Quoted from rc1107 And review can't actually call penalties, either, for Tate pushing Jennings.  And, on a hail mary anyway, pass interference will NEVER EVER be called, not even by the official refs.  Hail Mary's are always every person for himself.

Usually I'd agree.  Hail Marys are free for alls when it comes to leaping and grabbing for the ball.  It's very rare for penalties to be called, especially on the offense.  But what Tate did was so incredibly blatant it looked like a cheap playground move.  Any regular ref who saw that would have called offensive interference, IMO.  

Yeah, what a frickin' joke that was last night.  The refs completely blew that game on many levels and cost the pack a win.

HORRENDOUS!!!!

If last night's debacle doesn't motivate the league to settle with the refs...
I fear how bad things will have to get before action is taken.

The NFL is a joke right now.

E.D.

Quoted from rc1107 reviewers can't reverse the ref's calls on who caught the ball, they can only reverse the ref's calls on if both the reciever's feet were inbounds and if they had possession all the way to the ground.

If that is the case, couldn't they see he didn't have possession at all?

This was a botched call all the way around, from the refs who didn't call any interference to the ref who called it a TD at that time, to the review process.  Just pathetic, really.

As Gruden kept on saying over and over...just shocking and appalling, and something I've never seen before...and hopefully, won't ever see it again, either.  

I have to say, it seems that it was a tougher call than might first appear. Watching live, it looks like Jennings has the ball, and Tate tries to pull it away, but never had possession.

On replay, because Jennings has the ball close to his body, it looks like he has initial possession.

But...on closer look, Tate does have a hand in there from the beginning. The ball is more in possession of Jennings...but is there such a thing as "more in possession"? I don't think so.

And Jennings never takes sole possession either. Never.

As bad as it looks, I wonder if the refs actually got it right? Kind of like the tuck rule in 2001.

If there is no distinction between degree of possession; and if the tie does indeed go to the receiver; then crazy as it sounds, the refs got it right. Maybe! I'm curious to see a better explanation from the league.

Quoted from leitskev I have to say, it seems that it was a tougher call than might first appear. Watching live, it looks like Jennings has the ball, and Tate tries to pull it away, but never had possession. On replay, because Jennings has the ball close to his body, it looks like he has initial possession. But...on closer look, Tate does have a hand in there from the beginning. The ball is more in possession of Jennings...but is there such a thing as "more in possession"? I don't think so. And Jennings never takes sole possession either. Never. As bad as it looks, I wonder if the refs actually got it right? Kind of like the tuck rule in 2001. If there is no distinction between degree of possession; and if the tie does indeed go to the receiver; then crazy as it sounds, the refs got it right. Maybe! I'm curious to see a better explanation from the league.

While there may be some truth to that particular call...
The truckload of bad calls that got us there is still the root of the problem.

And it does appear that the NFL is supporting the ref's call.

E.D.

UPDATE: The NFL says the refs got that part of the call correct. The part they got wrong was the offensive pass interference, but that is not review-able. So in the replay curtain, they made the right call.

But hell yeah, a ton of other bad calls. In the Pats game, there were plenty of bad calls both ways, but the ones against the Pats came at really bad times that kept the Ravens in it. Mo excuses, you have to overcome it. But it's starting to make the games hard to watch. You wait for a strange call on every important play.

Anyone can say "they" made the right call in the review booth, and the NFL itself wouldn't help themselves by saying anything different.

It was not the right call, though.  It is clear that the D player is the one who caught the ball and had possession all the way to the ground.  IMO, it was far from dual possession.

In fact, I'd call it horse shit.

By the rules, they got it right. They cited the rules, and if you read them, they got it right.

I left my first post on this before I read that, too.

You have to look at what constitutes a legal catch, and what is possession. The rule is clear, too.

The Seattle player had a hand on the ball, had shared possession, right from the start. The Green Bay player had better possession, but there is really no such thing. You can't, for example, say one player had 80% possession, the other 20%. All you have is dual possession. And the rule says that dual possession goes to the offensive player.

It's like the tuck rule. It seems bogus in this situation, but it's the only way the rule can be written. They don't want refs trying to determine which player has better possession. That would be crazy.

Now, the league admits the offensive interference should have been called. But I don't think regular refs would want to call that either on a hail Mary, which the pass was close to being.

The refs got a lot wrong this weekend. But this was a tough situation.

Quoted from leitskev But...on closer look, Tate does have a hand in there from the beginning. The ball is more in possession of Jennings...but is there such a thing as "more in possession"? I don't think so. And Jennings never takes sole possession either. Never.

Jennings has total possession from the get go.  Both hands on the ball and, as you say, has the ball close to his body.  That's possession.  Tate putting his hand on the ball doesn't equal shared possession.  As the rule says:

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

But it is true the review ref isn't allowed to overturn a td call based on possession, which is mind blowing in itself.  I never expected the NFL to overturn the decision.  That would make it look like their replacement refs have lost all control of these games.  Which is pretty much true.  These scab zebras are here for at least a couple more weeks, whether or not a new agreement can be signed.

Applicable rules to the play are as follows:

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.).


So as long as the offensive player gets some possession of the ball before they hit ground, it seems to me, it's dual possession.

Look at the point when the ball comes down. Tate clearly gets at least one hand on it. But Jennings brings it down. However, Tate's hand remained on it the whole way. That's dual possession, no matter how weird it came to look.

Also, Jennings made a selfish play, arguably. If he knocked the ball away instead of trying to pad his stats, game over.

One other thing: there was a late hit on the quarterback which was not called. And should not have been! Let the guys play at the end.

The refs had a bad weekend. But this call would have been tough either way.

Like I said, it compares to the tuck rule with Brady. It seems to defy common sense when you watch it. But it's a correct interpretation of the rule. And the rule will not be changed, just like the tuck wasn't, because it's the only way the rule can be sensibly written.

I'm not a Seattle fan, either. I am neutral on this one. I'm an AFC guy.

Kev, I read all this on NFL.com, and understand the rule even before I read it.

The thing is that there are definite times when there is dual possession, but IMO, this is far from one of the.  Having a hand on the ball does not count as possession, and IMO, there's really no way anyone can view this and say they feel Tate had any form of possession.

Also, as to the offensive pass interference, sure, stuff like this usually is not called at the very end of the game, but this was so blatant and really is the entire reason why Tate even got a hand on the ball.  It should have been called.  I realize that a review cannot alter a missed call like this, but it's just insult to injury.

Sorry Kev, not sure what you're looking at here.  Jennings' catch satisfied all three of those legal terms.  In fact, I was just watching Jerry Austin, a former head ref, on ESPN and he also concluded that as Jennings hit the ground he had total possession, meaning both hands on the ball, and the ball locked into his body.  Tate merely got one hand on one end of the ball, then another as they landed and fell to the ground.

One of the multiple screw ups here if that the head ref didn't confer with the two officials in the end zone.  He assumed the call on the field was a touchdown before clearing it up with those two.  If you watch the replay, the one official in the back of the end zone begins to raise his arms, with his colleague watching him.  Then that guy quickly raises his hands to signal a touchdown.  But then, he looks to his buddy and sees him signal for timeout.  You can see the looks on both their faces, lol.  ""Awww, shitt."  

There is no question Jennings had possession. The question is whether Tate also had possession.

Possession does not occur until the player hits the ground.

So does Tate have enough of a grip on the ball to qualify as dual possession when Jennings hits the ground?

Here's part of the problem: for argument's sake, let's say Jennings comes down with the ball by himself. Until he has both feet down, or lands on the ground, he does not have possession. So if he drops it into another player's arms, they have possession.

So the refs see him coming down in a crowd. They have to watch until he lands both feet, or on his ass. If they lose him in the crowd, and when they finally find him, there is dual possession, it's a touchdown.

However, that could still be reversed if the refs on replay find clear evidence.

Was the evidence clear here? I'm not sure. Again, we can't say "Jennings had better possession because he locked the ball to his body". We either have dual possession or we don't.

It's an interesting argument! Would be more fun to have it in a bar!