So was it a TD or a pick?

[iHATEdodgers]

The more I watch this, it isn't as terrible as everyone is making it out to be.

Tate has his left hand on it, his right hand on Jennings arm, he then re-grasps with his right hand and before they hit the ground Tate has pulled the ball and Jennings to his body too. How much more of a simultaneous catch does it need to be? This is slow-motion and you can see that before they both hit the ground, they both have it. It's just that the bounce off the ground helped Jennings pull it a little closer to him.

That's absolutely a pick based on that video. Two hands grasped to his own chest, Tate has one hand in there his other hand on Jennings forearm. At no time, until they were on the ground (i guess) by which time the play is over, did Tate have both hands on the ball. Absolutely a pick.

Thanks for posting that and all the game film in the other thread!

 

[clyde_carbon]

The more I watch that, the more convinced I am that it was an INT. But we do get the benefit of watching the play in slow motion - the ref didn't.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

The more I watch that, the more convinced I am that it was an INT. But we do get the benefit of watching the play in slow motion - the ref didn't.

Yeah and if he couldn't even see the PI right before this, how can we expect to him to get this right?

 

[NinerSickness]

You're describing the rule for a completing a catch which entails gaining possession first, getting both feet (or the equivalent via elbow, knee, etc) down in bounds second, and finally maintaining that possession through the entire catch.

I don't understand how that doens't apply here. Wouldn't someone have to gain possession, then get both feet (or equivalent) down before the TD or INT can occur? If so, then wouldn't it hold true that possession could not be established until they hit the ground?

 

[abaskin18]

I don't understand how that doens't apply here. Wouldn't someone have to gain possession, then get both feet (or equivalent) down before the TD or INT can occur? If so, then wouldn't it hold true that possession could not be established until they hit the ground?

I'll repost this from the previous page:

Just think of a play on the sidelines where the receiver establishes possession but can can't get his feet down in bounds. Possession established, but it's not a completed catch. Or, like you also cited, Megatron's non-TD: established possession, but did not maintain it through the catch.

Establishing possession is just the first part in a completed catch, but that's when the possession has to be simultaneous for the simultaneous possession rule to be in play. Jennings still had to come down in bounds, maintaining control of the ball throughout his landing for the catch (in this case an INT) to be completed, but to me it's clear that Tate's "possession" came sequentially, not simultaneously.

 

[NinerSickness]

I'll repost this from the previous page:

Just think of a play on the sidelines where the receiver establishes possession but can can't get his feet down in bounds. Possession established, but it's not a completed catch. Or, like you also cited, Megatron's non-TD: established possession, but did not maintain it through the catch.

Establishing possession is just the first part in a completed catch, but that's when the possession has to be simultaneous for the simultaneous possession rule to be in play. Jennings still had to come down in bounds, maintaining control of the ball throughout his landing for the catch (in this case an INT) to be completed, but to me it's clear that Tate's "possession" came sequentially, not simultaneously.

This doesn't address what I asked. If this is true, then wouldn't the instant possession could be "granted," if you will, not be in mid air but rather when the player's feet touched the ground? My point is that if this is so, then there would be an extra second or so before either of them could have possession. Most people seem to be going by what happened in mid air, but it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) that people should be going by the instant their feet came down if it's a question of simultaneous possession.

 

[abaskin18]

This doesn't address what I asked. If this is true, then wouldn't the instant possession could be "granted," if you will, not be in mid air but rather when the player's feet touched the ground? My point is that if this is so, then there would be an extra second or so before either of them could have possession. Most people seem to be going by what happened in mid air, but it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) that people should be going by the instant their feet came down if it's a question of simultaneous possession.

I don't know how else to illustrate the difference between "establishing possession" and "completed catch." The former is the first step of the latter, but they are not the same thing. Possession can be established in mid air, but that doesn't complete the catch.

It's relevant in regards to the Simultaneous Possession rule because for simultaneous possession to be established, it must BEGIN simultaneously, ie both players gaining and establishing possession in the same moment.

Jennings established possession in midair before Tate established whatever version of "possession" one wants to believe, and that is the difference. The INT was not complete until Jennings landed in bounds without losing that possession in the course of him hitting the ground (which was the hang up was on the Megatron non-TD), but IMO Jennings had full control and established possession first so the ruling of a simultaneous catch and the awarding of a TD because of it was the incorrect call.

In regards to that rule in the rule book, it doesn't matter who had more of it. It doesn't matter who ended up with it. It matters who possessed it first, and that guy plays for the Packers.

 

[NinerSickness]

Ok, that's a lot more clear. Thanks.

It's hard to pinpoint the instant one guy (or both) had possession because just because a player has his hands on it, doesn't mean he has possession (for example, a player can get his hands on it but not establish possession for a couple seconds if it's the NFL rule definition of being "bobbled." I'd be interested in an NFL official going through the play frame by frame and saying what happened when. I don't think I've ever seen a play like this before.

 

[abaskin18]

Ok, that's a lot more clear. Thanks.

It's hard to pinpoint the instant one guy (or both) had possession because just because a player has his hands on it, doesn't mean he has possession (for example, a player can get his hands on it but not establish possession for a couple seconds if it's the NFL rule definition of being "bobbled." I'd be interested in an NFL official going through the play frame by frame and saying what happened when. I don't think I've ever seen a play like this before.

That would certainly be an interesting breakdown and I think you're in the vast majority (as in 100%) who haven't see a play like this before. That was some shit, man...

 

[Kinzu]

A couple of things from me on this.

Tate did have a hand on the ball but Jennings had 2 hands on the ball and control of it based on the fact that he brought the ball into his chest.

Once they hit the ground Tate still only had his one hand on the ball as either the jarring contact with the ground caused his other arm to come off it, or he took it off himself to get better positioning before the refs ran over to look.

The most telling thing in all of this though is just look how they are laying on the ground. Jennings is on top of top with the ball firmly in his chest with 2 arms wrapped around it. Tate is underneath with 1 arm wrapped in on the ball and the other freely moving around trying to wrap around the ball to rip it out. Someone explain how Tate could even make a catch that would put him in that position?

I also think the play not being reviewable is bullshit fluff from the league. A catch is reviewable, and they easily could have determined Tate never had possession of the ball for a completed catch. They didn't have to award Green Bay the Int since that could not be reviewed, but they could have just said the receiver did not have possession of the ball all the way through contact with the ground thus it's an incomplete pass.

I think the league is wrong to uphold the play but it's what I expected. These professional leagues always do the politically correct thing instead of the right thing. Rodger and the NFL could have saved a lot of face with the fans by overturning the play and promising to get back to negotiating with the real refs while making sure the replacements are giving better training before this weekends games. They won't do this sort of thing though because in some screwed up sense of reasoning they think it would undermine the game.

Best Tweet I read about the game was from Drew Brees

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

The players could solve this all real quick by just refusing to show up to the stadiums and play this weekend. What are the owners going to do fire the entire NFLPA? Sue them? Sure damage the league and your agreement with the players even more by taking them to court. The players will just throw the safety of their well-being and the fines you put on them for illegal hits right back in your face on a public stage. The owners may win the case but will ultimately lose in public opinion.

The threat of losing money in TV revenue, possible refunds for tickets purchased, and just the overall embarrassment of it would force the Owners to get a deal done with the Officials. They would whine and cry about how unfair it was, but in the end eventually realize it was the best thing for the brand.

 

[MHSL82]

Best Tweet I read about the game was from Drew Brees

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

NFL has the leverage and they don't seem to care. I would bet they are also less likely to do anything because compromise would be like caving in and people like Brees and the rest would not be saying good for the NFL, they'd be talking about how the NFL was forced, lost power, etc. Tweets like this are evidence of that - I don't think a prideful NFL is going to be open to negotiaion when they think the other side is ungrateful, taunting, and passionate against them - at least until they actually stand to lose something. I think the NFL has convinced itself that there is no real long term problem here and that they look alright right now based upon ratings and sales. I'm not saying players shouldn't say anything - they should - it just is not helping because the NFL doesn't care what the players think or the fans think if they get their money/ratings. If the what the players said lost the NFL money, then this would be a different story.

 

[NinerSickness]

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

Every time Drew Brees opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like a whiney bitch.

 

[MHSL82]

Saw on First Take that in addition to the INT and PI, there was an block in the back by Seattle and that they could have called roughing the passer on the final throw on Green Bay. The previous roughing was not roughing, of course. The reply official, of course, could not retroactively call roughing the passer, but that happened before the PI. I don't think either the regular nor replacement refs would have called that one.

 

[MHSL82]

The 28 Best Reactions to the Packers Seahawks Monday Night Football Debacle from Darryl Gudmundson

 

[Kinzu]

I think Tate became the first player in NFL history to have a game winning non-catch. That or Jennings became the first player in NFL History to have a game winning catch for the other team. I'm not sure which way to look at it, but I'm pretty sure it probably never happened before.

 

[threelittleturds]

Was this picture posted yet?

Tate with both feet on the ground and an arm around the ball. Definitely more than just a hand.

 

[MHSL82]

Wrapping up (for now) the MNF controversy - NFC West Blog - ESPN

Sando breaks down the argument for why whatever call was made on the field would not have been overturned even with full authority to overturn it. There's not enough conclusive evidence to overturn. He seems to disagree with abaskins on possession vs. catch. The NFL statement refers to all elements of a catch needing to be satisfied, seemingly simultaneously to be considered simultaneous. Tate established both feet on the ground first. Read the article and let me know if I'm reading Sando wrong, whether Sando is wrong, or whether the NFL is wrong. Just passing along, not taking a stand one way or another.

News Distribution Network - Shared Video

This video is the reverse angle of the catch, showing Jennings with perhaps less control than the other video and Tate a firmer grasp. Still an INT imo, but less conclusive. I'm not talking about degree of control, I'm talking about people saying Jennings had it completely and Tate not having it. Not as clear. If it were called an INT on the field, it would have stayed an INT.

Presented without editorial comment: Golden Tate's feet touch down | Seahawks Blog | The Seattle Times

The above picture without editorial comment.

Why the Seahawks-Packers finish was not an interception, and why it would have been called the same by any referee crew. Life In Rewind

Article on how the replacements had no change in result. Haven't read the article, yet, so I'm not endorsing it, it just was related. I skimmed it, seeing that this guy claims that Jennings had the ball pressed against Tate's left hand, not Jenning's chest. This link has good pics. I know it's biased, too.

 

[MHSL82]

WK 1 Can't-Miss Play: Austin steals jump ball - NFL Videos

Similar play.

 

[Kinzu]

Was this picture posted yet?

Tate with both feet on the ground and an arm around the ball. Definitely more than just a hand.

But he was not the first one to catch the ball so it doesn't matter unless Jennings loss possession at some point during the catch which he never did until after he was down by contact. If Jennings doesn't catch the ball then Tate doesn't catch the ball is pretty much the way to look at it. It was after Jennings caught it that Tate was able to get 2 hands on it.

 

[Kinzu]

WK 1 Can't-Miss Play: Austin steals jump ball - NFL Videos

Similar play.

That's a simultaneous catch though. They both got 2 hands around the ball at roughly the same time and neither had more control than the other. Cromartie also appeared to lose control of the ball during contact with the ground.

The difference in the Seattle play is that Jennings firmly had 2 hands on the ball and brought it to his chest before Tate got 2 hands on the ball. Tate basically caught Jennings.