All Forums | NFL Betting Forum

Clearing it up right here...right now!

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 2020
Posts: 30
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #1

The call was correct...not because I had money on it but simply because of the truth!  If one applys the rules of a completed catch or a interception for this matter...ask yourself what is required for a successful one! 

Does not the recipient, this being Jennings...or Tate

need to establish the catch by having control of the ball...yes I agreed he did catch the ball first, however whats missing is feet in bounds touching first which he still has one foot in the air when the both of them come to the ground.  Therfore the ball is still in play and available to catch.  Possession then becomes Tate's when both his hands are on the ball and his two feet touchdown first.  Important point is the ball never touches the ground too! Its weird but it makes sense!  We all know tie goes to the runner!  Golden Tate made jennings catch the ball for his touchdown!  As for pass interference....its never called on a hail mary but it was present!

I hope this helps...God Bless!

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2012
Posts: 37
Posted: #2
  You're a retard

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 61
Posted: #3
I totally believe the same thing. How can u call it a catch if his feet never even came down yet. As one foot comes down Tate has a "small part" of his arm under the ball making it a tie. Which everyone knows goes to the receiver.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 4938
Posted: #4

Yeah that's why every analyst, player, former player, and person who knows the game better than you will ever hope to is up in arms about the call.

Stop brainwashing yourself, you sound like a fool. It was not simultaneous. Let me ask you this.

BTW, I had the under only....no side. Check my posts.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2011
Posts: 3117
Posted: #5
I kinda agree.  It appears as if Tate did have partial possesion for a brief moment and Jennings had possesion for the majority of the time.  But that brief moment was when the catch was established.  Everyone is looking at Jennings having to ball for 90% of the time but not the fact Tate had partial possesion just for a second but the most important second.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 4938
Posted: #6

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. 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.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 4938
Posted: #7

You stated in your first post "...yes I agreed he did catch the ball first"

You aren't clearly shit up, please stop.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #8

[Quote: Originally Posted by Camron36]   You're a retard!

Thats why they didnt overturn it...catching the ball first suspended in air is not possession, Period...so go off yourself because your a useless fuck!

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #9
Quote Originally Posted by UrdaddyinAZ:

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. 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.

doesnt say anything about being in the air does it Tito!  Tates feet touch down first with his hands on the ball.  Completion is made by tate because of his landing!  Man you guys are just focusing on the ball.  Focus on what a completed catch is...Its sucks but its quite evident!  I think you need to overlook it yourself before you can tell me to stop!  Idiot!

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #10

Quote Originally Posted by vi3tboi09:

I totally believe the same thing. How can u call it a catch if his feet never even came down yet. As one foot comes down Tate has a "small part" of his arm under the ball making it a tie. Which everyone knows goes to the receiver.

I really cant understand why people cant accept it!  Its a hard argument for the minority but I stand by it and its funny so did the NFL when they have the most to lose!

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2012
Posts: 1611
Posted: #11

Stopped reading after the first 4 words to this thread.  Anyone who believes the right call was made is 1 of 3 things.

- A Seattle homer who is blind as F*ck

- Someone who doesn't understand the rules

- ........ Wait, I guess there are only 2 things.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 2593
Posted: #12
the push off from a player from sea near the end zone should have been called and therefore end of game.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #13

Quote Originally Posted by success1:

the push off from a player from sea near the end zone should have been called and therefore end of game.

I totally agree, thats the reason why GB should of won...as for the catch I understand why it was upheld.  Thats all im saying!

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #14
[Quote: Originally Posted by duke8628]

Stopped reading after the first 4 words to this thread.  Anyone who believes the right call was made is 1 of 3 things.

- A Seattle homer who is blind as F*ck

- Someone who doesn't understand the rules

- ........ Wait, I guess there are only 2 things.

Actually there are more but your brain can not process more than two insults at a time!  Whats next on your list "your mamma"

Really grow up...understand that my fight is not with you its with the books!

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2011
Posts: 8810
Posted: #15
Quote Originally Posted by Will_See:

Quote Originally Posted by duke8628:

Stopped reading after the first 4 words to this thread.  Anyone who believes the right call was made is 1 of 3 things.

- A Seattle homer who is blind as F*ck

- Someone who doesn't understand the rules

- ........ Wait, I guess there are only 2 things.

Actually there are more but your brain can not process more than two insults at a time!  Whats next on your list "your mamma"

Really grow up...understand that my fight is not with you its with the books!




you are clueless man, EVERYONE in the world knows it was an int wtf are you looking at? are you blind or what?
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 573
Posted: #16

Just the fact that Tate's arm and hand come off and is visible shows he never had possession. Yes, he might have stuck his hand on the ball as they were going down, but that is still not showing possession. The defender clearly has control. There is no argument and it boggles my mind that some try to convince themselves otherwise.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2011
Posts: 8810
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by E-Muffin:

Just the fact that Tate's arm and hand come off and is visible shows he never had possession. Yes, he might have stuck his hand on the ball as they were going down, but that is still not showing possession. The defender clearly has control. There is no argument and it boggles my mind that some try to convince themselves otherwise.



lol no doubt
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2007
Posts: 163
Posted: #18
ALL of this DOESN'T MATTER.

There was a blatant Offensive PASS INTERFERENCE that the Refs didn't call.  So this argument would not be happening had the refs done their job.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #19
[Quote: Originally Posted by E-Muffin]

Just the fact that Tate's arm and hand come off and is visible shows he never had possession. Yes, he might have stuck his hand on the ball as they were going down, but that is still not showing possession. The defender clearly has control. There is no argument and it boggles my mind that some try to convince themselves otherwise.

[/Quote

I ask the question...is possession suspended in the air considered possession!  No its not...therefore the ball is available and Tate took it!  Its not that  hard to understand, but tates feet did touchdown first with his hands (both) on the ball prior to jennings feet and that is why it was upheld!  Simple as that..and it boggles my mind that you don't accept it! 

 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2011
Posts: 8810
Posted: #20
Quote Originally Posted by Will_See:

Quote Originally Posted by E-Muffin:

Just the fact that Tate's arm and hand come off and is visible shows he never had possession. Yes, he might have stuck his hand on the ball as they were going down, but that is still not showing possession. The defender clearly has control. There is no argument and it boggles my mind that some try to convince themselves otherwise.

[/Quote

I ask the question...is possession suspended in the air considered possession!  No its not...therefore the ball is available and Tate took it!  Its not that  hard to understand, but tates feet did touchdown first with his hands (both) on the ball prior to jennings feet and that is why it was upheld!  Simple as that..and it boggles my mind that you don't accept it! 

 



tate NEVER took the ball!!! jennings had the ball tucked IN HIS CHEST all the way to the ground!! YOU ARE CLUELESS
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #21

Quote Originally Posted by buffalo11:



tate NEVER took the ball!!! jennings had the ball tucked IN HIS CHEST all the way to the ground!! YOU ARE CLUELESS

Even if he had it stapled to his head...that does not matter...his hands were on the ball with his feet touching down first.  Hense the term touchdown...lol!  Clueless no...Crazy a little...but the NFL had more than just 1 review on it and they have the most to lose!     Also after the muck...in whose hands did the ball lie...thats right Tate had it!  Apologize all you want Rogers but you lost the game on the smallest technicality!  Even at first i would agree that the interception had occured but after further review i see why it was upheld!   

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 280
Posted: #22

Quote Originally Posted by mrquija27:

I kinda agree.  It appears as if Tate did have partial possesion for a brief moment and Jennings had possesion for the majority of the time.  But that brief moment was when the catch was established.  Everyone is looking at Jennings having to ball for 90% of the time but not the fact Tate had partial possesion just for a second but the most important second.

Hard to see but very true!

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 573
Posted: #23

[/Quote

I ask the question...is possession suspended in the air considered possession! No its not...therefore the ball is available and Tate took it! Its not that hard to understand, but tates feet did touchdown first with his hands (both) on the ball prior to jennings feet and that is why it was upheld! Simple as that..and it boggles my mind that you don't accept it!

 

 

I accept it because I don't care about either team. I'm just saying nobody in their right mind actually believes he had possession. Your argument is simply that Tate had his hands on the ball and he had 2 feet down first. Just because you have 2 hands on it does not mean possession. The defender had possessionthe whole time. Both arms wrapped around the ball and cradled on his chest. Just because an offensive player sticks 2 paws on it doesn't mean they have possession. It was a crazy stupid call that was only upheld because Phil Luckett was in the booth over-seeing the review. He is just as clueless as the replacement refs. Congrats to Seattle though. The defense looks nasty and they were due some calls to go theri way after the refs screwed them in the Super Bowl.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2011
Posts: 4511
Posted: #24
quit dwelling on it and lets just move on, its yesterdays news now !!! 
Gotta go pee!
 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2011
Posts: 8810
Posted: #25
Quote Originally Posted by Will_See:

Even if he had it stapled to his head...that does not matter...his hands were on the ball with his feet touching down first.  Hense the term touchdown...lol!  Clueless no...Crazy a little...but the NFL had more than just 1 review on it and they have the most to lose!     Also after the muck...in whose hands did the ball lie...thats right Tate had it!  Apologize all you want Rogers but you lost the game on the smallest technicality!  Even at first i would agree that the interception had occured but after further review i see why it was upheld!   




you are really showing your cluelessness, the WHOLE WORLD and the NFL knows it was a INTERCEPTION!!! They even had sports science on espn break it down and they say it was an INTERCEPTION!
All Forums | NFL Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.