For those that definitively state that you KNOW what possession is, then please state it for us. I have asked, and nobody can provide the definition.
So for me - I am saying that Tate had SOME possession, and Jennings had MOST of the possession. And I also interpret that if the offense has 1% possesssion, it is FULL possession for the ruling.
So the discussion of whether Tate or Jennings had MORE of the ball is not the issue. The issue is the definition of possession, and so far a lot of people here claim they know the rule, claim that they are 100% - but nobody can define it FULLY for the context of that play.
And until somebody can - or the league does - my position is simple. Tate had some of the ball all the way through the catch.
So Scal and others - Im not being argumentative or a troll. The above is a very logical position. If someone can tell me where exactly that goes wrong, I will concede. And if someone can clarify how possession is defined EXACTLY for that situation I will concede.
| What does it mean to "have the ball"? If I've got the thing wrapped and clutched in my hands, arms and my chest and you've got a few fingers touching ball, is that actually joint control? I've just never seen this called like this for any frame of reference. And the rule is not clear at all. | |
| What does it mean to "have the ball"? If I've got the thing wrapped and clutched in my hands, arms and my chest and you've got a few fingers touching ball, is that actually joint control? I've just never seen this called like this for any frame of reference. And the rule is not clear at all. | |
What does it mean to "have the ball"? If I've got the thing wrapped and clutched in my hands, arms and my chest and you've got a few fingers touching ball, is that actually joint control?
I've just never seen this called like this for any frame of reference. And the rule is not clear at all.
I dont know.
The rule is not clear.
When I say he had the ball, he had his hand on the ball. He was part of the catch. His hand never left the ball. It could be argued that his hand was in a controlling position on the ball, not just "touching it".
Are all of those things considered possession in that exact context? Can you have possession while in the air before your feet hit the ground? What if you land on another player?
I dont know those answers - and after 15 pages of this thread this is the key (and only) discussion that should be taking place - WHAT IS POSSESSION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLAY LAST NIGHT. Not your opinion, but the RULE.
And if the answer is "the rule is vague", then it is an INTERPRETATION. And once there is interpretation, my position is that either decision could be interpreted to be right.
Wow!. You are actually making a logical argument for a change and Vanzack is making a fool out of himself. I have to give you major props here for finally using some common sense. 
Come on D2! YOu are an attorney!!
Follow this in a legal sense. Help a brother out here. If there is an interpretation by a judge because a law doesnt exactly apply to a situation, many times there is no clear cut black and white answer.
That is my position on the ruling last night. There was no black and white answer. It was an interpretation. Until I see the "law" that governs the key part of this case, the ruling has no precedent.
For those that definitively state that you KNOW what possession is, then please state it for us. I have asked, and nobody can provide the definition.
So for me - I am saying that Tate had SOME possession, and Jennings had MOST of the possession. And I also interpret that if the offense has 1% possesssion, it is FULL possession for the ruling.
So the discussion of whether Tate or Jennings had MORE of the ball is not the issue. The issue is the definition of possession, and so far a lot of people here claim they know the rule, claim that they are 100% - but nobody can define it FULLY for the context of that play.
And until somebody can - or the league does - my position is simple. Tate had some of the ball all the way through the catch.
So Scal and others - Im not being argumentative or a troll. The above is a very logical position. If someone can tell me where exactly that goes wrong, I will concede. And if someone can clarify how possession is defined EXACTLY for that situation I will concede.
And Vanzack, it NEVER was simultaneous possession, so your argument is futile. But for some bizarre reason, if you want to keep convincing yourself otherwise and dig a deeper hole, that is your prerogative.
For those that definitively state that you KNOW what possession is, then please state it for us. I have asked, and nobody can provide the definition.
So for me - I am saying that Tate had SOME possession, and Jennings had MOST of the possession. And I also interpret that if the offense has 1% possesssion, it is FULL possession for the ruling.
So the discussion of whether Tate or Jennings had MORE of the ball is not the issue. The issue is the definition of possession, and so far a lot of people here claim they know the rule, claim that they are 100% - but nobody can define it FULLY for the context of that play.
And until somebody can - or the league does - my position is simple. Tate had some of the ball all the way through the catch.
So Scal and others - Im not being argumentative or a troll. The above is a very logical position. If someone can tell me where exactly that goes wrong, I will concede. And if someone can clarify how possession is defined EXACTLY for that situation I will concede.
Wow!. You are actually making a logical argument for a change and Vanzack is making a fool out of himself. I have to give you major props here for finally using some common sense.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
