Last night I agreed it was simulatanous possession and no one seemed to understand me. It looks like I was wrong.
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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.
That's exactly how I saw it. Jennings had the catch and then simultaneous possession occurred, on the way to the ground.
** Note to NFL players: KNOCK THE FUCKING BALL DOWN ON THE LAST PLAY OF THE GAME
0
Last night I agreed it was simulatanous possession and no one seemed to understand me. It looks like I was wrong.
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:
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.
That's exactly how I saw it. Jennings had the catch and then simultaneous possession occurred, on the way to the ground.
** Note to NFL players: KNOCK THE FUCKING BALL DOWN ON THE LAST PLAY OF THE GAME
You are correct Van! I was not disputing that.. I am commenting on the fact that everyone is saying Oh We can't do anything about it now because of this reason and that..BULLSHIT. I think if the cash had been loaded the other way you wouldn't here the books being so damn quiet.
You are also correct that the "trust issue" is discussion for another thread but it is an issue that we should be talking about as it effects us more than most.
Start another thread Van your threads seem to generate tons of views.
I have scaled way back on the size of my NFL wagers anyway but I wish it would go back to the old way where I was a little more trusting and less cynical .
I wish I wasn't always wanting things to return to the old way maybe it's a sign of my increasing years but the options open for our future course in politics and sports are just not ones I look forward too.
Best to you Van
0
You are correct Van! I was not disputing that.. I am commenting on the fact that everyone is saying Oh We can't do anything about it now because of this reason and that..BULLSHIT. I think if the cash had been loaded the other way you wouldn't here the books being so damn quiet.
You are also correct that the "trust issue" is discussion for another thread but it is an issue that we should be talking about as it effects us more than most.
Start another thread Van your threads seem to generate tons of views.
I have scaled way back on the size of my NFL wagers anyway but I wish it would go back to the old way where I was a little more trusting and less cynical .
I wish I wasn't always wanting things to return to the old way maybe it's a sign of my increasing years but the options open for our future course in politics and sports are just not ones I look forward too.
to be fair, that picture was taken a little late in the play. ate was in a better position before that. but it raises the questions of what is possession and how long do you need to keep it?
to be fair, that picture was taken a little late in the play. ate was in a better position before that. but it raises the questions of what is possession and how long do you need to keep it?
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??
0
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??
Well, I understand well what Van & others are saying, just don't agree in this case. Sure, by a strict interpretation of the rule only, it could be said to have merit. But a call like that requires a "judgement" by the refs in order to make a correct application of the rule. Imo, it was a bad judgement & misapplication of the rule and therefore a bad call.
To have a successful catch in the endzone, you have to have full control of the ball after you hit the ground to complete the play. Tate never had what could even be considered any possession at all until after they were on the ground & the only reason that was is because Jennings had already made the catch, did have possession & the ball was secure against his chest. Imo, you can't just get an arm in there even if on the ball & call it the kind of "possession thru the catch" that's required for a successful catch. Only Jennings fulfilled that requirement. Sure, it's open to interpretation, but the wrong judgement on the rule was made imo & it cost the Pack the game. Glad I had no $$ on it cuz I probably woulda gone with GB small -
0
Well, I understand well what Van & others are saying, just don't agree in this case. Sure, by a strict interpretation of the rule only, it could be said to have merit. But a call like that requires a "judgement" by the refs in order to make a correct application of the rule. Imo, it was a bad judgement & misapplication of the rule and therefore a bad call.
To have a successful catch in the endzone, you have to have full control of the ball after you hit the ground to complete the play. Tate never had what could even be considered any possession at all until after they were on the ground & the only reason that was is because Jennings had already made the catch, did have possession & the ball was secure against his chest. Imo, you can't just get an arm in there even if on the ball & call it the kind of "possession thru the catch" that's required for a successful catch. Only Jennings fulfilled that requirement. Sure, it's open to interpretation, but the wrong judgement on the rule was made imo & it cost the Pack the game. Glad I had no $$ on it cuz I probably woulda gone with GB small -
Wow, you guys are still going on? You haven't figured out yet that people entrenched in their opinions are not going to change them no matter how irrefutable the evidence you present to them
Proof has already been shown today that Tate never had control of the ball, so simultaneous possession never occurred. 6pm Sportscenter just did a slow mo, hi-res, multi-angle side by side shot showing that Tate never had possession of the ball. Just more irrefutable evidence that 98% of the Nation is right today
0
Wow, you guys are still going on? You haven't figured out yet that people entrenched in their opinions are not going to change them no matter how irrefutable the evidence you present to them
Proof has already been shown today that Tate never had control of the ball, so simultaneous possession never occurred. 6pm Sportscenter just did a slow mo, hi-res, multi-angle side by side shot showing that Tate never had possession of the ball. Just more irrefutable evidence that 98% of the Nation is right today
Im still waiting for someone to quote and source the possession rule that applies here.
400+ posts, everyone says the KNOW the possession rule, and nobody can state the applicable rule.
ESPN analysts throw out "he had possession", but they wont discuss the rule. The game is governed by rules and interpretations. This was an interpretation. You can disagree with the interpretation, but you cant say it was WRONG until you quote the rule that states it was wrong.
I will continue to wait....
The rule is purposefully vague Vanzack. That is not the fan's fault.
You've simply positioned yourself where you can't be proven wrong.
You know the rule is written in an ambiguous manner and can be interpreted several ways, and then you ask us to prove you wrong with quotes. There are no quotes. This is about 3/4's of a century worth of football and every fan's and referee's common sense interpretation as to what is an interception and what is dual possession is when making a final judgement call.
That is why the NFL came out in support of the call. The rule was written to allow them to do that and they know it. It doesn't mean the bettor wasn't cheated or the Packer fan wasn't cheated with regard to the spirit of the rule as I said earlier.
You can stop asking people to prove you wrong because, like the NFL, it's impossible the way rule was written. That doesn't mean the fans and bettors can't lash out at the refs and league for what they think is a ridiculously bad job in determining the ending of that game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Im still waiting for someone to quote and source the possession rule that applies here.
400+ posts, everyone says the KNOW the possession rule, and nobody can state the applicable rule.
ESPN analysts throw out "he had possession", but they wont discuss the rule. The game is governed by rules and interpretations. This was an interpretation. You can disagree with the interpretation, but you cant say it was WRONG until you quote the rule that states it was wrong.
I will continue to wait....
The rule is purposefully vague Vanzack. That is not the fan's fault.
You've simply positioned yourself where you can't be proven wrong.
You know the rule is written in an ambiguous manner and can be interpreted several ways, and then you ask us to prove you wrong with quotes. There are no quotes. This is about 3/4's of a century worth of football and every fan's and referee's common sense interpretation as to what is an interception and what is dual possession is when making a final judgement call.
That is why the NFL came out in support of the call. The rule was written to allow them to do that and they know it. It doesn't mean the bettor wasn't cheated or the Packer fan wasn't cheated with regard to the spirit of the rule as I said earlier.
You can stop asking people to prove you wrong because, like the NFL, it's impossible the way rule was written. That doesn't mean the fans and bettors can't lash out at the refs and league for what they think is a ridiculously bad job in determining the ending of that game.
Case closed..........no one can answer mine or Vans question.
Your suggestion was so retarded it didn't warrant a response. Why didn't Jennings get up......because Tate was beneath him and had him in a bear hug.....then Tate rolled him around and got on top of him. How was he supposed to get up and show off the ball?
0
Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:
Case closed..........no one can answer mine or Vans question.
Your suggestion was so retarded it didn't warrant a response. Why didn't Jennings get up......because Tate was beneath him and had him in a bear hug.....then Tate rolled him around and got on top of him. How was he supposed to get up and show off the ball?
Can't read the reply.........how could Jennings get up and show off the ball Mugg? Tate was beneath him and had Jennings in a bear hug. He then rolled Tate over and pinned him like he was in a wrestling match. If getting up to show who had possession is so critical in your opinion, why didn't Tate jump up with the ball and show it off.
0
Can't read the reply.........how could Jennings get up and show off the ball Mugg? Tate was beneath him and had Jennings in a bear hug. He then rolled Tate over and pinned him like he was in a wrestling match. If getting up to show who had possession is so critical in your opinion, why didn't Tate jump up with the ball and show it off.
I'm not arguing that Tate commited PI. Or that Jennings caught it. Both happened.
To me, Tate's left arm is clearly in between the ball and Jennings's chest the entire time for a simultaneous catch. Tate's right hand is on the ball when they come down. No one is arguing that Jennings doesn't have possession or even more of possession. They both have it. Think of it this way. On Tyree's helmet catch in Giants/Pats Super Bowl, he's got the ball one handed pinned to his helmet. Tate has the ball pinned to Jennings. And every replay you hear, Tirico does think it was a simultaneous catch.
Now, when they fall to the ground, Jennings is rolling back and forth and trying to rip the ball away from Tate and yet cannot. This is because Tate's left arm is securely in there from the start. The more Jennings squeezes the ball, the less likely that Tate will lose the ball. This is also how you know it's not just Tate getting his left arm in there late. There's no room to jam his lefty in. When they fall, Tate's right hand comes off and he does try jamming in his right arm repeatedly. To me, how can you say that Tate doesn't have a portion of possession?
If Jennings really had so much control, how come he can't rip the ball away from Tate even though Jennings is rolling around all over the place, in a better position, with better leverage, and also bigger than Tate?
0
What? This thread still lives? Here's my thought:
I'm not arguing that Tate commited PI. Or that Jennings caught it. Both happened.
To me, Tate's left arm is clearly in between the ball and Jennings's chest the entire time for a simultaneous catch. Tate's right hand is on the ball when they come down. No one is arguing that Jennings doesn't have possession or even more of possession. They both have it. Think of it this way. On Tyree's helmet catch in Giants/Pats Super Bowl, he's got the ball one handed pinned to his helmet. Tate has the ball pinned to Jennings. And every replay you hear, Tirico does think it was a simultaneous catch.
Now, when they fall to the ground, Jennings is rolling back and forth and trying to rip the ball away from Tate and yet cannot. This is because Tate's left arm is securely in there from the start. The more Jennings squeezes the ball, the less likely that Tate will lose the ball. This is also how you know it's not just Tate getting his left arm in there late. There's no room to jam his lefty in. When they fall, Tate's right hand comes off and he does try jamming in his right arm repeatedly. To me, how can you say that Tate doesn't have a portion of possession?
If Jennings really had so much control, how come he can't rip the ball away from Tate even though Jennings is rolling around all over the place, in a better position, with better leverage, and also bigger than Tate?
So says the clown who has a soccer picture for his avatar.
Stop embarrassing yourself little Vanny boy, you can spew your ignorance about football all you want to the masses in here. But to guys like me, its just confirms that were you the kid getting snuggied in high school.
excellent troll ...I'll give u that.
"simultaneous catch"
You can choose to listen to the opinion of probably 99.9% of every player or coach that ever played or coached a down of serious football..
Or you can believe the opinion of the "soccer guy"
Game
Set
Match
This thread just made my day
0
So says the clown who has a soccer picture for his avatar.
Stop embarrassing yourself little Vanny boy, you can spew your ignorance about football all you want to the masses in here. But to guys like me, its just confirms that were you the kid getting snuggied in high school.
excellent troll ...I'll give u that.
"simultaneous catch"
You can choose to listen to the opinion of probably 99.9% of every player or coach that ever played or coached a down of serious football..
Or you can believe the opinion of the "soccer guy"
Hot Forum Topics
