NFL supports decision to not overturn Seahawks' touchdown (1 Viewer)

[Reepicheep]

at the very least it conflicts with the interception rule in this case since clearly Tate caught the pass by definition of a catch before Jennings intercepted the ball....by definition of a catch/ interception.

Huh? Not following this part. Why is Tate's definition of a catch different from Jennings's definition of a catch?

How can you give an interception to the guy who by rule caught it 2nd (Jenkins)?

Huh?

The definition is the same...its just that Tate did it first. Jenkins 2nd foot didnt come down til long after Tate had "control" of the ball also. So Jenkins has "control" first but hasnt intercepted anything because he is in the air and Tate then has control also but finished the play for a catch and a td. Either way their is a conflict here.

The conflict is resolved by the simultaneous catch rule. If two players complete the process of the catch (control the ball + two feet or body part inbounds), possession is awarded to the player that controlled the ball first. It does not matter if one of them completed the process before the other by landing first.

 

[da_budman]

at the very least it conflicts with the interception rule in this case since clearly Tate caught the pass by definition of a catch before Jennings intercepted the ball....by definition of a catch/ interception.

Huh? Not following this part. Why is Tate's definition of a catch different from Jennings's definition of a catch?

How can you give an interception to the guy who by rule caught it 2nd (Jenkins)?

Huh?

The definition is the same...its just that Tate did it first. Jenkins 2nd foot didnt come down til long after Tate had "control" of the ball also. So Jenkins has "control" first but hasnt intercepted anything because he is in the air and Tate then has control also but finished the play for a catch and a td. Either way their is a conflict here.

The conflict is resolved by the simultaneous catch rule. If two players complete the process of the catch (control the ball + two feet or body part inbounds), possession is awarded to the player that controlled the ball first. It does not matter if one of them completed the process before the other by landing first.

This is not the way the NFL explained it in their official explanation. Not at all. Here is the exact quote:"When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown."

So the NFL determines dual posession at the time the catch is completed...and not before. If you can take anything out of that exlanation that says they determine dual posession while one or more of the players was in the air I dont see it. Clearly they determined the officials blew the PI call...what is in it for them to interpret their own rules wrong here? Clearly people want the officials to be wrong here but it doesnt sound like they were to me.

 

[Reepicheep]

at the very least it conflicts with the interception rule in this case since clearly Tate caught the pass by definition of a catch before Jennings intercepted the ball....by definition of a catch/ interception.

Huh? Not following this part. Why is Tate's definition of a catch different from Jennings's definition of a catch?

How can you give an interception to the guy who by rule caught it 2nd (Jenkins)?

Huh?

The definition is the same...its just that Tate did it first. Jenkins 2nd foot didnt come down til long after Tate had "control" of the ball also. So Jenkins has "control" first but hasnt intercepted anything because he is in the air and Tate then has control also but finished the play for a catch and a td. Either way their is a conflict here.

The conflict is resolved by the simultaneous catch rule. If two players complete the process of the catch (control the ball + two feet or body part inbounds), possession is awarded to the player that controlled the ball first. It does not matter if one of them completed the process before the other by landing first.

This is not the way the NFL explained it in their official explanation. Not at all. Here is the exact quote:"When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown."

So the NFL determines dual posession at the time the catch is completed...and not before. If you can take anything out of that exlanation that says they determine dual posession while one or more of the players was in the air I dont see it. Clearly they determined the officials blew the PI call...what is in it for them to interpret their own rules wrong here? Clearly people want the officials to be wrong here but it doesnt sound like they were to me.

1. When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball.There is no need to invoke the simultaneous catch rule unless two players complete the process. That is the point here - of course they waited until the guys hit the ground and maintained control. If only one did there is no need for the simultaneous catch rule.

2. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

This is a simplified explanation. Implicit in stating the "rule for simultaneous catch" is that it is appropriate to invoke it - which is only when two players gain control at the same time. The rule is very clear. However, I suppose you could say that the NFL ruling was that neither player gained control until the very end, when they were hitting the ground.

ETA: checking out for the night. Enjoy the game.

 

[PainTrain]

Well. That leaves us nothing to debate.

Touchdown Seahawks!

(why didn't we just listen to the NFL's final word in the first place?)

On to Week 4.

 

[da_budman]

at the very least it conflicts with the interception rule in this case since clearly Tate caught the pass by definition of a catch before Jennings intercepted the ball....by definition of a catch/ interception.

Huh? Not following this part. Why is Tate's definition of a catch different from Jennings's definition of a catch?

How can you give an interception to the guy who by rule caught it 2nd (Jenkins)?

Huh?

The definition is the same...its just that Tate did it first. Jenkins 2nd foot didnt come down til long after Tate had "control" of the ball also. So Jenkins has "control" first but hasnt intercepted anything because he is in the air and Tate then has control also but finished the play for a catch and a td. Either way their is a conflict here.

The conflict is resolved by the simultaneous catch rule. If two players complete the process of the catch (control the ball + two feet or body part inbounds), possession is awarded to the player that controlled the ball first. It does not matter if one of them completed the process before the other by landing first.

This is not the way the NFL explained it in their official explanation. Not at all. Here is the exact quote:"When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown."

So the NFL determines dual posession at the time the catch is completed...and not before. If you can take anything out of that exlanation that says they determine dual posession while one or more of the players was in the air I dont see it. Clearly they determined the officials blew the PI call...what is in it for them to interpret their own rules wrong here? Clearly people want the officials to be wrong here but it doesnt sound like they were to me.

1. When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball.There is no need to invoke the simultaneous catch rule unless two players complete the process. That is the point here - of course they waited until the guys hit the ground and maintained control. If only one did there is no need for the simultaneous catch rule.

2. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

This is a simplified explanation. Implicit in stating the "rule for simultaneous catch" is that it is appropriate to invoke it - which is only when two players gain control at the same time. The rule is very clear. However, I suppose you could say that the NFL ruling was that neither player gained control until the very end, when they were hitting the ground.

ETA: checking out for the night. Enjoy the game.

My point was that IF the NFL applys the simultaneous catch rule before the catch is complete, as alot of the people in here who are saying the ruling was wrong, then there is a conflict in the rules. Since the NFL explained in this ruling it doesnt enforce the dual catch rule until the point at which the catch is COMPLETE. ( otherwise they would have said the ruling was wrong) then there is no conflict.... clear as mud?

 

[sho nuff]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

Thank you.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

Can't predict what anyone would do in the moment. Sorry.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

Can't predict what anyone would do in the moment. Sorry.

Oh, man...beat down by the real NFL refs! I thought for sure that would knock you out of your delusional state.

 

[Manster]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

So, it was CLEARLY not a simultaneous catch. Anyone still arguing that is delusional. Bottomline, the fools runnin that game F'ed up. They reviewed it and didnt even know the rule! HAHA!!! Good job NFL!

 

[Sam Quentin]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."

Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.

It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground.

"I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense.

"But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."

He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."

Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again.

"We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."

Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

I've seen replays of two instances this week (Miles Austin and Braylon Edwards)

I guess they didn't really use those unusual situations as learning opportunities after all.

 

[biju]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

So, it was CLEARLY not a simultaneous catch. Anyone still arguing that is delusional. Bottomline, the fools runnin that game F'ed up. They reviewed it and didnt even know the rule! HAHA!!! Good job NFL!

Jesus. Let it go. Trust me when I say you don't want to earn the term "whiny" when it comes to your fanbase. The Seahawks claim that they had a Superbowl taken from them didn't last one hour before people called us whiny and people still call us whiny today from something that happened in 2006 (we've gotten it from this play too, for whatever reason). I'm not sure why you're getting so much latitude but you probably shouldn't press your luck too much more.Just sayin'...

 

[ImTheScientist]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

So, it was CLEARLY not a simultaneous catch. Anyone still arguing that is delusional. Bottomline, the fools runnin that game F'ed up. They reviewed it and didnt even know the rule! HAHA!!! Good job NFL!

Jesus. Let it go. Trust me when I say you don't want to earn the term "whiny" when it comes to your fanbase. The Seahawks claim that they had a Superbowl taken from them didn't last one hour before people called us whiny and people still call us whiny today from something that happened in 2006 (we've gotten it from this play too, for whatever reason). I'm not sure why you're getting so much latitude but you probably shouldn't press your luck too much more.Just sayin'...

Too late for him.

 

[da_budman]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

Interesting. He clearly has a different interpretation of the rule than the person who made the official statement from the NFL about the situation after the game. I stand by my initial statement that this WILL be adressed and clarified in the offseason.

 

[sho nuff]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground."I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation."I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense."But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again."We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

Interesting. He clearly has a different interpretation of the rule than the person who made the official statement from the NFL about the situation after the game. I stand by my initial statement that this WILL be adressed and clarified in the offseason.

I agree it will be.There is no sense in any more debate on it...its long since over and most of this is just bickering and fishing back and forth.Like others...just found it interesting that two regular refs state the opposite of what some have said about what real refs would have done.Hopefully it gets cleared up...but you never know with the NFL.

 

[Manster]

Interesting stuff here for those who think the regular guys would have called it the same...

"We use situations that occur as learning opportunities. Not to be critical, but as learning opportunities," Hochuli said as a disclaimer. "So let's look at the rule."

Hochuli defined a simultaneous catch as one in which four hands secure the football at the same time. It is not a simultaneous catch, he says, if one player has it in mid-air and then another joins him in the act of possessing it. The player who had possessed the ball first (in the case of Monday's game, Jennings) is the one who should be rewarded with possession.

It also does not matter if the initial grab occurs before the player hit the ground.

"I will tell you I've worked over 450 games in this league. I have never seen a simultaneous catch," Hochuli said. "To get four hands on the ball at the same time is a pretty unusual situation.

"I've seen simultaneous recoveries. That's not uncommon. You un-pile the players, they're going after a loose ball and there are two guys who are completely wrapped around the football, and you have a simultaneous recovery. You're going to give the ball to the offense.

"But a simultaneous catch is a hard thing to have."

He added, "I point that out only because if you're going to call it, be really confident in what you're doing. Do understand that rule that you're going to get four hands on that football at the same time in order to have a simultaneous catch."

Later, while the officials waited for a disconnected Hochuli to rejoin them, they went over the rule again.

"We can rule on simultaneous catches in the end zone. That is reviewable," referee Bill Leavy said. "And the way we would've (ruled Monday) night's would've been an interception."

Of a simultaneous catch, Leavy added, "Like Ed said, I've never seen one."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/story/2012/09/26/nfls-regular-officials-still-convening-to-stay-game-ready/57846092/1

So, it was CLEARLY not a simultaneous catch. Anyone still arguing that is delusional. Bottomline, the fools runnin that game F'ed up. They reviewed it and didnt even know the rule! HAHA!!! Good job NFL!

Jesus. Let it go. Trust me when I say you don't want to earn the term "whiny" when it comes to your fanbase. The Seahawks claim that they had a Superbowl taken from them didn't last one hour before people called us whiny and people still call us whiny today from something that happened in 2006 (we've gotten it from this play too, for whatever reason). I'm not sure why you're getting so much latitude but you probably shouldn't press your luck too much more.

Just sayin'...

what are you talkin about?? Is this thread not about that play? The only people who have been ok with the call are pete carroll and somehawks fans who are delusional and/or are lying to themselves. I just think its funny that some are still saying the right call was made. Look, its over, I get it, but at least people can be honest with themselves and say the packers were robbed of a win.Its more than the '06 SB. hawks fans have a chip on their shoulder. a fair amount of hawks fans seem to be passionate, delusional, and touchy, which is an awesome combination!!..........and FYI im a Cowboys fan. That in itself brings with it a certain amount of ridicule. So im not sure what you mean by the above. I've heard it all.

 

[fatness]

Update

Asked if he would stick by his call after seeing the replay, Elliott said: "I'd probably call interception. I learned a rule by screwing up the rule."