Active Users:561 Time:25/11/2024 02:19:29 AM
Think so, yeah. Joel Send a noteboard - 26/09/2012 04:58:15 AM

It was not a strip IF possession was simultaneous, obviously (because Tate always had possession, so there was no need for a strip.) However, even IF Jennings had indisputable sole possession, THEN we would be forced to consider whether he was ever down before Tate got the ball away, and I am not sure he was.

Between the two it is impossible to call that an unambiguous interception, and we are also speaking with the benefit of slow-mo replays the refs on the field did not have. In their place, based on what I saw in real time on the field, I would have made the same call, and this is one of those cases where a call—ANY call, be it Int or TD—is impossible to overturn once made, because no replay provides the necessary incontrovertible evidence. Many people (and I am not saying you are among them) have the mistaken idea bad calls do not matter as much now because they can be fixed on replay, but since replay reversal requires incontrovertible evidence, that is simply not the case.

once again, tate never had full possession of the ball. there is one angle where you can see him change his grip as they are falling together. there is no way it is a simultaneous catch.

Changing his grip does not prove he NEVER had full possession. For one thing, full possession is possible with one hand, and for another he could have previously and/or subsequently had full possession with either hand or both (which is the problem with using stills for a play like that.)

but IF it was a strip, then jennings has possession the whole way. even in the pic posted above, jennings CLEARLY has possession of the ball on the ground AS THE REFS ARE LOOKING AT HIM. how you could possibly call that for the seahawks is beyond my understanding of football.

In the pics above, no part of Jennings' body except his feet can ever be seen on the ground rather than on Tate, and players are only down by contact when any part of their body except their feet or hands touch the ground. Thus the pics do not show Jennings down at any point, and play should have continued, allowing Tate to strip the ball and GAIN possession even IF (and I cannot stress that "if" enough) he did not already have it (for which a strong case can be and has been made.)

also, both refs made opposing calls but never conferred with each other. the head ref never conferred with either ref on the spot. the only conference was between the head ref and the upstairs official, and we all know how that turned out. again, everyone but you, cannoli, tate and pete carroll knows the call was incorrect.

I hardly think that an exhaustive list of people who think the call correct, and saying, "everyone except those who disagree with me agrees with me," says nothing. That the head ref never conferred with either ref on the scene yet conferred with the upstairs ref on whether the play resulted in a TD makes clear which ruling he thought correct on the scene.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 26/09/2012 at 05:00:44 AM
Reply to message
/NFL: now that replacement refs have cost the packers a win, can we please get the real ones back? *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:14:58 AM 658 Views
I was gonna keep it to one thread, but hell, I'll join yours. - 25/09/2012 05:24:26 AM 681 Views
Link? Clip? - 25/09/2012 05:27:07 AM 648 Views
Let's just say that Gruden used the word "Jobbed" in the live telecast. *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:35:08 AM 411 Views
Here's a link. - 25/09/2012 05:36:56 AM 734 Views
Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:47:07 AM 544 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:52:55 AM 785 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 06:13:46 AM 738 Views
youtube link - 25/09/2012 07:00:29 AM 741 Views
Thanks; that looks like a textbook case of simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver: TD. - 25/09/2012 07:29:28 AM 637 Views
pete carroll is a cheating douchebag, you cannot take his word for what happened - 25/09/2012 10:59:33 AM 900 Views
I did not; I watched the clip: Simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver. - 26/09/2012 01:30:18 AM 1244 Views
watch a better replay if you can - 26/09/2012 02:38:17 AM 704 Views
Have now; still not convinced. - 26/09/2012 04:01:23 AM 743 Views
that's ok. you're still wrong - 26/09/2012 04:12:56 AM 754 Views
I know you are but what am I? *MN* - 26/09/2012 04:48:47 AM 704 Views
How have you not seen this play? Are you in a cave? *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:57:55 PM 349 Views
No, I am in Norway, where NFL coverage is rather limited. - 26/09/2012 01:40:07 AM 845 Views
Wait, you're not in Houston? *NM* - 26/09/2012 01:42:45 AM 366 Views
Not since the Texas Sesquicentennial, no. - 26/09/2012 01:45:29 AM 617 Views
While you can hardly blame the replacement refs because they are basically trainees... - 25/09/2012 06:05:22 AM 819 Views
Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 06:27:42 AM 814 Views
Re: Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 02:48:56 PM 725 Views
I have still only seen the YouTube clip, but it looked like they both had both hands on the ball. - 26/09/2012 01:58:27 AM 655 Views
There are good views on nfl.com. Will link. - 26/09/2012 02:16:51 AM 827 Views
Thanks; I still do not see much to change my mind. - 26/09/2012 02:32:43 AM 722 Views
The last call was a joke. - 25/09/2012 06:52:59 AM 667 Views
Tie goes to the receiver - the rule for decades. The Packers benefitted from worse calls last year - 25/09/2012 11:31:47 AM 754 Views
you probably think greedo shot first too..... - 25/09/2012 01:49:03 PM 706 Views
They can't reverse that call. - 25/09/2012 04:43:28 PM 790 Views
the only possible way was to rule it incomplete - 25/09/2012 10:42:25 PM 766 Views
Congrats Cannoli, you are the only person (thing?) in the country who thinks it's a TD *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:53:18 PM 473 Views
I'm not even the only person in this thread, moron. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:07:48 PM 386 Views
Joel hasn't even seen the play, douchebag *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:12:35 PM 351 Views
Just so you can get this information without namecalling ... - 25/09/2012 04:18:41 PM 679 Views
No I mean he hasn't seen the replay over and over on ESPN *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:21:46 PM 356 Views
Interesting. What is the rule with arguing refs? - 25/09/2012 05:18:35 PM 618 Views
That response was disturbingly like my thoughts on the play. - 26/09/2012 01:49:37 AM 708 Views
As a Seahawks fan. - 25/09/2012 02:10:58 PM 664 Views
No. Not with that attitude. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:03:32 PM 330 Views
*throws public tantrum* *NM* - 25/09/2012 10:39:22 PM 320 Views
Here's the proof Cannoli is refusing to see - 25/09/2012 05:54:07 PM 762 Views
Clearer shot, but stills do not allow us to see where Tates hands were at all times. - 26/09/2012 02:10:25 AM 566 Views
you can't claim "good ol' strip" *AND* simultaneous catch -- which is it? - 26/09/2012 02:35:41 AM 1000 Views
I do not claim both: I claim simultaneous catch but IF not, then strip. - 26/09/2012 03:51:47 AM 987 Views
you sure you saw the right replay? - 26/09/2012 04:21:57 AM 684 Views
Think so, yeah. - 26/09/2012 04:58:15 AM 806 Views
from another angle -- pun intended - 26/09/2012 04:01:54 PM 672 Views
There are two separate issues: 1) Was it a simultaneous catch; 2) IF not, was it a strip? - 27/09/2012 08:54:52 AM 856 Views
your opinion is against pretty much everyone in the world, so..... *shrug* - 27/09/2012 03:55:33 PM 890 Views
Thanks; I did not expect you to give in so easily. - 27/09/2012 10:14:30 PM 714 Views
did you even read that article??? - 28/09/2012 12:35:39 AM 725 Views
"his control wasn’t established again...." - 28/09/2012 01:08:03 AM 1000 Views
wow, what a thorough analysis you sent me either way, you're still wrong - 28/09/2012 02:05:24 AM 791 Views
That is not an argument. - 28/09/2012 02:26:58 AM 613 Views

Reply to Message