[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

That sentence is not edited, I just added more.

My quote is an answer to the scenario you asked about, which was more qualified than what you are proposing now. In the orignal scenario, and my answer that you are quoting now, has one player grabbing a ball with one hand after the other player has already established control. That is not control, as written in the NFL rulebook. That's why I said, no that player doesn't not have control. But that doesn't address the statement you made here: "A single hand on the ball is not control. You've already admitted as much." I've already listed a scenario that no one disagrees with in which one hand on the ball is certainly control - a one handed catch.

The scenario you previously described in which one player had possession first would only apply to the Tate/Jennings catch is it was conclusive that one player or the other had control first. Despite what you and others have said, I don't believe that it is as conclusive as it seems on first watching. The NFL itself has supported the review as being inconclusive. If a one handed catch can be control (we know that it can), then Tate having one hand grabbing the ball at the same time as Jennings' hands can also be control, except in yesterday's game, it would be simultaneous control - as defined in the NFL's simutaneous catch rule. Again, there is no distinction about one player haveing "more control" than the other. If one hand on the ball can be control (we know that it can) and Tate had one hand gripping the ball, then he had control enough for it to be a simultaneous catch. We don't know for sure if Tate had one hand gripping the ball or not, and no replay shows it conclusively either way. He almost certainly was touching the ball, as there wouldn't have been a wrestle for the ball had only Jennings had a grip on it. The NFLs statement itself seems to imply that any control of the ball can only be established when feet touch the ground, and the play is over when butts and knees touch the ground (before any wrestling really occurs).

I can certainly see why the refs on the field ruled it a simultaneous catch, and I can certainly see why it couldn't be overturned.

For I think the 3,000th time, a one handed catch requires a demonstration of possession and control. Merely having one hand on the ball does not do that.