Last play of GB Seattle

[JRutledge]

You cannot have possession of a football in the air. And the GB player is in the air in the first two pictures.

Peace

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have possession of a football in the air. And the GB player is in the air in the first two pictures.

Peace

Take it up with Gerry Austin. He says differently.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Matt

Take it up with Gerry Austin. He says differently.

Do you know when Gerry Austin was a deep wing?

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do you know when Gerry Austin was a deep wing?

Peace

He worked a Super Bowl as a side judge.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by Rich

He worked a Super Bowl as a side judge.

By the way. Whose job is it to go under the hood and make decisions about these types of plays during the normal review? That would be the referee (dumb, but that is an argument for another day). To disparage a guy w Austin's credentials in order to advance your argument is silly.

[Texref]

Jeff, in the NFL rules, per the case book plays cited, you can have possession in the ait. In the first play, the offense, A, controls the ball first and then the defense, B, attains possession and then they go to the ground. A ball. In the second, the defense ,B, gets possession first followed by the offense, A, and then they go to the ground. B ball. Clearly the NFL defines this differently than what your experience is, which means it is different from HS and ncaa.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texref

Jeff, in the NFL rules, per the case book plays cited, you can have possession in the ait. In the first play, the offense, A, controls the ball first and then the defense, B, attains possession and then they go to the ground. A ball. In the second, the defense ,B, gets possession first followed by the offense, A, and then they go to the ground. B ball. Clearly the NFL defines this differently than what your experience is, which means it is different from HS and ncaa.

You did not read your own example. It said that player A gained possession on the ground first. You quoted the Accepted Ruling not me. The ground is apart of this equation, not who has control in the air. That is all I am saying to you. And in the NFL there is more required to have a catch than at the NCAA or NF level.

Peace

[Texref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You did not read your own example. It said that player A gained possession on the ground first. You quoted the Accepted Ruling not me. The ground is apart of this equation, not who has control in the air. That is all I am saying to you. And in the NFL there is more required to have a catch than at the NCAA or NF level.

Peace

I'll post again since you are not reading the play correctly...

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

In both plays possession is gained in the air. In the first play "a2 controls a pass in the air" and then B3 gets control " before they land." As they land they fall to the ground...A ball and NOT a simultaneous catch.

The second play is worded the same except B3 gets the ball first.

I know its hard for you comprehend what I found in the NFL case book, but those arguing that the play should be an interception are correct under the second case play. And BY RULE, they would be correct.

[KMBReferee]

I think we are getting control vs. possession mixed up. You can have control in the air, as the case studies have shown. But that doesn't mean you have possession until you come down.

In the case studies cited, if you have clear control in the air and then it's grabbed by a player on the opposing team inbounds, then you don't have dual possession and the person who first had control has possession. The problem here is whether Jennings actually had control while airborne. Tate definitely had a hand on the ball simultaneously with Jennings having two.

Either way, we're dealing with a replay issue, in slow motion. I can't see how any official on the field could have anything other than dual possession in realtime. Although they screwed up with the conflicting signals, I believe the initial ruling was correct. Thes slow motion replay review is left up to judgement.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texref

I don't ref football, but yes I believe that both of these case plays were the play tonight. Both say possession in the air. Not sure what I'm missing, but I think it should be an interception by rule. Hs and ncaa, I don't have a clue, like I said, not a fb ref.

These are you words, not mine.

Originally Posted by Texref

I'll post again since you are not reading the play correctly...

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

In both plays possession is gained in the air. In the first play "a2 controls a pass in the air" and then B3 gets control " before they land." As they land they fall to the ground...A ball and NOT a simultaneous catch.

It says controls in the air, not has possession. There is a big difference as in order to have a catch completed. Even in NCAA Rules (2-4-3) talks about a catch not happening without possession and touching the ground under definitions of a catch(same basic language in NF Rules 2-4-1) . This might not be clear to you, but that is the wording of this play that you quoted and the rules at other levels.

Originally Posted by Texref

The second play is worded the same except B3 gets the ball first.

I know its hard for you comprehend what I found in the NFL case book, but those arguing that the play should be an interception are correct under the second case play. And BY RULE, they would be correct.

And the point is that neither of these plays say that this is simultaneous catch for a reason. It would only be simultaneous when both players have done all the same things at the same time in order to complete a catch. The play tonight was a play where one player came down first with feet and hands on ball and the other was still in the air. That is why I said you do not seem to understand the basic language of the rule you quoted. That is also why I said that touching proceeds touching.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I do. I think the call was horrid. Had the officials called it a touchback on the field immediately, there'd be *nobody* talking about this play right now.

Who gives a crap what people would have said. That is the problem with this discussion, what does the rule say? I would not ruled this in an NCAA game and would have felt good about it on replay.

Peace

[PSU213]

Originally Posted by Rich

Had the officials called it a touchback on the field immediately, there'd be *nobody* talking about this play right now.

Without getting into a long argument on that...I totally disagree. OK, one point to make...not saying the call was correct, but since when do officials make a call based on what is going to cause less "water cooler" discussions?

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by PSU213

Without getting into a long argument on that...I totally disagree. OK, one point to make...not saying the call was correct, but since when do officials make a call based on what is going to cause less "water cooler" discussions?

I don't think that was the point, I think that if they both went up with the same call, it would have been less of a talking point...I don't really agree, I think that even if the regulars called this it would be a huge discussion point today.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Rich

I do. I think the call was horrid. Had the officials called it a touchback on the field immediately, there'd be *nobody* talking about this play right now.

If GB bats the ball down to the ground or OOB instead of trying to catch the ball, more than likely same would be true.... Nobody would be talking about this right now.