The Horror!! SEA/GBP - NFL Officiating

[Donoghus]

I think after looking at this a couple more times, the refs might have made the right call. The more I see it, the more of a simultaneous catch it looks like.

That's how I understand it too.  To my eyes, Jennings had the ball and came down with it.  Tate then wrestled it away in the aftermath but really after the play should've been whistled over.

Jennings caught & came down with it, then the twisting and Tate gained more & more of control.
Yeah, I agree.  I think by the letter of the law, it is a simultaneous catch.  There is nothing in the rule about who has a better claim on the ball.  It is just a matter of whether both players had "possession", which really just means they have their hands on the ball, their feet (or body) on the ground, and the ball isn't moving within their hands.

My immediate thinking when the play happened was "just how many people know what the simultaneous catch rule says, anyway?"  But I looked it up:

Rule 8 - Section 3 - Article 1 - Item 5: 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

...and it seems like they need to both get the ball at the same time, not just both wind up with hands on the ball.  It looked like Jennings had the ball before Tate was able to lock onto it, and Tate initially had Jennings' wrist but shifted to the ball as they fell. 

It's not an open-and-shut case but it looked like it didn't fit with the rule.

Jennings may have got initial control first, but its not clear that he retained control by the time they came down.

If a reciever gets control in the air, but loses control before he lands, it is not a catch.   For example, it slips from his hands or a defender knocks it free before he lands.

So the fact that Jennings was the first to get control isn't enough to establish the INT for him.

Jennings touches it first.  But while Jennings was still in the air, Tate got his arm in between Jennings and the ball and also grabbed it tight.  Here is a vid of the play.  The 0:47 and 1:04 marks show this clearly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6hTFMD5NX1Q

By the time they hit the ground, both players have pretty much equal 'control' of the ball.  Certainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgement call.  At game speed (or even in slow-motion) there's no way that you could assertively say that Jennings definitively had exclusive control because Tate's arm is in their immediately.   

And from the perspective of the ref who ran up from the near-side cone, he sees the ball inside of Tate's arms and against HIS chest.  Look at the exact moment they land, at 1:07.

Periero - the former NFL ref that ESPN brought out (who is hardly without agenda here) - kept asserting that Jennings must have control because he pulled it into his chest.  But at the same time, Tate's arm is between the ball and Jenning's chest and Tate pulls just as tightly to it - and eventually pulls the ball free, indicating how strong of a purchase Tate must have had.  He's not exactly a big brute of a guy.

Thus, all things considered, a 'tie catch' is probably the correct call.

Mind you, I do not plan on trying to make this argument when visiting Wisconsin.      'Might as well bring up the 'Tuck Rule' in Oakland!   This will be argued for years.

The refs totally botched many, many other things in that game, of course.  The DPI on Shields earlier in that drive should have been either a no-call or at worst offsetting.  The game should never have come down to the endzone catch.  I believe that the Packers definitely got robbed.

Bizarre.   Much more entertaining when it wasn't the Patriots getting screwed.  It sure wasn't funny on Sunday.

I said that I thought Jennings had control when they first landed.  I don't think Tate was doing something enough that would be construed as a "simultaneous catch".  It wasn't eqaul control in my eyes.

[fairweatherfan]

Interesting that as we discuss it and look at the rules, the refs' decision starts to seem more reasonable.

[kozlodoev]

Interesting that as we discuss it and look at the rules, the refs' decision starts to seem more reasonable.

Make no mistake, those referees are bad in many respects. This, however, doesn't mean that every controversial call is wrong.

[Donoghus]

Interesting that as we discuss it and look at the rules, the refs' decision starts to seem more reasonable.

It wasn't a decision that was totally out of the question or far-fetched, I just think it was the wrong one.

The idea that it was egregious enough to have the NFL overturn the game decision was way over the top.  It's not cut & dry enough.

[angryguy77]

[fairweatherfan]

Interesting that as we discuss it and look at the rules, the refs' decision starts to seem more reasonable.

Make no mistake, those referees are bad in many respects. This, however, doesn't mean that every controversial call is wrong.

I usually find this is the case with controversial calls in any sport - I don't always agree with the refs' interpretation, but once I look up the rules and study the play I can almost always see where they're coming from. 

Here the rule as I'm understanding it points to an interception.  But it was a close call, and however bad these refs might be, I'm positive they know a hell of a lot more about the rules of football than I do.

[MBz]

This is very interesting.

[angryguy77]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.   

[wdleehi]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.

No it is not.  The ball is against he defenders chest.  The receiver has his hand across the defenders arm.


He did a good job of catching the WR though.


And when on the ground as they roll, you can see the defenders body go between the WR and the ball.  So even if the WR had both hands on he ball, he has no control over it while the defender has it, but touches the defender down. 

[kozlodoev]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.

No it is not.  The ball is against he defenders chest.  The receiver has his hand across the defenders arm.


He did a good job of catching the WR though.


And when on the ground as they roll, you can see the defenders body go between the WR and the ball.  So even if the WR had both hands on he ball, he has no control over it while the defender has it, but touches the defender down.

Right, except if you apply this argument, you'll have a hard time explaining how Tate came out of the pile with the ball if he had so little "control".

[wdleehi]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.

No it is not.  The ball is against he defenders chest.  The receiver has his hand across the defenders arm.


He did a good job of catching the WR though.


And when on the ground as they roll, you can see the defenders body go between the WR and the ball.  So even if the WR had both hands on he ball, he has no control over it while the defender has it, but touches the defender down.

Right, except if you apply this argument, you'll have a hard time explaining how Tate came out of the pile with the ball if he had so little "control".

In the NFL pile, the one with the ball entering the pile loses the ball all the time. 


What we see here is a defender controlling the ball until he is touched down in the end zone.  We can see where the ball and the receiver are separated. 

[Donoghus]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.

No it is not.  The ball is against he defenders chest.  The receiver has his hand across the defenders arm.


He did a good job of catching the WR though.


And when on the ground as they roll, you can see the defenders body go between the WR and the ball.  So even if the WR had both hands on he ball, he has no control over it while the defender has it, but touches the defender down.

I agree with this.

[indeedproceed]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.

No it is not.  The ball is against he defenders chest.  The receiver has his hand across the defenders arm.


He did a good job of catching the WR though.


And when on the ground as they roll, you can see the defenders body go between the WR and the ball.  So even if the WR had both hands on he ball, he has no control over it while the defender has it, but touches the defender down.

Right, except if you apply this argument, you'll have a hard time explaining how Tate came out of the pile with the ball if he had so little "control".

Not really, one arm to displace another one of his, a little luck, ball comes loose. Its a good theory that the player who had initial control of the football will retain it (its the theory that is applied to fumbles), but two grown hyper athletic men grappling for the football, pretty much it comes down who wants it more.

[angryguy77]

Another view. This is a simultaneous catch imo.

BSPN and the like are once again not doing their homework.

No it is not.  The ball is against he defenders chest.  The receiver has his hand across the defenders arm.


He did a good job of catching the WR though.


And when on the ground as they roll, you can see the defenders body go between the WR and the ball.  So even if the WR had both hands on he ball, he has no control over it while the defender has it, but touches the defender down.

The rules don't say "who has the most control", just that both players have to have possession.

Besides, you feet have to be touching the ground before possession is established. By the time both players are on the ground, there are 4 hand wrapped around the ball.

[kozlodoev]

What we see here is a defender controlling the ball until he is touched down in the end zone.  We can see where the ball and the receiver are separated.

Fair enough. To the extent to which "control" and "catch" are two different terms (in order to have a catch, you have to gain and maintain control under certain conditions), I can see how you can argue that because Jennings had control first, and never lost it (although he may have had joint control through the process of landing), this may be ruled an interception.

Even so, the call is definitely less egregious than it's made out to be (or that I thought it was, at some point).