Last play of GB Seattle

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texref

I would agree that it is up to individual opinion on who had control of the ball. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't care for either team, although I fall on the side of the play being an interception. I don't have a problem with the ruling on the field either. The refs are doing the best they can under the circumstances and I commend them for that.

This is not about individual opinion. Jennings was still in the air when the Seattle Receiver came back to the ground with both feet. That is a fact and slow motion even confirms it was not that close (in other words you can clearly see this fact). I also have no dog in this fight, but feel we need to be correct when making rulings and not just giving opinions. Possession cannot happen until you come to the ground and only the NFL requires two feet which Jennings did not have before the Seattle player was grabbing at the ball too.

Originally Posted by Texref

My problem is someone arguing a point that is not relevant in this play. Both players possessed the ball once on the ground. To secure control, one does not have to have anything on the ground, ie a foot or both feet. That is necessary to obtain possession but not control. In my view of the play, it is obvious that the green bay player controlled the ball prior to Seattle player gaining control. With that mindset, yes the play was ruled incorrectly by time.
If you deem the Seattle player controlled at the same time as green bay player, then you have a simultaneous possession and the ruling on the field was correct.

Someone was on the ground first. That is all I am saying and suggesting. And when the player comes down first, they win. That is why in reality this is not even about a simultaneous catch, it was about the offensive player came down first. And again the definitions in the NFL, NCAA and NF all say possession does not take place until you come down to the ground with possession of the ball.

Peace

[Texref]

Jeff according to the case plays it does not matter who landed first, it matters who controlled the ball first. Plain and simple. Even on the case plays for simultaneous catch, the wording is controlled in the air at the same time. It makes NO difference who landed first. In the case play it does NOT say anything about landing first. The only thing the landing has to do with is completing the catch. Both players legally completed the catch so it comes down to who controlled the ball FIRST. If one of them had come down OB, then it would be a different story.

I apologize for using the incorrect term previously, you are correct about that. However, I again stand by the fact that per the case play, if you determine that green bay controlled the ball first, the ruling was incorrect. If you determine that it was simultaneous, the ruling was correct. Again, who landed first is not relevant according to the case play. We will have to agree to disagree on this as I know you won't change my mind and vice versa.

[Texref]

Just as an fyi, here are case plays for simultaneous catch. Note they also do NOT say anything about landing together, just controlling the ball in the air at the same time.

A.R. 8.25 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, both players land on their feet and wrestle for the ball on their feet. Eventually, B3 takes the ball away from A2 and is tackled at the A38. Ruling: B’s ball, first-and-10 on A38. Until one of the players in simultaneous possession of the ball goes to the ground or out of bounds, the ball remains alive.

A.R. 8.26 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players fall down to the ground. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. The ball is dead.

A.R. 8.27 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players land with one foot out of bounds. Ruling: Second-and-10 on A20. Incomplete pass

According to these, if either player had landed OB, the play is an incomplete pass. But none of them say anything about landing first.

So Jeff if I'm understanding what you are saying, we know Seattle player landed first. What you are saying is that if green bay had landed OB instead of IB, you would have still ruled the touchdown?

[JRutledge]

Part of the problem is that it seems like you are not understanding the major point because you do not officiate this sport. Nothing wrong with that, but you are trying to split hairs on issues that ultmately you do not seem to have a grasp of because of your not understanding basic rules. If a player touches out of bound and there is no possession of the football, then the play would be over and ruled out of bounds on the spot. As it relates to a catch, then you cannot have a catch of a pass if this takes place. If one player had possession of the ball and the other is trying to grab at the ball, the play would continue if this took place in the middle of the field. This would be no different if a runner is has the ball and a defender that is trying to tackle them or rip the ball out of their hands is touching the sideline, you do not kill the play. When possession in the EZ is established in-bounds the play is over if the team trying to score a TD has possession.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texref

Jeff according to the case plays it does not matter who landed first, it matters who controlled the ball first. Plain and simple.

Actually, the case plays are silent on this aspect.