Last play of GB Seattle

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Announcers keep saying the same thing... but we should not. There is no such concept as "better control" or "more control" - there is either Control, or NO Control. Given that Tate had the ball in a hand solidly enough that Jennings couldn't wrench it from him even with both hands. If Tate comes down alone with that ball, we ALL call it control and a catch. He has control of the ball when they come down - simultaneous possession is the correct call.

And that's just where we differ. I don't believe simply having his hand in there constitutes control. He doesn't have complete and firm control of the ball IMO. IMO, the DB has two hands on the ball and demonstrates complete and firm control of the ball. At best, IMO, one could argue the WR got control of the ball after the DB already had control.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

And that's just where we differ. I don't believe simply having his hand in there constitutes control. He doesn't have complete and firm control of the ball IMO. IMO, the DB has two hands on the ball and demonstrates complete and firm control of the ball. At best, IMO, one could argue the WR got control of the ball after the DB already had control.

Actually the last sentence is what I believed happened. The problem for the defense is he did not have possession first.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually the last sentence is what I believed happened. The problem for the defense is he did not have possession first.

Peace

Are you trying to say that Tate came back to the ground first and "completed the process of the catch" before the DB did? Seems to me that the since he controlled the ball first, assuming he completes the process of the catch, he goes to who gets it first...regardless of if the second player returns to the ground first.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually the last sentence is what I believed happened. The problem for the defense is he did not have possession first.

Peace

Just as the Green Bay DB puts both hands on the ball on the way down, Tate's right hand grabs the GB DB's arm/wrist. His left arm is out of the picture, but it would be impossible for him to have that hand on the ball because of where it is. As they hit the ground, Tate sticks his right hand on the ball while the GB DB still has it clutched to his chest.

I just don't buy it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Just as the Green Bay DB puts both hands on the ball on the way down, Tate's right hand grabs the GB DB's arm/wrist. His left arm is out of the picture, but it would be impossible for him to have that hand on the ball because of where it is. As they hit the ground, Tate sticks his right hand on the ball while the GB DB still has it clutched to his chest.

I just don't buy it.

I am not asking you to buy anything. Just stating that you cannot have a catch completed until you come to the ground. Again that is the part of the rule many do not seem to want to deal with, but mention all these other non-factor issues like how many arms are on the ball. How many arms on the ball mean nothing in any catch, that is obvious if you watch much football.

Peace

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not asking you to buy anything. Just stating that you cannot have a catch completed until you come to the ground. Again that is the part of the rule many do not seem to want to deal with, but mention all these other non-factor issues like how many arms are on the ball. How many arms on the ball mean nothing in any catch, that is obvious if you watch much football.

Peace

But the second sentence of simultaneous catch rule does not use the words "catch" or "possession." To me, that's the controlling rule. I think it's unfortunate that the terms switch so much in the various rules, but it uses "control," and it seems pretty clear that control is not intended elsewhere in the rules to be synonymous with catch or possession (or "completed pass").

To use a crazy hypothetical, a defender catches the ball and holds it to his body tightly, while having one foot on the ground IB. He tries to gain his balance to put his second foot IB. A second later, just before his second foot hits IB, a receiver reaches an arm in, and gets joint control as the second foot of the defender touches. I read the second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule to say that this is an interception.

[BktBallRef]

The biggest question is how would two of the regular officials have ruled this play?

Of course, we'll never know.

I think even if there's no lockout and the regular guys are on the field, this play is still a huge mess. In some ways, it's a lot like the old tuck rule play that occurred with the Raiders-Pats. I wonder if this might result in a re-write of the rule, although the case play seems to address it.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The biggest question is how would two of the regular officials have ruled this play?

Of course, we'll never know.

I think even if there's no lockout and the regular guys are on the field, this play is still a huge mess. In some ways, it's a lot like the old tuck rule play that occurred with the Raiders-Pats. I wonder if this might result in a re-write of the rule, although the case play seems to address it.

If the call on the field would have been interception, the headlines would be reading, "Replacement officials screw up and take away last second TD Catch" . The media would be bashing them over the incorrect interception call. This was a no win situation. I agree that no matter if the regulars are in or replacements, this play would be used to raise ratings.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I've seen guys stop the clock before a TB signal. Can't recall if it's NFL or NCAA.

Yes. I have seen officials give the "stop clock" signal immediately followed by the "touchback" signal. The back judge obviously wasn't signalling a touchdown since he gave the "stop clock" signal, so he had something different than the guy who signaled touchdown.

Originally Posted by APG

And that's just where we differ. I don't believe simply having his hand in there constitutes control. He doesn't have complete and firm control of the ball IMO. IMO, the DB has two hands on the ball and demonstrates complete and firm control of the ball. At best, IMO, one could argue the WR got control of the ball after the DB already had control.

I agree. I just don't see how the Seattle WR had control/possession of the ball in the same way the Green Bay DB did. I still think this call was awful and the mechanics were awful.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Yes. I have seen officials give the "stop clock" signal immediately followed by the "touchback" signal. The back judge obviously wasn't signalling a touchdown since he gave the "stop clock" signal, so he had something different than the guy who signaled touchdown.

You are not going to signal a TD if you do not have a TD. That means that if he cannot tell, he is not going to give a signal. That is basic stuff in 7 man mechanics as his line was not threatened (meaning no one crossed or touched the line) and if he cannot see any catch, he is not going to rule anything. All he can do is offer some information, but he only should be signalling a TB if he has one and that was not his signal. And to say "I have seen a TB signal after a stop clock signal" is irrelevant because he never gave any TB signal by all accounts. If it was me, I would probably have done a similar thing if I wanted to discuss the situation. I probably would have been doing this earlier, but that is only based on seeing the video. But if he had a TB and only a TB, then he would have come up with that signal. But I do not think he even saw the completion of the catch and that is why he did not signal anything that said he had a TD or TB.

Peace