The Irish Doggy Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 If a WR possesses a DB who possesses the football, possession of the ball is awarded to the WR. And there you have it: The NFL's new "Possession Rule". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 And there you have it: The NFL's new "Possession Rule". I'm advocating the terminology, "Possession Tautology" It's a Modus Ponens kind of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 So there you have conclusive evidence. If a WR possesses a DB who possesses the football, possession of the ball is awarded to the WR. Keg. Really? yeah, really...i haven't had the time to hit the coaches tape yet but I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 yeah, really...i haven't had the time to hit the coaches tape yet but I will. I've been sick the last few days (still am) and haven't read all of the comments, but isn't possession only established once both of your feet or body hit the ground? Because I've heard the argument that Tate got the ball second and even pulled one of his arms off on the way down, but at the time possession was established (when either player's feet come down), both players had both hands on the ball. Or am I offbase here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 http://sphotos-b.xx....5952_n.jpg[/img] It was not a fumble, so I'm not sure how who won the fight for the ball on the ground after the play is relevant. By your logic, I saw Tate end up with it well after the play, but I'm sure not hanging my hat on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 I've been sick the last few days (still am) and haven't read all of the comments, but isn't possession only established once both of your feet or body hit the ground? Because I've heard the argument that Tate got the ball second and even pulled one of his arms off on the way down, but at the time possession was established (when either player's feet come down), both players had both hands on the ball. Or am I offbase here? No you are looking at it in the proper context..I'm at work and just looked at the coaches tape as well as an angle that I am sure many haven't seen....I can't cut/paste/telestrate from work so will have to wait until I get home to do it on my iPad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Honestly, I don't know what the hell constitutes a catch in the NFL anymore. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Replacement Referee Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Honestly, I don't know what the hell constitutes a catch in the NFL anymore. Welcome to the club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Honestly, I don't know what the hell constitutes a catch in the NFL anymore. After Tate got fined for that hit against Lee the other week, I don't really know what constitutes a legal hit anymore either. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKIDKOKID Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Keggerz...can you please confirm and maybe even send a clip...does the back official ever give the signal for touchback or does he simply wave his arms indicating the play is over/stop the clock (yes I know the clock was already at zero). Every replay I see shows him waving his arms and just when it looks like he may be about to signal touchback (indicating an interception) the camera changes. Thanks. KO'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 After Tate got fined for that hit against Lee the other week, I don't really know what constitutes a legal hit anymore either. Well fortunately for you this one's so easy, you even get two choices: ( Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is: (1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area (8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share Posted September 27, 2012 OK, I think I have some good images but going to take me a bit to get them all together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I'm advocating the terminology, "Possession Tautology" It's a Modus Ponens kind of thing. Busting out the dirty talk. Now we have a party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share Posted September 27, 2012 I put the images up on my blog...if anyone wants the original image files let me know and I can email them to you. Those files are much larger and if you open them in paint you can see them in their original size which is much bigger than on my blog. http://fullimpactfootball.com/2012/09/27/are-you-sure-it-wasnt-a-td/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) I put the images up on my blog...if anyone wants the original image files let me know and I can email them to you. Those files are much larger and if you open them in paint you can see them in their original size which is much bigger than on my blog. http://fullimpactfoo...-it-wasnt-a-td/ I know I'm the blind homer here, but I;ve definitely seen enough to realize how it couldn't be over-turned on replay. The fubared PI' calls, against GB and Seattle, in addition to the roughing the passer were all more egregious than this..IMO. Edited September 27, 2012 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medal of Honor Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I'm a Seahawks fan that was at the game. I saw it full speed and definitely thought it was a TD. I saw the replays on TV and thought it may be an interception - probably. Then I remembered "oh yeah, posession is when your feet hit the ground. Since when do we declare a catch in the air?" Then I saw this and knew it was a TD, actually. http://fullimpactfoo...-it-wasnt-a-td/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 So we have a picture at an unknown time after the play is over with both players on the ground, one before the ball arrives, one from behnid the players not showing the ball and clearly taken before Tate removes his right arm from Jenning's right arn and repositions it? This is the proof we've been looking for? I guess we will see the matter differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Welcome to the club. You're FIRED!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 So we have a picture at an unknown time after the play is over with both players on the ground, one before the ball arrives, one from behnid the players not showing the ball and clearly taken before Tate removes his right arm from Jenning's right arn and repositions it? This is the proof we've been looking for? I guess we will see the matter differently. Which is what the dictionary refers to as a "dispute". And for the play to be overturned, it has to be "indisputable evidence". Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Which is what the dictionary refers to as a "dispute". And for the play to be overturned, it has to be "indisputable evidence". Case closed. Good point about the review being indiputatel. It does raise the question, was it the proper call on the field. (Would the regular refs have called it differently.) And of course had it been ruled an INT that couldn't be overturned as well. I guess the one part I (and possibly others) were forgetting is that the catch isn't complete until you come to the ground. So Jennings may have caught it with both hands, but that wasn't a catch at that point since he's still in the air. However it never really appears that Tate actually catches the ball, only is touching it while Jennings has it in complete control. If a defender intercepts but is in the air, all an offensive player has to do is touch the ball with his hand before he hits the ground and that is simultaneous possession awarded to the offense. Seems like a bad/unintended consequence if they ruile it that way and is something they should look into changing. Look at it this way, remove Jennings body from those pictures and then tell me that Tate is catching and holding the ball the whole time. Either way, nothing is going to change the play. But it will continue to be debated by some. Apparently it helped to bring the real refs back, so I guess some good comes out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Which is what the dictionary refers to as a "dispute". And for the play to be overturned, it has to be "indisputable evidence". Case closed. I have never maintained that after the refs, who were badly out of position, and who could not see the play, and who arrived well after the fact and used what they saw then to make an inaccurate, badly inaccurate, call were then incorrect in ruling that there was not indisputable evidence from the available replays to overturn their wrong call. If your arguement is that under the existing replay rules the wrong call could not be overturned from what they saw, I agree. After they made multiple mistakes they then folowed that one rule. No question in my mind about that. Although I might argue that even the replay process was not properly instituted in that the ref did not first consult with the officials making the call so he was presuming the call on the field was simultaneous possession when the calls on the field were actually two-fold and apparently contradictory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Suppose Tate is lying on the ground flat on his back. Jennings leaps, snatches the ball out of the air and cradles it into his chest. On his return to earth he rotates so that he falls chest first with his legs in the air. Just as Jennings is about to impact Tate, Tate reaches up and grabs the ball which is still secured to Jennings chest. Jennings never reliquishes control of the ball. Some of you would interpret that as a Tate reception? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) I put the images up on my blog...if anyone wants the original image files let me know and I can email them to you. Those files are much larger and if you open them in paint you can see them in their original size which is much bigger than on my blog. http://fullimpactfoo...-it-wasnt-a-td/ What I see is Jennings's whole arm around the ball which is clutched to his chest while his other hand is securing his arm... which is securing the ball. What I also see is Tate behind Jennings, who is between him and the ball, with one hand on the ball. How in the world does that constitute a catch by Tate? Maybe it's just because I'm a Saints homer so my judgement is being clouded.. Edited September 27, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share Posted September 27, 2012 So we have a picture at an unknown time after the play is over with both players on the ground, one before the ball arrives, one from behnid the players not showing the ball and clearly taken before Tate removes his right arm from Jenning's right arn and repositions it? This is the proof we've been looking for? I guess we will see the matter differently. I do have more images that I had planned to put up...I just ran out of time so I used the ones that I thought would stand best together...I do plan to add the rest...hopefully tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) I do have more images that I had planned to put up...I just ran out of time so I used the ones that I thought would stand best together...I do plan to add the rest...hopefully tonight I look forward to seeing what you have. In an earlier post I referred to "zapruder filming" this thing. That may be more on point than I knew when I made that throw away comment. Edited September 27, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders 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.