Posted:
#476
Gabbo...your version of the events as described in the previous page defies belief. May I recommend corrective lenses.
0
Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....
Posted:
#477
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
This is the game that brings the real refs back.
Can you imagine Ed Hocculi at home right now? He just popped a bottle of Crystal.
Seriously, those refs must be just loving this right now. However did you see the NFL's statement on the catch? Unreal
0
Posted:
#478
Quote Originally Posted by Gabbo:
Haha, Tilt, I would say The US fans are either wusses or not really fanatical enough. Soccer fans would definitely have rioted last night.
Haha, Tilt, I would say The US fans are either wusses or not really fanatical enough. Soccer fans would definitely have rioted last night.
The game was in Seattle, dumbass. What are the fans going to right about? Getting a break on a bad call to win the game?
0
Posted:
#479
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
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.
First, I had Seattle and I hate GB, so I was happy with the result.
The rules quoted that I've seen still seems vague to me. I haven't seen a definition of simultaneous possession and joint control. I guess you could see that ambiguity and leave open the interpretation, as you put it, 1% possession is still possession and if it's simultaneous then it's joint control and it goes to the offense. But also consider that rulings usually involve not only the rulebook but also precedent interpreting it. It doesn't happen all that frequently, but you see situations like this happen from time to time in the NFL and I can't ever recall a situation where the rule was interpreted to mean that the receiver with a hand on the ball is the equivalent to the defender with two hands, two arms and ball to the chest. Is it a valid interpretation if the rule has never been interpreted by an NFL official in this way before?
You're making the proper argument for your side of the ledger, but if I'm sitting as a judge, I'm looking at precedent interpreting the rule (and common sense if that's allowed) and saying that that was not simultaneous possession.
0
Hot Forum Topics
