Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....

Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:

 Case closed..........no one can answer mine or Vans question.

Quote Originally Posted by cd329:

Van, your right so theres no need to go further.

Clearly i need to go have an eye exam, because i saw the packer player with the ball. You saw tate had the ball. Your eye sight is obvioulsy better then mine.

Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:



Nobody even tries.  Im begging for someone to respond.  They keep beating the same drum - the one that they have no backup for.

Quote Originally Posted by kingpincarbs:

I love how ignorant and stupid most NFL fans and gamblers are. They see where all of the analysts are calling it a blown call and they just blindly follow like sheep without giving any thought into the actual rules. Anybody who can think for themselves look at the rules objectively and watch the play would come to the conclusion that the play was interpretation on simultaneous possession. Covers is fortunate to have someone like VAN here who has the patience to deal with mind blowing retards who do not have the brain capacity to think rationally about something. Every time I see a post from Vanzack I know it is going to be informative and most likely against conventional wisdom (IE. morons).

Most people hate Vanzack because deep down he is usually right. I love how he makes posts recommending an intentional safety last night. It definitely was a +ev move to do that, but 99% of the world would say what a total moron that coach was for doing that only needing a FG to tie. It is sad where the world we live in for the most part is full of idiots. Vanzack continue providing positive +ev posts, I don't have the patience like you do for the people on here but it is great seeing your posts. 

btw.... When are you going to become a clock coach for an NFL team??

Quote Originally Posted by pro-metheus:

Van your cute logic isn't appealing to me.  I only stated that if it's undefinable for Jennings then the same goes for Tate.  The gig is up. Maybe you should go ref some games.

Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:



Answer this Van how is it simultaneous possession if Jennings catches the ball first and then Tate gets his hand on it? How is simultaneous possession if Tate loses all possession of the football momentarily on the ground while Jennings maintains possession the whole way. It's pointless because its like ur watching a different play.

Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:



At the risk of repeating myself for the 1000th time.....

Define possession for me.  Not simultaneous possession - but the possession rule as it applied in that situation.

Can you have possession in the air?  Can you have possession if one of your feet touches in the end zone and you land on another player?  When does possession actually occur?  Can you have possession with one hand?  Is the end zone possession rule different than the on field rule, and how does that apply in this situation?

Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:



you don't know what possession is now?  Possession of the ball its obviously not a catch until he gets two feet down. In order for a catch a player must have possession of the ball and two feet down. Jennings clearly jumped caught the ball with two hands which is possession then Tate gets possession and of course you can have possession with one hand but doesn't matter because first person too have possession has the ball which is Jennings.

Quote Originally Posted by Unpredictable:

sorry not gonna go look in a rule book for common sense. If you don't know what possession of the football is that's your fault. We have seen plenty of plays in football where a player gains possession of the football but doesn't get two feet in or where a player gets possession of the football first and then another player gets it also and its not a simultaneous catch.

Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:

Van the question of possession of the ball may not be black and white but the missed chuck call sure was. I think some people's point here is that.. it was obvious that Seattle did not win the game on the field. It was won by the ref's missing a obvious call and then doing a poor job of making the correct call, the refs could have and should have gone into conference prior to the signal of touchdown by the one ref at that point it could have been decided by review. No excuse a terrible turn of events that most everyone now that have reviewed the tape in still and motion have deduced that the arm wrap actually occurred on the ground and not in the struggle to the ground.