Jackass Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 there is nothing in the rule about having more possession than the other guy. closer to one guy's body is totally irrelevant. Tate did not have possession. Are you able to watch it in slow motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gallagorilla Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 there were some terrible calls in that game...the PI on that last drive was espeically bad. but on that last one, dual possession seems like a very reasonable ruling. tate had his hands on the ball the whole time. the guy 3 feet away saw dual possession and so did the reviewing ref. Agreed. Clearly it was a td but missed PI call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 There were questionable calls (and no calls) through out the game going both ways. That being said, as a Seahawks fan, I feel for the Packers, they were thoroughly hosed on that last play and that unfairly handed the Seahawks the game. The way the Seahawks played in the second half, they certainly didn't deserve it. Maybe they were making up for that Steelers Super Bowl? Until the Steelers get jobbed out of a Super Bowl against the Seahawks when they are the superior team on the day, nothing will ever make up for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 there is nothing in the rule about having more possession than the other guy. closer to one guy's body is totally irrelevant. Yep, they actually got the call right, it was just such a side show getting to that point. Ed Hochuli would have come out and said "By rule, simultaneous possession goes in the favor of the offensive team. Both players had a grasp on the ball, therefore the ruling on the field is a TD". He then would have flexed his popeye-arms and stared at the camera with a "got a problem with that bitch?" look on his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Having your hands on the ball while another has it clasped to his chest does not equate to simultaneous possession. If so then the refs have been messing this call up for years. Edited September 25, 2012 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 there is nothing in the rule about having more possession than the other guy. closer to one guy's body is totally irrelevant. touching a ball is not possessing in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I guess all you have to do is touch the ball when a defender intercepts it and you get possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Wow Dilfer just laid down some truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 "Rule 8 section 1 article 3 If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control" Tate never had any possession other than a hand on the ball that Jennings clearly caught and held in his possession. Tate even moved his hand off it and put it back on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I have been robbed of something tonight. I wait long months for an opportunity to see my team compete in a relatively fair contest. That was taken from me. It cannot be returned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripleshot Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I would completely support if the NFL comes out tomorrow, reverses the call, and awards the win to the Packers. It would be historic, but it's the only way to protect the integrity of their league right now. In fact, I'll be disappointed if they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocklawdogs Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 scab refs gotta go. worst thing i ever seen in the nfl. ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I would completely support if the NFL comes out tomorrow, reverses the call, and awards the win to the Packers. It would be historic, but it's the only way to protect the integrity of their league right now. In fact, I'll be disappointed if they don't. That'll never happen ... it would totally undermine the referee association. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EW3 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Are these refs Footlocker employees by day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 How could they NOT get the call right with instant replay? I still don't see the NFL budging. I don't either. Now people who don't even give a chit about football might watch to see how bad it is. Goodall is a genius bringing in new viewers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 ESPN says that replay officials cannot determine possession on a TD. So it couldn't be overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Having your hands on the ball while another has it clasped to his chest does not equate to simultaneous possession. If so then the refs have been messing this call up for years. touching a ball is not possessing in any way. he wasn't just barely touching it, tate's left hand/arm was between the ball and the DB's chest. as they went to the ground both players clearly had both hands strongly on the ball. clearly the DB had "more" possession, and I think it probably could have and even should have been ruled an INT more often than not. but seeing the play over and over, I really do think that dual possession is a reasonable interpretation of that play, which is why it wasn't overturned on review. probably not even in the 10 worst ref calls of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 http://twitpic.com/ay40m6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 http://twitpic.com/ay40m6 Irrelevant and misleading. Already been discussed, that's about 5 seconds after they were rolling around on the ground and the play had already been ruled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MothAudio Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't either. Now people who don't even give a chit about football might watch to see how bad it is. Goodall is a genius bringing in new viewers! Sad but true. I think the casual fan is now watching to see the games for the car crashs / refs. I wanted the Seahawks to win but anyone that's watched a football game knows that was a INT. And when they were indecisive I knew they were going to rule TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 http://i47.tinypic.com/b6dd0y.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Here's a gif of the play. I don't see how it can remotely be considered that Tate has possession of the ball. http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/212/SeahawksCatch_original.gif?1348545245 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v0dka Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Replacement Ref @Replacementreff I got fired from the Burger King because my manager was a packers fan. Haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Tate didn't have possession at all. He had one hand trying to pry it away, that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.