NFL Official Statement on final play of GB/Seattle game

[delusions of grandeur]

I just meant my last post that you responded to was not meant to stir more debate, only to show how confusing the whole thing is to me. I don't care to spend more time reviewing evidence, because it does me no good. I'll still be confused, and uncertain.

 

The problem with guessing in a situation like this is the play was not going to be overturned either way (would you agree?). So no, I'd prefer they don't guess. This is one of the problems created with instant replay, the refs are leaning towards ruling a TD or turnover in cases where it is close. They figure then replay gets involved and will overturn it if they made a mistake. But what if it was to close for replay to overturn?

 

You seem to feel strongly that Tate caught it, and the evidence you've viewed and referenced proves that. Problem is other people look at the same thing and don't agree. To me that's a clear indication that the evidence is not really as clear as you think it is. (Or else they're all wrong.)

 

For someone who claims to be against unreadable pissing matches, you're making this exceedingly difficult for me to not make this thread unreadable (thus, I'm not even going to address what the refs did wrong, because it's not at all what I'm arguing. Even the NFL admits they missed the PI call, but incompetent refs are irrelevant to whether it was a catch or not.).

 

The packer fans and rajn are the only ones to dispute the evidence that Keg and I have presented (truly shocking that those were the ones who've disagreed with me here ), yet none have come back to make their case that Tate did not maintain control or have it in the first place. I've practically begged for someone to make the case and show evidence to the contrary, or give good reason why the evidnece presented is flawed or inconclusive.

 

But yes, I would agree that this new evidence at very least draws into serious question that it was a BS call (again not the refs weren't bumbling fools and possibly even guessing, but the merit of the call itself seems to be much more legitimate than many of the other calls in the game).

[dj80d]

dont know if anyone else has seen this but its funny.

Edited September 27, 2012 by dj80d

[dj80d]

how the hell can i put in videos

[Big John]

how the hell can i put in videos

 

Type in what you want it to say, highlighlight it then hit the link button to enter the url.

[delusions of grandeur]

how the hell can i put in videos

It tries to embed youtube videos, but the media function has been disabled.

 

You have to type a title and then highlight and link:

[dj80d]

It tries to embed youtube videos, but the media function has been disabled.

 

You have to type a title and then highlight and link:

haha there you go. funny spoof on refs from greenbay side

[keggerz]

Ha Keg, they referenced you in this ESPN blog post:

 

http://espn.go.com/b...mnf-controversy

 

ETA: Also references this very clear still: http://seattletimes....nted_witho.html

 

That is pretty cool...already sent a tweet to Mike to thank him for the mention (my 1st ever on ESPN that I am aware of)

[keggerz]

Keggerz, this was a response I got on another site, curious to see if this changes your mind (first and last paragraph are the important parts):

 

 

So I guess that's the question. Was Tate's 1 hand on the ball enough to say that he secured it simultaneously? Not saying it wasn't, but it looks like we may be offbase in the "possession" argument.

 

ETA: though kudos for the great angle that shows Tate's left arm, that makes it look much less like the ball was just on Jenning's chest, with Tate's arm in-between the ball and his chest.

 

It doesn't because I do think that they were both catching the ball at the same time....and yes, I think that you can catch a ball with one hand...had tate not had a solid hold of the ball Jennings should have easily been able to just get up with the ball...I don't think that was the case, and when you look at each of the images, as well as the additional video angle etc....I see it as "tie goes tot he runner"

[keggerz]

The ref who called this a touchdown was on the sideline and well up the field from the play. He was outside the pylon and a yard up the field. He was way out of position and as the play occured and as the essential players came down they spun enough that he was completely shielded from the play. He could see nothing until he ran in late, as they struggled on the ground. How late did he run in, well he got their after the other official who came along the backline from the far side of the goal post. He gets there around two seconds after the fact, looks at the scene at that time, and at that time he makes his call based on what he sees, Tates two arms inserted near the catch area, one pinned with his palm not on the ball, and the right arm, which he clearly removed and reinserted on the way down across the chest of the Packer, with his wirist bone, but not his palm or fingers, touching the ball.

 

I respectfully disagree. It was both a bad call, and a call he should have deferred. The problem is that the other official was so far away and out of position that he too only got to see the aftermath. Neither official was in position to make an informed call. They guessed, and they each guessed differently based on the picture they got well after the fact.

 

I don't agree with the bolded at all...just look at this image and you can clearly see that the official (while farther away than maybe he should have been) was looking directly at the play and had a very good angle to view it from https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-ZkiIQ6QIqraGZ3a3hGN3p3Y0k

 

 

Question for anyone who thinks it was dual possession. If the defender has the ball in both arms, clutched to his chest and shows clear possession as they both go to the ground, but the receiver has both hands on the ball as they touch the ground, do you consider that dual possession?

 

Another question. Had Jenkins not kept the ball when he went down and it hit the ground, would it still be considered a TD by Tate since he did not retain control?

 

Both players went to the ground, so it would have been an incomplete pass if the ball ended up on the ground.

 

Was watching some of the coverage on ESPN last night at the gym, they were talking to former official/ref Jerry Austin (the ref ESPN talks with during MNF). They were asking him to go over not so much the catch, but after that how officials saw it and how the ref handles the replay. He pointed out a serious error by the ref, when he was buzzed to go review it, he never talked with the other two officials first to ask "what did you see" to get the detail info and gauge their certainty with their own call. He also talked about how those two officials (back & side judge) should approach the play and get closer so they can rule on what happened.

 

It is clear to anybody that watched, that neither of these guys had a good view of the actio prior to the players landing on the ground. All they saw was two guys holding the ball. One apparently thought it was dual possession (signaled TD) the other did not (clock stop signal which Austin said would be the first step in ruling interception, then touchback).

 

Even upon video review it seems pretty clear that Jennings catches the ball, then Tate puts his hands on it. Tate never catches the ball, unless he has tentacles on his wrist to grab a hold of it. I think we can all live with the bad call on the field, but expected it to be overruled by replay. Then the NFL makes it worse by telling us it was the right call. Although I'm not sure they really said it was actually dual possession, or just that it couldn't be overturned.

 

Adam Schefter was also interesting, saying that all the refs (regular NFLRA guys) and retired officials he spoke with said not only wasn't it dual possession, but the offensive PI by Tate was so obvious that there should have been multiple flags thrown. Of course the NFL already said that was a missed call.

 

I'm eagerly awaiting kegz evaluation with photo/video evidence. If the current NFL rules actually justify this as dual possession, then they need to be changes.

 

I 100% disagree with your assessment...the above linked pic clearly shows that ref had a good view and angle...yes he may have been a bit far away but he had an excellent line with how the play unfolded in front of him.

 

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

 

I can't post the video but in the coaches tape he is just continues waving his arms like he was prior to them cutting away.

[keggerz]

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.

 

More images for you...but with the Videos that DG posted and the additional picture in the Sando article I don't see why they are even needed...

 

Still 1

Still 2

Still 3

Still 4

Still 5

Still 6

Still 7

Still 8

Still 9

Still 10

Still 11

Still 12

Still 13

Still 14

Still 15

Still 16

Still 17

 

 

Tate did not just put a hand on the ball after Jennings had control. If anything, Jennings used the ball falling into Tate's hand to establish control himself. Watch both videos again, and show me where he loses control with his left arm. There is no rule against 1-handed catches, nor is there any provision about one having "more" control:

 

Watch again:

 

 

 

Possession

 

If someone says they don't see Tate's hand catching that ball then they don't want to see it...guys can palm a basketball but we can't believe a guy can catch a football with one hand? Come on man.

 

No, it shows the ball falling into his hand, actually before Jenning's secures possession using that catch. Now show me the one that shows the ball leaving that left hand, because the other video I linked above shows no evidence of that.

 

If anything the ball looks to fall between Jennings wrists, just below his hands, all the while Tate's hand (left) has the ball in it.

 

I can watch both of those videos 100 times and whether you believe he had possession or not, neither video shows him maintaining it. In fact, quite to the contrary, it shows Jennings on top of Tate with the ball in hand.

 

 

Then you don't want to see it...and I don't know how you can say he didn't maintain possession...the play was like 3-5 seconds long and even when Jennings rolls over putting Tate in an awkward position he doesn't take the ball away from Tate who still has the ball securely in his left hand (look at the first image in my blog post)

Edited September 28, 2012 by keggerz

[rajncajn]

If someone says they don't see Tate's hand catching that ball then they don't want to see it...guys can palm a basketball but we can't believe a guy can catch a football with one hand? Come on man.

 

 

I guess it just depends on if you consider one hand on a ball more of a reception than both arms around it. Sorry, I don't. I don't consider one hand on the ball when it's in contention as a reception. I really have no dog in this fight & couldn't care less if it was an interception or not, but I know what I see & I wouldn't consider that control by the receiver.

[keggerz]

I guess it just depends on if you consider one hand on a ball more of a reception than both arms around it. Sorry, I don't. I don't consider one hand on the ball when it's in contention as a reception. I really have no dog in this fight & couldn't care less if it was an interception or not, but I know what I see & I wouldn't consider that control by the receiver.

 

 

So you have never seen anyone ever catch a football with one hand? NFL rules say nothing about multiple hands, arms etc.

[rajncajn]

So you have never seen anyone ever catch a football with one hand? NFL rules say nothing about multiple hands, arms etc.

 

 

Again, so any time an interception is made, all the receiver has to do is have a hand on the ball to negate the interception. If that's the way it works then ok, I agree with you. Otherwise, I just disagree.

[delusions of grandeur]

 

 

Again, so any time an interception is made, all the receiver has to do is have a hand on the ball to negate the interception. If that's the way it works then ok, I agree with you. Otherwise, I just disagree.

 

If the reciever uses it to establish possession, and the defender doesnt take it away, then yes. Its simultaneous possesion.

 

Also, remember that this leads to tate having possession with 2 hands by the time he gets to the ground. The defender never takes it away.

Edited September 28, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[keggerz]

Again, so any time an interception is made, all the receiver has to do is have a hand on the ball to negate the interception. If that's the way it works then ok, I agree with you. Otherwise, I just disagree.

 

You know that isn't what I am saying, nor what happened...he didn't just put his hand on the ball...if he did then Jennings wouldn't have been fighting for it...I am pretty sure that when the play happened no one envisioned Tate having any part of that ball...they just thought he got it in the scrum...well based on all sorts of video evidence that support that isn't how Tate got the ball.

 

If the reciever uses it to establish possession, and the defender doesnt take it away, then yes. Its simultaneous possesion.

 

Also, remember that this leads to tate having possession with 2 hands by the time he gets to the ground. The defender never takes it away.

 

At this point people have their minds made up, and it will be next to impossible to sway them to see it any other way...or to even in the least little bit acknowledge that Tate is more involved in the catch then they ever imagined he was. Edited September 28, 2012 by keggerz

[rajncajn]

You know that isn't what I am saying, nor what happened...he didn't just put his hand on the ball...if he did then Jennings wouldn't have been fighting for it...I am pretty sure that when the play happened no one envisioned Tate having any part of that ball...they just thought he got it in the scrum...well based on all sorts of video evidence that support that isn't how Tate got the ball.

 

At this point people have their minds made up, and it will be next to impossible to sway them to see it any other way...or to even in the least little bit acknowledge that Tate is more involved in the catch then they ever imagined he was.

 

I can see that he got his hands on the ball, I dispute that he maintained possession throughout. Jennings on the other hand did IMO.

[delusions of grandeur]

 

You know that isn't what I am saying, nor what happened...he didn't just put his hand on the ball...if he did then Jennings wouldn't have been fighting for it...I am pretty sure that when the play happened no one envisioned Tate having any part of that ball...they just thought he got it in the scrum...well based on all sorts of video evidence that support that isn't how Tate got the ball.

 

At this point people have their minds made up, and it will be next to impossible to sway them to see it any other way...or to even in the least little bit acknowledge that Tate is more involved in the catch then they ever imagined he was.

 

True. I should have given up long ago, but its like a moth to a flame. Ots all you if you think you can convince them otherwise.

[keggerz]

True. I should have given up long ago, but its like a moth to a flame. Ots all you if you think you can convince them otherwise.

 

No, I have spent more than enough time on it (those images took me about 4 hours alone)

[rajncajn]

No, I have spent more than enough time on it (those images took me about 4 hours alone)

 

 

Now you're making me feel guilty.

 

I'll concede that the information you provided, in the way you presented it, is probably enough to say that the replay officials did the right thing in not overturning the ruling on the field. But I still contend that the ruling should have been an interception in the first place.

 

ETA: BTW, at least all that work was not in vein with the ESPN mention.

Edited September 28, 2012 by rajncajn

[WaterMan]

The defensive player caught the ball with two hands while the offensive player was pushing off and only got one hand on the ball AFTER the defensive player had possession.

 

poor refs

[NoSupe4You]

The defensive player caught the ball with two hands while the offensive player was pushing off and only got one hand on the ball AFTER the defensive player had possession.

 

poor refs

 

 

Whether you think it was enough to justify any kind of control or not, the slow motion video clearly shows that Tate made and maintained contact with the ball with his left hand BEFORE Jennings ever touched it.

[stevegrab]

I don't agree with the bolded at all...just look at this image and you can clearly see that the official (while farther away than maybe he should have been) was looking directly at the play and had a very good angle to view it from https://docs.google....aGZ3a3hGN3p3Y0k

 

 

FYI

 

There is no picture there when I go that page, just a little red X like the picture is missing. Would like to see it, because if this was the official near the corner of the end zone (not the back judge by the goal post) I cannot imagine how he saw most of the action since Jennigs and Tate both had their backs to him.

[keggerz]

FYI

 

There is no picture there when I go that page, just a little red X like the picture is missing. Would like to see it, because if this was the official near the corner of the end zone (not the back judge by the goal post) I cannot imagine how he saw most of the action since Jennigs and Tate both had their backs to him.

 

I will have to fix that later when I get home (google doc issue) but I think this will work (sniped it off my blog) http://fullimpactfootball.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/tates-fingers1.jpg

[stevegrab]

I will have to fix that later when I get home (google doc issue) but I think this will work (sniped it off my blog) http://fullimpactfoo...es-fingers1.jpg

 

 

Thanks, see your point. Ok, duh was going to say "but the ref still can't see that, then I see him standing there. I thought he was closer to the back corner, since that is where he came from at the end of the play.

 

Still a tough call, and one that is debatable for sure. (It is very hard to see those fingers on the ball, and who they belong too. Would help if the gloves were a bright color instead of black. It appeared to be such a clean catch (ball in the hands not NFL rulebook completed catch with feet down) initially that it is hard for people to accept that wasn't the case. I'll continue to say it really isn't clear, could have gone either way, and was not going to be overturned by replay.

[keggerz]

All those images should be available now.