2012 NFL Season Thread

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The NFL disagrees with you.

REALLY?!?!?!?!? Thanks for clearing that up.

Dozens of former and current players and officials disagree with the NFL and the ruling made by a guy who has thus far been deemed an official competent enough to work middle school games.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The NFL disagrees with you.

No, they don't. Read the statement again. It was carefully worded to say they agreed there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the call. Anyone with 20/20 vision can see that Tate never had anything resembling possession.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, they don't. Read the statement again. It was carefully worded to say they agreed there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the call. Anyone with 20/20 vision can see that Tate never had anything resembling possession.

No indisputable evidence = inconclusive. If it was as obvious as you and Valo are saying, there would be conclusive evidence. The NFL went on record this morning saying that:

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

The NFL, by way of the officiating dept, is on record saying that they supported the ruling that the video was inconclusive.

Anyone with 20/20 vision cannot see exactly what Tate's left hand is doing, thus inconclusive. It very likely is on the ball, or else there wouldn't have been such a wrestle for the ball.

[Sylvanfan]

One of the biggest reasons I don't watch much CFL football is that the officiating looks like it's being done by part time people, and too often the flow gets disrupted.

These replacements are pretty much CFL officials trying to officiate a much higher calibre game and it looks like it. Hopefully they can resolve the pension issue here and do something to get the real officials back. It's at a point where 25% of the season has been officiated by scabs, and right now it's getting worse each week instead of better.

[You Need a Thneed]

Going to say one more thing here:

The way the NFL's statement is written, I think they are saying that no one can have possession of the ball until contact with the ground is made. Meaning that, even if Jennings touches the ball first, it doesn't matter until he again touches the ground.

Whether "possession" in that phrase means the same thing as "control" in the Simultaneous catch rule, that is up for debate.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

No indisputable evidence = inconclusive. If it was as obvious as you and Valo are saying, there would be conclusive evidence. The NFL went on record this morning saying that:



The NFL, by way of the officiating dept, is on record saying that they supported the ruling that the video was inconclusive.

Anyone with 20/20 vision cannot see exactly what Tate's left hand is doing, thus inconclusive. It very likely is on the ball, or else there wouldn't have been such a wrestle for the ball.

A single hand on the ball is not control. You've already admitted as much.

[Sylvanfan]

It's too bad the officiating has become the topic it is, because no one is noticing that right now New England, Pittsburgh, Denver, Detroit, Green Bay are all playoff teams from last year sitting with 1-2 records. While another one the Saints are one of two teams in the entire league without a win. Part of it could be the replacement officials....part of it is the schedule has matched some teams with tough matchups every week. But part of it has to be just how close the teams in the league really are. It could be a year where there 24 teams fall inside the range of 6 to 10 wins.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

A single hand on the ball is not control. You've already admitted as much.

Where?

[valo403]

Under the NFL's rulebook, you do not have control in that example, as I've stated several times now.

That's you, later edited but fortunately preserved when i quoted you.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Going to say one more thing here:

The way the NFL's statement is written, I think they are saying that no one can have possession of the ball until contact with the ground is made. Meaning that, even if Jennings touches the ball first, it doesn't matter until he again touches the ground.

Like this?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

http://deadspin.com/5946202/one-onli...on-the-packers

Non-US Bettors on the Packers are being refunded by SportsBook.com

Why would they do that? Games are won and lost all the time on bad calls. Part of the deal.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why would they do that? Games are won and lost all the time on bad calls. Part of the deal.

Obviously a PR move, it's happened quite a few times in the UK as well IIRC. The landscape is quite a bit different in NA though.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why would they do that? Games are won and lost all the time on bad calls. Part of the deal.

Probably because when something as insane as this happens, it looks like there is something a lot more sinister going on (Bribery).

The NFL is lucky that most people are talking about incompetence and not the uglier alternative, which is just as likely to occur with these replacements.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's you, later edited but fortunately preserved when i quoted you.

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.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Like this?

There is nothing in that photo that show that Tate could not have simultaneous possession at that point. Besides, that's a fraction of a second after the play is over. When knees and butts touch the ground, Tate isn't nearly as far "behind" Jennings as that picture shows.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There is nothing in that photo that show that Tate could not have simultaneous possession at that point. Besides, that's a fraction of a second after the play is over. When knees and butts touch the ground, Tate isn't nearly as far "behind" Jennings as that picture shows.

Sorry dude, but when members of the Seahawks admit that they lost, it's hard to debate that. It was pretty clear on the replay Jennings had the ball to his chest.

[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.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The fact that the biggest, most egregious thing to happen in that play, the insane pushoff Tate got, is not being discussed as much as the actual catch itself seems peculiar to me. I think while the evidence is pretty damn strong Tate didn't have simultaneous possesion, its not 100% clear, whereas that pass interference call is about as blatantly obvious as can be.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There is nothing in that photo that show that Tate could not have simultaneous possession at that point. Besides, that's a fraction of a second after the play is over. When knees and butts touch the ground, Tate isn't nearly as far "behind" Jennings as that picture shows.

Ha, you're ridiculous. Look at the position of Tate's arm. Unless he has some sort of superpower you're basically arguing that he established control with the back of his forearm.

Either you're being a contrarian intentionally or you're highly qualified to be an NFL replacement official.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Sorry dude, but when members of the Seahawks admit that they lost, it's hard to debate that. It was pretty clear on the replay Jennings had the ball to his chest.

It doesn't matter if the ball was up against his chest, really. If Tate had at least one hand gripping the ball is all that matters. Again, it does not matter who had "more control."

As to the players thinking one way, that's an authority of the many fallacy. It mean mean something, but it doesn't mean that the call was necessarily wrong as the rules are written. It may mean that the call was wrong as the rules are understood.