Wait a minute… The Replacement Refs Got it Right (no really)

When I blogged about this story earlier, I didn’t even bother discuss the play or the call… I figured it was self-evident to a tree. And that’s pretty much how every else saw it too. But then the NFL released a statement yesterday saying that it really was a catch. Everyone dismissed it and I went to read it for the same reason, I was planning a post highlighting their completely inhumane torturing of logic.

But a funny thing happened on the way to mock the NFL. They made a point.

First we need to define a catch: (And I’ll emphasis the parts that both help and hurt their argument)

A player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch listed here.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:

Simultaneous Catch. 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. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

After reading the above, I decided to give the video the full Zapruder. When I first viewed the video I saw (like everyone else) that M.D. Jennings, “came down with it.”  Only problem was, when I looked at it anew, Golden Tate came down with it *first.* And that’s important. The key bit of video actually happened BEFORE the part you probably thought was the definitive part.

I’m going to post two screen caps in question then the video. Then return to the discussion of the play:

Click that image. This screen shot is from the 0:48 mark on the video. You can see in this pic that beyond any doubt at all, Tate has two feet on the ground and Jennings did not. This is where “the catch’ happened.  Well if you assume he had possession… hold that thought.

The key to the NFL’s explanation is that the catch is not made until the receiver lands.  Here’s a reverse angle look from 1:06 in the video:

Now here is the crux of the argument. Tate had possession here, the game is over. That’s the important part of the NFL’s argument… The play ended here, before Jennings even landed. Nothing after that fact mattered.

Now did he have control? After watching the video like 10 times IF YOU STOP LOOKING AFTER TATE’S FEET HIT THE GROUND he does. Remember, after Tate catches the ball the play is over. He’s in the end zone so he does not have to be tackled. At the beginning of the jump, he did not have possession, but he reaches in again and pretty clearly wraps his arms around the ball (and the defender’s arms) as his feet hit the ground. AFTER they both hit the ground and the play is over M.D. Jennings wrestles it away. It was not even a simultaneous catch, Jennings was still in the air.

Watch the video and see if you don’t have a different perspective if you ignore everything after Tate’s feet hit the ground. (at 1:06)

Now I know what a lot of you are thinking. He never had control and/or he was not able to “ward off an opponent.” But the fact they wrestled over the ball disproves this point. He had possession for several second AFTER the play was over. Yes, he also had possession of M.D. Jennings arms. Jennings, might have had it closer to his chest but that is irrelevant to the ruling. If you still doubt Tate had his arms around the ball, this screen cap will end the discussion.

He still had his arms around the ball even after he hit the ground. (again well after the play is over) The NFL can credibly make the call Tate had possession. The video backs them up.

And watching the video, (and this is key) there is absolutely no way they had enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. (Again ignore everything after Tate’s feet his because the catch was made then.)

If you read the rules, this was a good call.
——————

And yes I know about the non-call the NFL copped to. That is what it is. Non-calls happen on nearly every play. As a general rule, everyone (fans, players, coaches) likes it that way. I’m only discussing the primary call.

Also I updated the post with a third screen grab.

And Lastly since it will probably come up, I’m a Green Bay fan.. but dude the video tells the tale.

Obama's UN Speech: Soft Pedaling America's Principles
The Only Reliable Source Of Information On The Assassination Of Chris Stevens
  • Kiliman

    Not sure how you can say he maintained possession when he hit the ground. If you look at 1:05, you’ll see that Tate let go of the ball and only had one had on it.

    1:05 Tate only has 1 hand on it
    http://imgur.com/blUD2

    1:07 Tate puts both hands back on it, but now only 1 foot is on the ground
    http://imgur.com/pTj5Q

    1:07 Jennings finally gets both feet on the ground. Tate still only has 1 foot on the ground, but his butt hits the ground at the same time.
    http://imgur.com/nQPoY

    Since the rule states that “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

    Jennings never lost control of the ball, unlike Tate. Besides, Tate has control of Jennings’ arm more than the ball.

    It was a bad call. And do you really think these replacement refs understood the nuance of the simultaneous catch rule? The one’s that think you can have 5 timeouts?

    I’m pretty sure they were just hoping to get out of the stadium alive.

    • That_Paul

      Killman

      1) At 1:06 Tate has both hands on the ball and both feet on the ground. The play is over.
      2) Tate did not lose control until after the catch was made and the play was over.

      And if you think Jennings had both feet on the ground before Tate, you’re either mistaken, lying or just delusional. Check the first pic above. THAT is not up for debate.

      And if you do want to debate it, check this: Tate is already sitting on the ground and Jennings still has a foot in the air.
      http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/buttdown.png

      • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

        Jennings knee on one leg was down before the second leg was down. I only saw this on one view.

        Tate lost control on the way to the ground (one hand came off), while Jennings gathered in the ball and maintained control all the way to the ground. Tate would not be able to gain simultaneous catch status without Jennings somehow bobbling the ball. Tate was only subsequently gaining joint control.

        • That_Paul

          >Jennings knee on one leg was down before the second leg was down. I only saw this on one view.

          No way… look at this video 0:47

          >Tate lost control on the way to the ground (one hand came off),

          Why does that mean he lost control? NFL receivers make one handed catches all the time. But either way, he brought the arm back in as he hit the ground. (ending the play)

          >Tate would not be able to gain simultaneous catch status
          without Jennings somehow bobbling the ball.

          First that is factually wrong, obviously a simultaneous catch does not require one side bobble the ball… that’s why they call it simultaneous.

          But beyond that it was not a simultaneous catch, Tate landed it before Jennings. The video makes this clear if you watch it.

          • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

            Way.

            Tate never had control because he didn’t control it all the way to the ground. When is having one hand on the ball control when someone else has it tucked into his chest?

            But either way, he brought the arm back in as he hit the ground.

            .. but not as to re-establish a simultaneous catch.

            obviously a simultaneous catch does not require one side bobble the ball…

            So you agree with what I said. Tate did bobble, so there was no simultaneous catch. He could not regain a first catch status, or simultaneous catch status “again” without Jenning bobbling the ball. The bobbling is not needed if Tate had kept it in control from the start with Jennings.

            I also don’t believe Tate met the requirement of section (a) either.

            excerpt from the rules: ” If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it”
            Tate didn’t retain it in the air, and I’m not sure he actually had both hands on it first to begin with.

          • That_Paul

            I didn’t say I agreed with anything. You said that a simultaneous catch requires one side bobble the ball. I disagreed with that.

            Still do.

            The ball was never bobbled by anyone. Nowhere in the video is the ball bobbled. I have no idea why you’re saying it was.

          • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

            “You said that a simultaneous catch requires one side bobble the ball”

            .No I did not. Show me where you think I said so. I actually said pretty much the opposite. Tate didn’t catch the ball first. He took his hand off it on the fall to the ground. (A ‘bobble’ on his part, probably not technically a bobble as Jennings already had secured the ball). What I said was that Jennings, after securing the ball, would’ve had to bobble it for Tate to be able to get a possible simultaneous catch or even possession at all.

            (You agreed with me that a bobble is not necessary for a simultaneous catch)

          • That_Paul

            >Show me where you think I said so.

            OK reading it again I get your intent.

            In the context you wrote it for some reason I took it that a simultaneous catch required one side bobble the ball.

            Not sure if I had some logical reason to read it that way at the time or if it was the allergy meds I was on yesterday reading but nonetheless, I get your point now. — My Apologies.
            ========

            I get your point now. Your argument boils down to this:

            >Tate didn’t catch the ball first. He took his hand off it on the fall to the ground.

            On that we completely disagree. NFL receivers make one handed catches all time. There is no two handed requirement… BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS, he wraps his right hand around it and lands before Jennings does. He even sits on his butt before Jennings has both feet down. (1:07 on video above)

            The fact Jennings had to wrestle him for the ball for like 5 seconds pretty well disproves the notion Tate did not catch the ball.

          • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

            I didn’t say a one handed catch isn’t possible. There is nothing in the rules, though, that would let me believe someone with one hand on the ball has caught the ball after someone else wrapped it up with both hands to the chest.

            Tate likely did at some point catch the ball, just after Jennings had caught it. by the rules this negates any wrestling after the fact.

            I’ve seen nothing in the video or in, what I would characterize, as your misinterpretations of the rules, to change my mind. Actually I’m more convinced now of the interception. The closest you’ve found to a smoking gun is that the rules themselves have some room for ambiguity, but I remain on the side of the majority opinion in this case. Granted there are some contrarian’s out there (apparently mostly Seahawks and Bears fans).

            I’m not really concerned with convincing you otherwise, So I probably won’t be responding any further. (I would just be repeating my already conveyed stance anyway) The debacle is over and the harm has been done, now with the real officials back I can move on to the real NFL season.

    • That_Paul

      ignore this, going to combine replies

    • highschoolzebra

      Hey dummy, while they are in the air nothing is established. Tate is the first to have two hands on the ball and both feet on the ground. That is a simultaneous catch. Correct call.

      • That_Paul

        Man.. you’re right and all but no reason to fire off names until someone makes a true fool of themselves… just saying.

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Not surprising there is shilling for scabs here.

    • That_Paul

      No more surprising then you shilling for unions. OOOOH when he shills it’s a bad thing but when you do it, it’s just fine. I get it now.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        Except the scabs clearly got the call wrong. Why excuse it?

        Jack Zimms got it right – you are lawyering it and using psychobabble.

        Paul: “Who’re you going to believe? Me, or your lyin’ eyes?”

        With scabs, you get what you pay for.

        • 914

          Well, one scab got it right and the other got it wrong. I have seen this many times through out the years with the regular refs.

          That they would not review it is the real screw job.

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      No human being is a scab. Those replacement officials are human beings who need jobs just as much as regular officials do.

  • Kiliman

    You also didn’t highlight this rule:

    Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

    Tate clearly did not maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground, unlike Jennings.

    You claim that as soon as Tate’s feet hit the ground, that’s the end of the play. That does not apply if the receiver is going to the ground per the rule above.

  • Idahoser

    I’ll take scabs any day if it will hurt a union. That’s where America’s final destruction is coming from.

  • Jack Zimms

    Jennings had control of the ball first. He caught it in both
    hands and had it against his chest. Yes it is not a legal catch until his feetetc
    land inbounds. However, he clearly had control of the ball first. Therefore, it was not a simultaneous catch. Trying to twist, turn, and lawyer the call up doesn’t change the fact it was an interception. Every NFL player I have seen comment on it clearly saw it as an interception.

    Like foul calls in the NBA there are precedence on these events
    that is understood although not “technically” written in rule book. Either this
    call was way off or many calls in the past were way off.

    According to you, if a defensive player jumps up and catches the ball, all the offensive player has to do is reach around the defensive player body, grab the ball and it would be a reception because offensive player feet is on the ground and the defensive player is in the air. It gives a new definition for a “reach around”. That situation happens quite often. How often has an offensive player been credited for a reception in those cases? Zero that I have seen. But technically….. yeah
    right.

    However, it clearly shows how effective lawyer psychobabble work on people. A clear common sense situation that should be obvious gets clouded by smoke and mirror which make people doubt what should be clear. Yes, there is nothing wrong with considering if you are wrong but one should be extra skeptical when address by a lawyer, magician or con man.

    • That_Paul

      Jennings had control of the ball first. He caught it in both
      hands and had it against his chest. Yes it is not a legal catch until his feetetc
      land inbounds. However, he clearly had control of the ball first. Therefore, it was not a simultaneous catch.

      ===========

      Your argument would have more weight if you didn’t admit it was not a legal catch. The rest of your reply was name calling.

      You admit Jennings did not catch the ball but think that if you call names it won’t matter. Weak.

      • Jack Zimms

        I did not call names anymore than what your statement does. As
        my follow on statement pointed out possession and control are two different things. Jennings didn’t have to have a legal catch to have had control of the ball at some point of time in the play. A receiver often has control of the ball prior to loosing that control by hitting the ground etc. Jennings had controlled of the ball first and maintained control throughout.

        In addition, I didn’t admit it was not a legal catch or that Jennings did not catch the ball. I only said that it was not a legal catch until the requirements were fulfill which Jennings did.

        • That_Paul

          Yes, Jennings had control of the ball when he landed. Problem is the play was over by then because Tate met the requirements of a catch. If you’re looking at anything past 1:06 or 7 you’re wasting your time. By then the play was over.

          • Jack Zimms

            It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first. Jenning had control first.It is not who fulfills the possession requirement first.

          • That_Paul

            DUDE IT’S NOT A CATCH IF YOUR FEET ARE NOT ON THE GROUND!!! IT”S NOT WHO HAS CONTROL FIRST IT IS WHO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A CATCH FIRST.

            Now do I have to shout again? You might not LIKE the rules but that is what they say.

          • Jack Zimms

            So someone can’t catch the ball while they are in the air?
            Wow.

            Also you haven’t answer my example question.

          • That_Paul

            >So someone can’t catch the ball while they are in the air? Wow.


            NOW YOU GOT IT! The catch is not a catch until he sticks the landing. That’s the whole point of the rule and this post.

            Glad we agree now.

          • Jack Zimms

            No, they haven’t legally gained possession until those requirement are fulfill. They can however catch the ball while I the air. Next, you will be arguing what the definition of “is” is.

          • That_Paul

            Oh my I thought you got it… but I guess you lost the plot.

            You can ‘catch’ anything anywhere… but for it to me in your -possession- you gotta have two feet in bounds. And Tate had two feet in bounds first. — Go see my 4 questions above.

            You’re trying to say the rules don’t count what you say does.

            I have a three year old nephew who uses that same argument. It doesn’t work for him either.

          • Jack Zimms

            But as the rules you posted “passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control”

            It says “control first”. Nowhere does it say the player that
            completes the requirement for a legal “catch” first.

            And yes I should have been more careful with mixing the a
            layman term for “catch” which NFL uses also when talking about the rulebooks. However,it gets tiresome to say the one who gains control while ball is in the air every time to refer to a player “catching” the ball.

            Unlike you, I saying the rules do count such as “passers. It
            is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control”. You ignore that one.One need to look at all the rules and how they have been applied to the past.

          • That_Paul

            First, it was not a simultaneous catch. But I’ll be nice to you and say it was… The rule says:

            —–

            If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers

            —-

            Dude, you keep trying to invent rules from thin air but life just not work that way. — Now you’ve changed your tune three times now, care to invent a fourth reason?

          • Jack Zimms

            I did not claim it was a simultaneous catch. It is about who gain control first. Simultaneous means at the same time.

          • That_Paul

            double post… hate these comments.

          • That_Paul

            OK Jack a series of questions.

            1) If a player jumps up and gets control of the ball in mid air but lands out of bounds is it a catch?

            2) If TWO players both jump up and they both have control but one lands out and one lands in, who gets the catch?

            3) Here’s the tricky one: If both players jump up and player one gets control first BUT he lands out of bounds and player two is inbounds, who gets the catch?

            4) Now for the double tricky one: If player one gets control first BUT player two lands inbound first with control, who gets the catch?

            Game. Set. Match.

          • Jack Zimms

            Nice try. You try to distract from answering my question by
            asking your own questions. How about answering mine first.

          • That_Paul

            I did not see your question. OK here is my answer. NO.

            Now answer mine.

            Jack, quit arguing just to argue. You’ve given me 4 different reason why the call was wrong but not of those reason have held water. Every time I shoot one down you invent another reason.

            If you answer those four questions the discussion will be over. Promise. Try it.

  • Jack Zimms

    To reemphasize one key point, possession and control are two
    different things. If they weren’t then the rules stated would be contradicting themselves. If control is possession then how does one have control before possession when one of the requirements for possession is to have control prior to possession.

    • That_Paul

      Hey… weren’t you the guy just complaining about ‘lawyer psychobabble’ and that common sense should prevail… I coulda sworn that was you.

      See my other reply. Tate met the requirements of a catch while Jennings was still in the air.

      • Jack Zimms

        Weren’t you the one complaining about name calling… I coulda
        sworn that was you:)

        Once again Jennings had control first not Tate. Are you saying that if a defensive player jumps in front of a receiver and catches the ball and the receiver reaches around the defensive player and grab the ball as the defensive player is coming down that it should be called an offensive
        reception?

        • That_Paul

          I will answer above… or now with these crazy comments below. not loving Disquse

  • jim_m

    None of the argumentation matters. Once the ruling is made on the field the replay judge needs “incontrovertible visual evidence” to overturn a call. Since the ruling on the field was a touchdown it made it extremely difficult to overturn since the video is not clearly conclusive.

    • Jack Zimms

      It may not matter on the outcome of the game but it matters on
      if it was a legit call or not. Reviews by officials are limited on what they
      can review and rule on. The ruling on the field was both a touchdown and
      interception. The interception ruling was overruled. I glad GB lost but the call was still B.S.

      • jim_m

        Not exactly correct. The ruling when presented was that the ruling on the field had been a touchdown and that ruling was upheld. They did not overturn an interception.(technically).

        • Jack Zimms

          Not exactly, correct. A ref can make a call by use of hand
          signal on the field. They can in most cases retract, reframe, or overrule those calls. One ref signal interception and another one a touchdown.
          This is what a conversations digress to when sides gets all lawyer like. People trying to sharpshoot any detail of the other side. Then it goes back of forth on what “is” is. Yes I’m guilty too.

          • jim_m

            Well, I did not see the game because I am in Germany this week and oddly enough they didn’t carry the MNF broadcast here.

            I’m only looking at the one replay and when the official announced the ruling he said that the play was upheld as I am assuming that the play call on the field was a touchdown, which explains why the replay official may have not overruled it given the requirements to overrule.

          • That_Paul

            Jim, warning on Jack… he’s been caught several time lying on this thread. In the latest one, he tried quoting an NFL rule that -just so happened- to exactly address this issue in his favor.

            Duh, it’s the internet, I looked up the rule book. There is no such rule.

            He’s a liar.

          • Jack Zimms

            You keep accusing me of lying by pulling the A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH example out of thin air. I
            told you where I have it and even gave you a link to it. A link to the same website
            domain you used. Yet you continue to say it is a lie and made up.

          • Jack Zimms

            There is only so much that they are allowed to review. Possession of football on touchdown I heard is not one of them.

            When I first heard that, the call was right because of simultaneous catch rule and they show a small portion of the replay , I believe them to. However, when I saw the full replay then the slow motion full replay, I knew it was wrong. It sounds like any NFL players who watch the replay agree with me. The only player that I seen who say anything remotely that it was a legit touchdown is Tate. He admits he only going off of memory and not the replays. I suspect he knows better to.

          • PBunyan

            By “all lawyer like” do you mean people who want to actually follow the actual rules rather than just make stuff up like you’re doing? The rules are the rules. It was an excellent call.

          • Jack Zimms

            What I mean by “all lawyer like” is parsing or twisting the
            words in a rule or law in an attempt to make it look like it says something that the writers never intended it to say. Following the actual rules is great. However, actual rules are consistent and don’t constantly change depending on what one side wants it to be.

          • PBunyan

            I’m not on any side. I don’t even pay attention to professional football. It’s too boring and I don’t care who wins.

            You and most people seem to want the refs to rule based of feelings rather than the facts and the rules. Because Jennings touched the football a few thousandths of a second before Tate, you want him to be awarded the catch and damn the facts and the rules.

  • Guest
  • Jack Zimms

    Here is an perfect example from the 2011 NFL playbook

    A.R.
    8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH

    First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground.

    Ruling:
    B’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first
    and retains control.

    • That_Paul

      Sorry dude, you’re a liar. Here’s the rule 2011 rule book
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/74643883/2011-NFL-Rule-Book

      Page 54:

      ========
      A.R. 8.29 Second-and-10 on B20. Quarterback deliberately throws the ball out of bounds to stop the game clock.
      Ruling:
      The pass was not thrown away to prevent loss of yardage. A’s ball third-and-10 on B20.
      ========

      It has nothing to do with catching at all liar.

      Your made up one has been pasted in comments all over the internet and you foolishly thought you could bullshit me.

      It’s also not in the 2012 rule book either dumbass.
      http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf

      Did you REALLY think you could bullshit me? Really?

      You owe me two apologies. 1 for lying and 1 for assuming I would not check your sorry ass.

      Liar. Stupid stupid liar.

      • Jack Zimms

        You have the nerve to accuse me of name calling earlier.
        What a laugh.

        I did say 2011 playbook. Dumbass :) or can’t you read.

        http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf

        As already been pointed out in 2012 playbook . Page 47 Item
        5: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first
        and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

        Who is the Stupid stupid liar now :) that owes me an apology or is static.nfl.com only a trusted source when you
        use it?

        • That_Paul

          Not only are you a liar but you’re a fucking liar.

          Here’s the screen shot A.R. 8.29.

          http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/liar.gif

          Who is stupid now? That would be you. Dumbass.

          • Jack Zimms

            Do you not understand the difference between 2011 and 2012? Your screenshot is from 2012 playbook dumbass. I said, from the get go, the rule example was from 2011 playbook. 2011 not 2012. Get it 2011 not 2012. Once again 2011 not 2012. Look at my link. I also refer to the rule from 2012 stating it is about who has the control first.

            You are the idiot dumbass. You can’t tell the difference 2011
            playbook and 2012 playbook. A.R. 8.29 is in both books and a even though they have the same number are not the same rule.. Do you not comprehend that? If you don’t want to do the research at least learn how to do some comprehensive reading.

            2011 not 2012, 2011 not 2012,, 2011 not 2012 !!!!!!!!!!

          • That_Paul

            Asshole, You’re lying,

            I know you’re lying.

            You know you’re lying.

            You know that I know you’re lying.

            I know that you know that I know you’re lying.

            We all know you’re a fucking liar.

            You’ve had your laugh being an asshole. Now I’m done. It’s trolls like you who give the internet a bad name.

          • Jack Zimms

            I give references. The same site that you used in fact. Yet I’m lying. The only one that is lying is you. Your blinders are on so tight, it amazing you can type.

          • That_Paul

            Dude, give it up. everyone can click the link and see you’re a liar. Now you’re just bring a trolling d-bag.

          • Jack Zimms

            Is there anyone out besides Paul that followed my link and can not see that rule example which I cut and paste from “2011” NFL rulebook?

            Rule on watch constitutes a “NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH” hasn’t change from 2011 to 2012 rulebook so the example from 2011 rulebook still applies.

          • Jack Zimms

            To help anyone out so they don’t have to
            search for the link again. It is on page 169 “A.R.8.29 Not a Simultaneous Catch” in the
            2011 NFL rulebook

            http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf

          • Jack Zimms

            Final note

            You kept accusing me of lying by pulling the “A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH” example out of thin air. I told you where I found it and even gave you a link to it. A link to the same website domain you used. Yet you continue to say it is a lie and made up.

            That is how tight your blinders are on.

  • PBunyan

    I agree with Paul. It was a catch. I’ve thought that all along. The replacements got it right.

  • PBunyan

    For anyone who can’t see how the call was right, all you have to do is mentally remove Jennings from the video. Tate jumps up catches the ball with both hands and as he’s falling to the ground he re-adjusts his right hand (still never losing “control” with his left hand) and falls onto his back while pulling the ball to his chest firmly with both hands. Touchdown.
    The whole “control” argument is irrelevent. The theory that Jennings had “control”, before Tate is irrelevant. The rule is possession, not control. Tate had possesion first–end of story.
    It’s the old rule of man vs. rule of law thing again. And like so often lately (Lybia, Corzine, Fast and Furious, Travon, Dream Act, etc.) the masses are siding with the rule of man. What they “feel” versus truth and logic. Scary, scary times we live in.

    • Jack Zimms

      How does your theory works when you remove Tate from the
      picture? If Jenning was out of the picture the ball would have been too high
      for Tate to catch.

      • PBunyan

        I was talking specifically about the comments made about Tate having “lost control of the ball” simply because he re-adjusted his hands.

        As far a the ball being too high for Tate to catch, that’s simply not true. If you watch the video carefully, you’ll see that in the couple thousandths of a second in between when Jennings initially touched the ball and Tate touched the ball, it did not descend. The both jumped up a caught the ball at the same place in the air, Jennings just touched it few thousandths of a second first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick.sanson Rick Sanson

    What a load of crap. Jennings is the only one of the two who maintained both hands on the ball against his chest throughout the play. Clearly an interception. All the rest is cherry picking parts of the rule to fit the narrative of a TD catch.

    • That_Paul

      yeah imagine me… expecting to judge the outcome by the rules of the game… what WAS I thinking?

  • djdrummond

    2 quick points, speaking as a former ref myself …

    1. Look at the play. Notice where the officials are?

    Of course not, because they are so far out of position you can’t see them until they run to see what happened …

    With both officials blocked from a clear view of the ball.

    No one was in position to make a call, and therefore ANY call they made was wrong by definition, because they had to GUESS what happened.

    2. Need I mention that the 2-handed shove by the receiver is Offensive Pass Interference, and if any of the three officials who would have been assigned to watch that area of the field had called it, there would be no controversy?

  • http://twitter.com/richferguson Rich Ferguson

    Awesome review! He was correct and yet media and the NFL want one man to be the fall guy. Horrible. http://richferguson.blogspot.com/2012/09/worst-call-in-nfl-history-analyzed.html

  • Marcus

    Do not confuse “possession” for “control”. Jennings gains control first at the top of the jump, and Tate subsequently gains control after. Here is the link that explains it. There’s even an example in the rule book specific to this situation.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE