Pretty sure that was simultaneous possession.....

I don't know how I or anyone else is an idiot.......there is obvious debate on the rule

This guy is an attention clown, you must know more then the NFL rule book expert that gets paid to explain the rules .  This was the luckiest win of my life .

Some are saying that the Replay Booth can't rule on possession - just on inbounds or out.

Must have been tough for the Replay Booth to see the hard push in the back by Tate and then the majority of possession by Jennings and not be able to reverse it.

One ref was prepared to call Touchback/INT and the other came in and called TD. That did it. Possession needs to be called on the field. The other ref should have called for a conference, but he let the guy over-rule him. The Head Ref should have called for a Conference. 

Real refs would of called that push off by Tate a PI.  Then they would of ruled interception by the Defense and game over Green Bays wins the game.  Total crime by the NFL letting Seattle win that game.  And I took Seattle + the points.

I would love to see the replay where Tate didn't SIMULTANEOUSLY grab the ball coming down that Jennings obviously had more control of

You must have down-syndrome then. Either that or you just simply don't understand the word simultaneous.

Good luck guys.  Going to sleep.

Will check the thread in the AM.

Getting in here. I thought it was simultaneous. When Jennings has it, he clearly has Tate's arm too. Tate's arm is always between the ball and Jennings body. It's not just a hand. This is why Jennings can't wrestle the ball away from Tate, even when Jennings rolls backwards over Tate. Tate's right hand is on the ball before they even hit the ground.

But really, it should have been pass interference. Upstairs did the reply. That guy isn't a replacement official. He's a real guy.

Also, Packers should have taken the safety rather than punt the ball.

Are we absolutely sure a "real Ref" couldn't miss or overlook that P-I or rule simultaneous?

The question that people forget is whether you can posses the ball before 2 feet are down? I suspect its no as you need 2 feet down to have a play considered a catch. If thats the case the fact Jennings had inital possession wouldn't mean anything...its the possession of the ball when their feet hit the ground. 

Common sense would say its an INT...but the question is what the rules say.... this isn't the first situation where a rule needed more clarification....aka the tuck rule.

Honestly this is a call that would have been difficult for any refs. Even though I think its an INT... the rules might force the refs into that call

Getting in here. I thought it was simultaneous. When Jennings has it, he clearly has Tate's arm too. Tate's arm is always between the ball and Jennings body. It's not just a hand. This is why Jennings can't wrestle the ball away from Tate, even when Jennings rolls backwards over Tate. Tate's right hand is on the ball before they even hit the ground.

But really, it should have been pass interference. Upstairs did the reply. That guy isn't a replacement official. He's a real guy.

Also, Packers should have taken the safety rather than punt the ball.

THIS!

I started a thread about the safety - and it got buried - but I made the case that they should take they safety too.

that was NOT simultaneous possesion. One hand?  Get real, my man.  That was a debacle. How about the two-handed shove by Tate prior to that??? What about that phantom PI call?   It was a joke,  That c*nt Goodall should resign for allowing this travesty to continue cos of a few hundred grand ... brutal

Simultaneous? Are u serious. He had both hands on the ball and then when he came down tate put his hand on the ball. Then they both had posession. It was a bad call period cuz the ref that called the td couldnt see the push in the back to shields. Then the review didnt show the int? Are u kidding me? I played under and won but shit that was 100% horseshit call and that ref crew is solely responsible fot the GB loss. I dont care if people won or lost money....NFL is currently a joke. Thats what im pissed about

https://i.imgur.com/hOrH7.jpg

The question that people forget is whether you can posses the ball before 2 feet are down? I suspect its no as you need 2 feet down to have a play considered a catch. If thats the case the fact Jennings had inital possession wouldn't mean anything...its the possession of the ball when their feet hit the ground.

Common sense would say its an INT...but the question is what the rules say.... this isn't the first situation where a rule needed more clarification....aka the tuck rule.

Honestly this is a call that would have been difficult for any refs. Even though I think its an INT... the rules might force the refs into that call

Great post.

Everyone is trying to get clarity on the possession rule but we are over looking a blatant pass interference which would nullify any Seattle td.

U re trying so hard to make yourself look like an idiot when u said Tate have  simultaneous possesion 

In the In Game thread. I called for the safety in advance. Because even if you punt and somehow Seattle still gets a FG, they can still win in OT. With the way your defense and offense is playing in 2nd half, your chances are better, rather than relying on all or nothing in stopping the Seahawks from scoring TD.

Linda Cohn just said "The NFL is the best business in our country".

Thats funny.

Vanzack what are you smoking? Please focus on your soccer game.

Jennings caught the ball with two hands at it's highest point and brought it to his chest.  It's clear you guys haven't watched the replay.  Maybe you just listened to it?

I have watched this three times in super duper slo mo frame by frame

Tate does have his hand (left on the ball)

To say this is possession though seems to be a stretch, as that hand is wrapped in Jennings chest.

For Tate to have possession with this hand, he would have to remove Jennings from the equation, there is little way to figure that he owns the ball that is cradled to the defenders chest with one arm wrapped in this mess.

If he had this much of the possession on the outside of Jennings, how would that affect your decision?

 

That cost me too much money on my bets and hurts even more so in that I was already counting the win....

 

I have to admit, I can see the argument but I simply do not believe Tates piece of the ball means he owns the ball (possession) he is touching the ball but by no means is he owning it.

When I think of these dual possession plays as a kid, we mostly both had the ball 50/50. Tate has maybe 15%, and that is generous.

 

Honestly, I am kind of surprised Jennings just did not rip that fucker from Tate with the amount of leather he has and that is the only thing making me think Van and the refs have a leg to stand on.

Move on boys

 

One view on the strike......

Let us never ever forget what the strike is about, it is about what most fights are about.......................................................................................................................

 

 

 

 

MONEY

 

so what is the issue?

The entire amount of salary discrepancy I read at the beginning of the strike is a  few million dollars, pocket change to the owners.

So what is the deal? It is the pension. The owners want the referees to lose  their pension. Why?

Well, the owners surely do not want to pay the refs pensions but I think this is just an angle to get what they really want, which is to not pay the players pensions and health. I have no facts with which to back this up but it is my conspiracy theory.

Start here and go after the players in a few years......

The backside for these players and their health care costs in twenty years with all the concussion information is scary, this may be an angle here.

 

Who the fuck knows.