This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You can't review whether it's simultaneous possession or not.And I don't get blaming the guy in the booth anyway. He can call for a review, but the head ref is the one that watches the replay under the hood and then makes the call.
Did we really need another thread to ask this?Answer: Simultaneous possession can not be reviewed.
It was not simultaneous possession. 1st, It was offensive interference on Golden Tate. 2nd, M.D. Jennings intercepted the ball (had sole possession) then Tate wrapped one (1) arm around the ball going down and then wrapped his second arm around the ball after they rolled on the ground. This is obvious to all who watch the replay. Bottom Line: Bad job by the officiating crew! Top to bottom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The original call was simultaneous possession. That can't be overturned on review. Neither can a missed pass interference call. The replay booth did exactly what they were supposed to do and got everything right by the rules.If you want to complain about the refs originally missing the PI call or not ruling it an INT, then that's fair. Or you could say that the replay rules are dumb for not allowing simultaneous possession to be reviewed.But you can't say that the replay guys didn't do their job correctly tonight.
Are you in a vacuum or just arguing from one?Looking past the non-existent PI call on Shields a few plays earlier.
Bad judgement call. The refs will learn from their mistakes and get better at what they do. If not, others will be brought in to take their place. Learning on the job isn't always the easiest experience, it's unfortunate that these guys have to do it in front of millions. I wouldn't be surprised if betting was suspended on NFL games for the season, but I also wouldn't blame anyone. It's all a part of labor negotiations. Who's fault is it? Who's side are you on? Why?The NFL will survive
I'm actually re-thinking this and I'm not 100% sure it's correct. Hear me out.The rules for a completed catch are different in the endzone than in the rest of the field. A player must "complete the catch" by going to the ground and maintaining control. So while the refs couldn't review the simultaneous possession ruling, perhaps they could have said that Tate did not maintain control to "complete the catch" and thus it was an incomplete pass or even possibly an INT still.I think you're still probably right and that's certainly the way the NFL will spin things, but it seems to me that the different rules for a catch in the endzone create a bit of a loophole here that I think could have been used to justify overturning the call.
Are you saying Shield's didn't grab onto Rice's jersey the whole time? Watch the replay...
That's the same everywhere on the field. The rule comes up when the player is in the act of falling while making the catch. It doesn't matter if it's in the end zone or on the fifty yard line.
Whether the ball hit the ground before it was a completed catch is reviewable. But in this case, the ball never hit the ground. So the call couldn't be overturned on that basis. The only reason not to call it a touchdown was the fact that Jennings had possession rather than Tate — but that's not reviewable.
One official signaled a touchdown. No one signaled an interception.The other signaled for the clock to be stopped. He did not give any signals that would be given if he was ruling it an interception (such as pointing to show Packers possession, making the two hand clutching signal for a catch, and/or signaling a touchback). All he did was wave to stop the clock. Which is something he might have done even if he wasn't able to make the call. Or if he wanted to huddle to hear if anyone had a better view before giving his best opinion. Or he could have been intending to call it an interception but never completed it when the other ref called the TD. We don't know. But it's incorrect to say he gave a signal that indicated an INT.
Agreed. A lot more should be reviewable. Though I think they limit it because they don't want the games to get even longer because of reviews.Which they could avoid if they would just let the booth do review like in college. They complete reviews so much faster than the NFL because they do it that way. Or do it like the NHL and let the head refs review it in the league office.
if that's true then why even have a replay?
They can't review that it was a catch? Ever since Week 1 of last year with Megatron, we all know the rules of a game ending TD catch rules right? Tate never had control of the ball - ever. This is the simplest way the replay officials could have called this game right. No need to do all the analysis of simultaneous possession required.
by the same token, Jennings didn't retain sole possession/control to the ground.
this sounds like a cop outon every TD catch, they review whether or not the WR had possession.
He did. Everyone also seems to be forgetting that the call on the field was TD - for that to even be reversed (which, by rule it can't anyway - but for the sake of argument) you would need irrefutbale visual evidence that Tate, at NEVER posessed the ball at any time.
and it was an interception,by rule, then he would never have benn able to have possession at any any time. If he has dual possession, then it's a TD.Somebody neeeds to post this replay "rule." I'm a little incredulous about that statement that Gerry Austin made.
The NFL is a reactionary league. They are not proactive.
My guess is that any simultaneous posession situation is going to involve the ball moving around a little. If you applied the same "control" rules to these kinds of cases, all simultaneous posessions would be ruled incomplete.
Yup, which is one of the reasons why it can't be reviewed.I'm actually getting rather miffed that not a single talking head has even mentioned that it wasn't reviewable. The articles I read this morning on ESPN and NFL.com don't mention it. Steve Marriucci even says there was enough visual evidence to overturn it on a video posted on NFL.com. I listened to Mike and Mike for about an hour and not a peep about it not being reviewable. Lots of faux outrage from Cris Carter though.And I can't believe how the refs are getting killed for making a call when 99.9999% of people watching it live had no idea what the call should have been either. Put 100 people in a room together and show them the origional video at live speed and I doubt a single one could describe exactly what happened. Everyone is able to be a ref when viewing it in slow motion. There's no doubt in my mind that the regular refs would have been 50/50 to make the same call. And even if they made the right call, it would have been more of a guess than from seeing exactly what happened.Kill them for not calling PI. Kill them for not having control of the game. Kill the NFL for not making simultaneous possession a reviewable play. But killing them for saying it was simultaneous possession is dumb.ETA: IMO, there's a difference between a wrong call and a bad call. They both suck, but wrong calls are understandable while bad calls aren't. This was a wrong call, not a bad one.
Everybody's just pissed about the replacement refs. I am too -- they slow the game down needlessly, they don't seem to know the rules as well as they should, and they've had some absolutely brutal calls. Last night's call wasn't actually that bad, but it provides a convenient focal point for everybody to dogpile the replacements. It's a lot easier to get people worked up over a game-ending judgement call than something fairly esoteric like a 27 yard personal foul.
lemme guess..Jerry MarkbreitThey did actually end up talking about it on Mike and Mike and with Herm Edwards on Sportscenter. But only to completely screw up the point. They all said that it should have been reviewable because it wasn't simultaneous possession. Well, duh. But you could only tell it was not simultaneous possession once you viewed the replay! They're creating their own paradox of stupidity.
And the former ref on Mike&Mike took the cake. He INSISTED that his crew would have gotten right. When Greenie asked him if it would have been the same result if he was the "white hat" and the guy that signaled TD insisted he saw simultaneous possession, he said no because he would have asked the back judge and the back judge would have told him that Jennings had the ball first and Tate only had one arm on the ball. Yeah, the back judge that was behind the endzone and screened from the play by Jennings's back really would have said that
Even worse, that goof actually had the gall to claim that the regular refs never get plays like that wrong.
/thread
Yup. His interview was ridiculous. I've come around to believing that the NFL needs to bring back the regular refs, but this guy was such a tool that I feel like changing my mind back just so that tools like him don't "win" in this.lemme guess..Jerry MarkbreitThey did actually end up talking about it on Mike and Mike and with Herm Edwards on Sportscenter. But only to completely screw up the point. They all said that it should have been reviewable because it wasn't simultaneous possession. Well, duh. But you could only tell it was not simultaneous possession once you viewed the replay! They're creating their own paradox of stupidity.
And the former ref on Mike&Mike took the cake. He INSISTED that his crew would have gotten right. When Greenie asked him if it would have been the same result if he was the "white hat" and the guy that signaled TD insisted he saw simultaneous possession, he said no because he would have asked the back judge and the back judge would have told him that Jennings had the ball first and Tate only had one arm on the ball. Yeah, the back judge that was behind the endzone and screened from the play by Jennings's back really would have said that
Even worse, that goof actually had the gall to claim that the regular refs never get plays like that wrong.
That's like ask in keyshawn in he booth "would you have caught that ball driver dropped I the end zone?"They did actually end up talking about it on Mike and Mike and with Herm Edwards on Sportscenter. But only to completely screw up the point. They all said that it should have been reviewable because it wasn't simultaneous possession. Well, duh. But you could only tell it was not simultaneous possession once you viewed the replay! They're creating their own paradox of stupidity.And the former ref on Mike&Mike took the cake. He INSISTED that his crew would have gotten right. When Greenie asked him if it would have been the same result if he was the "white hat" and the guy that signaled TD insisted he saw simultaneous possession, he said no because he would have asked the back judge and the back judge would have told him that Jennings had the ball first and Tate only had one arm on the ball. Yeah, the back judge that was behind the endzone and screened from the play by Jennings's back really would have said that
The ball can move around as much as it wants if it never hits the ground. If it hits the ground and pops out before anybody controls and possesses it, it's incomplete. That's true whether or not the catch is simultaneous.
Agreed. There was actually a play extremely similar to this one last year and the regular refs ruled it a catch as well, even though the defender clearly had the ball pinned to his chest and the WR reached in and grabbed it with his hands.This call wasn't nearly as bad as the blown lateral call that resulted in a 14 point swing in a playoff game that ended up going into overtime last year. Nor was it nearly as bad as the Saints/Lions debacle last year where they made an egregiously bad judgement call, then blew an inadvertent whistle, then misinterperated about 3 different rules on their way to coming up with the one possible outcome that was literally impossible to have happen according to the rules.
People are going to jump on (b)(1), which I've bolded. But I think it means complete vs. incomplete (or interception vs. incomplete) based on whether the ball hit the ground or touched somebody who's out of bounds. I don't think it means complete vs. interception based on who controlled it first. That seems like a judgment call of the sort left to the guys on the field — the same way that pass interference is.Mike Pereira hasn't been on twitter since before last night's game, but I'm sure he'll give us the straight dope when he gets his internet back.
