weeks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I know I'll be listening to music on the radio tomorrow.

But part of the problem is, whether this was the right call or not, the credibility of the officials has been destroyed over the last few weeks.

All the media has done a great job in making everything into a major case as if they would not complain otherwise. This is why these guys IMO should have never done this in the first place. The s**t storm is coming no matter what they do. And many of their careers will basically be over as they know it. That is OK for a guy or two that only did this at the very end of their career and had nothing to lose, but for those that still could work, now they will be marred with this crap for some time.

Peace

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All the media has done a great job in making everything into a major case as if they would not complain otherwise. This is why these guys IMO should have never done this in the first place. The s**t storm is coming no matter what they do. And many of their careers will basically be over as they know it. That is OK for a guy or two that only did this at the very end of their career and had nothing to lose, but for those that still could work, now they will be marred with this crap for some time.

Peace

You heard it here first. Mark my word. If and when the regulars get back on the field the media will bash them even worse. "These guys are messing up just as bad as the replacments were." Anything to drive up the ratings.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

You heard it here first. Mark my word. If and when the regulars get back on the field the media will bash them even worse. "These guys are messing up just as bad as the replacments were." Anything to drive up the ratings.

Agreed.

Peace

[rulesmaven]

I see nothing in the rules that make this play non-reviewable. The rule (Rule 15 section 9) is a rule of exclusion. It lists reviewable plays and provides that anything not in the list is not reviewable, with a note containing a nonexhaustive list of 7 unreviewable plays.

Section (a)(3) makes reviewable "Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone! and end line.". There is no exclusion for "possession," and indeed possession is frequently part of a review. None of the 7 exclusion examples include possession or anything like it.

This seems like a reviewable play. If Austin says possession is not reviewable, my conclusion fron the book is that he is in error, unless he means it in a different sense than I understand. We frequently see the call that the receiver "did not maintain possession through the catch" on instant replay. Can't see how this is different.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

I would not use the word "caught" in your post. A catch is defined as having control of the ball and two feet or something other than the feet down inbounds. By rule a player CANNOT catch a ball while being in the air. All he can do in the air is gain control. A catch is not completed until he comes to the ground. In the play, only 1 foot touched down. The Seattle player had both feet down.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Without being burdened by rules knowledge on the subject, NFL or any other level, here is what I saw: Packer defender went up and caught the ball at its highest point, gathering it to his chest with both arms locked tightly around it,
where it remained securely in this position until the defender landed on the ground. At around the same time, the receiver grabbed the ball with both hands, then briefly released with one hand to get a deeper hold with that hand and forearm as the pile went to the ground.

If, by rule, this is a touchdown, the rule sucks.

NFL rules suck altogether. There are many changes made during the season that aren't in the printed rulebook. Memos, interpretations, etc. are sent to the officials during the season that are in all actuality rule changes, but they aren't in the public version of the rule book. What those of us non-NFL officials, fans, and media have access to is not the complete version of rules that those officiating in the NFL get. This is one reason why you should never trust what the media is trying to feed you. You'll learn more about football no matter what the level is if you turn off the volume.