NFL 2012

[Megrim]

Notwithstanding the blatant shove in the back on the defender seconds prior, when I look at that as a newcomer to handegg, and I'm not so sure that the call is worth being "outraged" about. To my layman's eye, that's what I would call a "contested catch". Both guys have hands on the ball, both of them go down struggling for it. One lands on top of the other, but the dude going under doesn't let go of the ball (that I could see).

I don't know what the rules are for simultaneous catches in the NFL, so I'm not sure how you guys resolve those situations (I'll read sickrubik's link later, ty man). Personally I'd penalise for the defender push more than anything.

[Cyrrex]

Okay, I have watched the replay numerous times now, and here is what I think.

- The Pass Interference was clear.  I mean, that Green Bay defender clearly rammed the back of his shoulder pads into Tate's defensively outstretched hands, seriously impeding his vertical leaping ability.    But yeah, just kidding, that was offensive PI.

- The simultaneous catch....I have to admit, I am not seeing the rage.  Tate quite clearly gets his hand on the ball at the same time that Jennings does, and never relinquishes it.  Had Jennings not been there, Tate would have caught it.  If Tate had not been there, Jennings would have caught it.  Instead, they both touched it at the same time.  The reason you are all taking the defenders side is because, other than wanting to take his side automatically because of the PI, he has the ball in his breadbasket and is using two hands.  Tate has his arm extended and is using just the one hand.  That doesn't make it any less of a "catch".  The timing is as near simultaneous as is reasonable, and the replay didn't seem to change that.  I bet the refs were looking at it on replay and thinking to themselves "oh shit, the PI is clear, but the catch still appears simultaneous WTF do we do?  Oh well, we don't have any choice but to follow the letter of the rule, and man are we going to get hell for it."

Does it pass the playground test?  Nope.  But there are tons of rules in the NFL that don't pass the playground test, and I can think of worse ones that I have seen.  

I agree with the general sentiment, but on closer scrutiny I am not sure I would have done it differently.  It is that it followed an obvious offensive PI is what makes it so grievous.

Do we have the exact wordings somewhere on the simultaneous catch?  I mean, we all know it goes to the offense...but does it get specific about what constitues a catch?  Because that is what I am basing my argument on...the idea that Tate's catch was just as legit, despite the poorer body position.

Edited to add:  That the defender doesn't knock the ball down in the first place is so boneheadedly stupid, selfish and telling in its lack of awareness, that I have a hard time feeling sympathy for Jennings.  He can thank the replacement refs for not being the biggest goat of the entire season, because they are going to absorb all the blame.  Unforgivably stupid on his part.

Second edit:  Apparently the guys in the booth doing the replays are the same NFL retirees as always, so keep that in mind.  This has the hallmarks of a ruling that may have been technically called correct, but just doesn't pass the smell test.

[Nevermore]

The way it looks to me is Jennings caught the ball and Tate caught Jennings.

[Cyrrex]

I don't know...the replays make it really hard to see for certain.  The impression I was left with after multiple replay viewings is that Tate got his left hand on the ball at the same time (the hand you cannot see in the above pics).  Really hard to tell, which is probably why the replay officials couldn't find reason to overturn it.

[Megrim]

Exactly what I though - he has his left hand under the ball.

[Cyrrex]

Exactly what I though - he has his left hand under the ball.

And because you expressed lack of knowledge in your earlier post, just so you know:  The interference call is not reviewable.  In other words, because they missed that call on the field, they do not have the ability after the fact during the replay review to say "well shit, he totally shoved the other guy!" and make their call based on that.  The are only able to look at the scoring part of the play itself, and even that is tricky...they have to have conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.

I would not call anything that I saw conclusive.  I am very much in doubt and tempted to call it a simultaneous catch.  Had the call on the field gone the other way?  I would have been more tempted to reverse it in that situation, but to be honest that would have been more my sense of fairness taking over (because of the PI), not my understanding of the rule.

Unless there is some provision out there that describes how the body position of the catch has influence on the simultaneous catch rule?  Touchdown.

[Megrim]

Ok, so can a coach flag that? If they saw the Packers guy getting pushed, can he throw a flag to challenge or something?

[Cyrrex]

No.  Penalties are not reviewable in any way, even if it impacted something else that is reviewable.

[JWIV]

No.  Penalties are not reviewable in any way, even if it impacted something else that is reviewable.

And even if it were, no challenges during the final two minutes of a half.

[Cyrrex]

No.  Penalties are not reviewable in any way, even if it impacted something else that is reviewable.

And even if it were, no challenges during the final two minutes of a half.

Right.  Except that the booth can choose to review in those final two minutes.  Last but not least, all scoring plays are given at least a cursory glance.

[Malakili]

The review is if it is a score or not, not if it is a simultaneous catch or not. AT the VERY LEAST the booth could have called it incomplete.

I've seen this said a few different places now, so I feel like maybe I am the one missing something, but on what possible grounds could that have been ruled and incomplete pass?

[ghost]

- The simultaneous catch....I have to admit, I am not seeing the rage.  Tate quite clearly gets his hand on the ball at the same time that Jennings does, and never relinquishes it.  Had Jennings not been there, Tate would have caught it.  If Tate had not been there, Jennings would have caught it.  Instead, they both touched it at the same time.  The reason you are all taking the defenders side is because, other than wanting to take his side automatically because of the PI, he has the ball in his breadbasket and is using two hands.  Tate has his arm extended and is using just the one hand.  That doesn't make it any less of a "catch".  The timing is as near simultaneous as is reasonable, and the replay didn't seem to change that.  I bet the refs were looking at it on replay and thinking to themselves "oh shit, the PI is clear, but the catch still appears simultaneous WTF do we do?  Oh well, we don't have any choice but to follow the letter of the rule, and man are we going to get hell for it."

It's pretty damned clear that Jennings caught the ball and the refs royally fucked up, all the way around.

[Megrim]

How do you explain this then?

[Malakili]

How do you explain this then?

I think that one is a lot more clear simultaneous catch than the one last night.  But I've been thinking about more about this and here is how I see the problem.

1) There were two separate calls on the field.  This is probably the single biggest problem, because it leaves room open for controversy.
2) To make matters worse, they did not confer.  In times like this, it is common for the refs to huddle up and at least decide on one thing.
3) In fact, they never even officially announced the "ruling on the field" prior to the official review of the play.
4) It was the last play of the game, and changed the outcome in an obvious, simple way.

All of this, combined with the fact that it really does appear like it is at best a very very borderline simultaneous catch make the whole thing a lot more scandalous.  Imagine the reaction if this was the sequence.

1) Play happens.
2) Same rulings - but the referees huddle.
3) The head referee announces "The ruling on the field is a simultaneous catch, resulting in a Touchdown for Seattle."
4) They go under the hood (which they still probably would have), they review to make sure the ball never hit the ground, the players were in bounds, etc.
5) They come out and announce that by rule the possession of the ball is not reviewable, and that the ruling on the field stands.

People would still be saying they botched the call - but the way the whole thing was handled was total bush league and that is REALLY where all the outrage gets its legs.   The call wasn't clear, the teams were on the field, then gone into the locker room, they had to call the teams back out to kick an extra point that didn't matter for the outcome.  The whole thing just felt like a sham, and that really contributed to the reaction we are seeing.

[Bunk]

How do you explain this then?

On that play both guys got both hands on the ball practically at the same time. By rule, it goes to the passing team, so long as both of them maintain control.

For the Seattle play, it seemed to me that a lot of people looking at it didn't see Tate get both hands on the ball. Personally, I thought he did, though Jennings clearly had better control of it. If Tate only had one hand on it, it seems likely that Jennings could have turned his body at some point and pulled the ball away from him. All that being said though, it still looked to me that Jennings got his hands on it before Tate, meaning it should have been a pick.

As for the PI - yes it was a blatant push in the back, but every commentator, ex-football guy, etc. I have listened to this morning all agree - that doesn't ever get called on Hail Marys, it just doesn't.

Really, the bogus PIs each way and the mysterious roughing the passer on the earlier pick were more egregious calls.

[Paelos]

The major difference between the Tate "catch" and the Austin catch is position and hands.

In the Austin catch you have two guys facing each other with two hands on the ball wrestling for control simultaneously. In the Tate situation you have one guy who closes a ball against his chest and if you watch it in replay you actually see the defender pinning Tates free arm against himself with the ball while the other arm is readjusting independant of the play. Therefore, Tate never has two hands on the ball to complete the play until the defender has gone to the ground.

By rule: "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and then an opponent subsequently gains joint control."

Also by rule control of a catch occurs when a player: "has the ball in his HANDS or ARMS prior to touching the ground" note the plural. Two hands beats one hand when it comes to control.

[Cyrrex]

I can see how you would interpret that two hands trump one in this case, but it is not explicitly stated anywhere is it?  Certainly not in that text.  There is no doubt whatsoever that a one handed catch is a completely legitimate catch.  There is just no precedence for this happening in this way.

I like Megrim's take on this.  The call may have been iffy, but it is probably the subsequent manner of its handling that is generating the rage, and the fact that people are looking for every reason to go after these replacement refs.

In every playground in America, this is an interception.  By official NFL rules, it is less clear.  I can see how they got to where they got.

Question:  is possession reviewable in this case, or was it only a case of complete versus incomplete?  What exactly were they allowed to review?

[murdoc]

I think that one is a lot more clear simultaneous catch than the one last night.  But I've been thinking about more about this and here is how I see the problem.

1) There were two separate calls on the field.  This is probably the single biggest problem, because it leaves room open for controversy.
2) To make matters worse, they did not confer.  In times like this, it is common for the refs to huddle up and at least decide on one thing.
3) In fact, they never even officially announced the "ruling on the field" prior to the official review of the play.
4) It was the last play of the game, and changed the outcome in an obvious, simple way.

All of this, combined with the fact that it really does appear like it is at best a very very borderline simultaneous catch make the whole thing a lot more scandalous.  Imagine the reaction if this was the sequence.

1) Play happens.
2) Same rulings - but the referees huddle.
3) The head referee announces "The ruling on the field is a simultaneous catch, resulting in a Touchdown for Seattle."
4) They go under the hood (which they still probably would have), they review to make sure the ball never hit the ground, the players were in bounds, etc.
5) They come out and announce that by rule the possession of the ball is not reviewable, and that the ruling on the field stands.

People would still be saying they botched the call - but the way the whole thing was handled was total bush league and that is REALLY where all the outrage gets its legs.   The call wasn't clear, the teams were on the field, then gone into the locker room, they had to call the teams back out to kick an extra point that didn't matter for the outcome.  The whole thing just felt like a sham, and that really contributed to the reaction we are seeing.

Well put - I think this  sums it up perfectly. It was the two refs standing next to each other making different calls that has led to all this outrage. No matter how that would have been called, someone would be calling bullshit - but a consistent ruling would have made it more palatable.

[Malakili]

Question:  is possession reviewable in this case, or was it only a case of complete versus incomplete?  What exactly were they allowed to review?

Possession is not reviewable in this case.  They could review if the ball hit the ground, if the players were in bounds, or (if it had mattered) the spot of the ball.

[sickrubik]

The review is if it is a score or not, not if it is a simultaneous catch or not. AT the VERY LEAST the booth could have called it incomplete.

I've seen this said a few different places now, so I feel like maybe I am the one missing something, but on what possible grounds could that have been ruled and incomplete pass?

That the receiver who "caught" the ball (Tate) did not in fact have possession of the ball. Which is absolutely true. Tate never had possession by standards of NFL's own rules.

The call would still be utter bullshit and shows a gigantic flaw in the rule system. If you can review the play to make sure the ball didn't have hit the ground, and that the player(s) were in bounds to define a clean catch and TD, you can sure as hell check to see if the person who was ruled to have made the touchdown even ever had possession, which he clearly did not, and the crux of the entire debate.

It was a blown call followed up by a bullshit loop hole. Given the NFLs continued trek towards making sure plays are not controversial to make things like a FG (see NE/BAL) reviewable is ludicrous. Even allowing yourself to review the play to make sure parts of a clean reception are intact but not possession is even more ludicrous. It's more insulting that they review the play to make sure it was a clean reception/touchdown but not to check perhaps the biggest one... possession.

[sickrubik]

I can see how you would interpret that two hands trump one in this case, but it is not explicitly stated anywhere is it?  Certainly not in that text. 

What are you talking about?

Again, with emphasis.

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.

Jennings had both arms wrapped around the ball in flight, and pulled the ball to his chest and landed on the ground. That is absolutely, every-time else, control of the ball.

[ghost]

It's so clear that I'm not even sure why there is discussion about it.  The popular media has also given their vote to the call being complete shite.

[Cyrrex]

Yeah, I just saw the drive extending PI call on Chancellor that led to the GB touchdown.  It was textbook, perfect defense.  I can't with a straight face say that GB deserved to win this game any more than Seattle did.

[Paelos]

Yeah, I just saw the drive extending PI call on Chancellor that led to the GB touchdown.  It was textbook, perfect defense.  I can't with a straight face say that GB deserved to win this game any more than Seattle did.

Nobody deserved a win. The game was a complete mess. If anything they should just declare it a tie and move on, bring back the real refs, and pretend it never happened.

[sickrubik]

Yeah, I just saw the drive extending PI call on Chancellor that led to the GB touchdown.  It was textbook, perfect defense.  I can't with a straight face say that GB deserved to win this game any more than Seattle did.

If we are going to go that route, there were two OPI calls that were not called correctly on the Seattle drive at the end.

Nobody deserved a win. The game was a complete mess. If anything they should just declare it a tie and move on, bring back the real refs, and pretend it never happened.

Actually, no. Remember this and fix the rules. There are some distinct issues with the rules that, regardless of the mess of the initial call, need to be looked at.

[Paelos]

They can't make possession a replay rule. That's a pipe dream. You'd be there all fucking day on every fumble, most catches, and we're already pushing the limits of replay time as it is.

[sickrubik]

They can't make possession a replay rule. That's a pipe dream. You'd be there all fucking day on every fumble, most catches, and we're already pushing the limits of replay time as it is.

You should absolutely check it on scores. That has always been my point. If we're already checking 800 things on scoring plays to make sure it stands, there's no reason why we can't look at a situation like we did last night.

Edit: At least Peter King seems to think it would be reviewable inside the endzone.

Now, as to the replay: Let's be clear about what can and can't be reviewed. Simultaneous possession between the goal lines cannot be reviewed. Simultaneous possession in the end zone can be reviewed.

[Bunk]

I can see how you would interpret that two hands trump one in this case, but it is not explicitly stated anywhere is it?  Certainly not in that text. 

What are you talking about?

Again, with emphasis.

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.

Jennings had both arms wrapped around the ball in flight, and pulled the ball to his chest and landed on the ground. That is absolutely, every-time else, control of the ball.

By the basic rules, Jennings doesn't have "possession" until he hits the ground with control of the ball. There's been a number of people watching the replays now saying that Tate had both hands on the ball before either of them came down, and he kept both hands on it throughout the play. I know this is being debated, as some people feel he only had one hand on it, but from my views, it looks like he got his left hand inside of Jennings arms and then his right hand over the top. If Tate did in fact have both hands on the ball all the way through the catch to the ground, then it is potentially a simultaneous catch.

[Paelos]

Non-reviewable plays per rule 15 section 9 under replay included but are not limited to:

Status of the clock, Proper Down, Penalty Administration, Runner ruled down by defensive contract (no fumble), Forward progress unrelated to goal line, recovery of a loose ball that doesn't involve a boundary line or end zone, FGs above the upright, indavertent whistles.

The truth is that you can review to see if a pass is complete/incomplete/intercepted anywhere on the field (end zone or otherwise). The other truth is that there's nothing in the rule book that says possession is reviewable. It has to be explicitly stated in the rules to be a reviewable play, and judgement calls are not. However, it's not explicited DENIED either. The possession rule falls into that grey area of "but not limited to".

[sickrubik]

I can see how you would interpret that two hands trump one in this case, but it is not explicitly stated anywhere is it?  Certainly not in that text.  

What are you talking about?

Again, with emphasis.

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.

Jennings had both arms wrapped around the ball in flight, and pulled the ball to his chest and landed on the ground. That is absolutely, every-time else, control of the ball.

By the basic rules, Jennings doesn't have "possession" until he hits the ground with control of the ball. There's been a number of people watching the replays now saying that Tate had both hands on the ball before either of them came down, and he kept both hands on it throughout the play. I know this is being debated, as some people feel he only had one hand on it, but from my views, it looks like he got his left hand inside of Jennings arms and then his right hand over the top. If Tate did in fact have both hands on the ball all the way through the catch to the ground, then it is potentially a simultaneous catch.

If we are taking the rule as "possession" until he hit the ground, then we have to have the same standards for Tate. Tate does not meet those standards. Jennings was the only player to have possession from air to ground. He lands on the ground on his back with theball wrapped in his arms in complete control.

And every commentator I've seen so far has said sided with that end of things. The ONLY THING I've seen anyone say in defense is that the "simultaneous catch" can't be overturned, which now, at least to some commentary (including Peter King) seems to indicate is not true in the case of endzone reviews.

[Bunk]

By the rules, all Tate needs to have possession, assuming we take Jennings out of the equation, is that he keeps one or more hands on the ball, without the ball bobbling, all the way through hitting the ground.  From what I've seen, it doesn't appear that his hand(s) come off the ball at any point. Based on that, he caught it just as much as Jennings did, even though Jennings clearly had greater control of it. It's stupid, but could in fact be a legit simultaneous catch by the rules.

[Rasix]

You are Canadian.  Yes? OK.  We can stop now.

edit: Only halfway serious here.   

[murdoc]

Unsurprisingly, the NFL supports the decision to not overturn the Seattle touchdown

[sickrubik]

AT least we know now for certain that simultaneous catch IS reviewable.

Still. Bullshit. But not surprising that they are backing the decision. They have to right now.

Ironic that our league punishes those based on conduct detrimental. Whose CONDUCT is DETRIMENTAL now?

 

[HaemishM]

I don't know...the replays make it really hard to see for certain.  The impression I was left with after multiple replay viewings is that Tate got his left hand on the ball at the same time (the hand you cannot see in the above pics).  Really hard to tell, which is probably why the replay officials couldn't find reason to overturn it.

The rules for possession don't say "if you have a hand on it." It's pretty clear from the replays and everything else that POSSESSION of the ball is in Jennings favor, not Tate's. Tate doesn't even have clear control of the ball until after Jennings lands on top of him AND Tate struggles with it for a few minutes. It wasn't a simultaneous catch in any way shape or form. It was one guy catching the ball and another guy trying to take it away from him. Once Jennings' feet land in bounds with possession, the play is over and he has the catch. People can talk about simultaneous catches all they want, but this clearly did not fall under that rule except for the fact that one incompetent ref called it that.