For a call to be overturned, it has to be CONCLUSIVE. If the answer to the question "is there a chance he would've made a one-handed catch?" is yes, then it is INCONCLUSIVE and the ruling on the field cannot be overturned. Again, it's not really hypothetical vs. reality here, it's rather that if you consider a one handed catch a possibility, then it can be argued that Tate had possession of the ball with one hand since three hands (one Tate's, two Jennings') touched the ball and had a hold of it AT THE SAME TIME, and the hands remained there the entire way.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the responsibility of the league to provide fair officiating. Completely irrelevant.
The confusion (and I got it wrong at first, too) is because simultaneous possession is not reviewable in the field of play. It is in the end zone, however. That's the distinction that many didn't realize.
Help me understand something....and I'm being honest here.... the rule is that if both players come down with the ball, the receiver gets the catch...right? Why is that not a catch given those rules? The Packers player is in the air when the Seahawks player is ripping it away and trying to catch it as well. What am I missing?
Here's a recap of my point: 1) One handed catches are possible, therefore it is possible to have a one-handed possession. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZLq3SWnhgUE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 2) Jennings and Tate had the ball at the exact same moment with Jennings having two hands around it, and Tate had one hand under it between the ball and Jennings' chest. 3) Jennings and Tate fall to the ground and Tate has the ball with left hand on the ball arriving, then on the ground wrestles it away, but the left hand is on it ALL THE WAY to the ground. 4) The rule states that it is not simultaneous catch if one player clearly has possession of the ball BEFORE the other, which I do not believe is the case here if the reviewer agrees with point 1) that one handed catches are possible.
People think the Seahawks player snuck his hand in there AFTER Jennings made the catch, which I don't believe is to be the case after inspection.
There's a clause in the rulebook that it's not simultaneous if one player clearly has initial possession and the other puts his hands on it after. If you believe the Green Bay DB was the first to have possession and retained it, as I do, it doesn't matter if Tate came in a split-second later and grabbed part of it. That's an interception.
If you don't understand at this point in your life, you never will. The NFL didn't even say they made the right call, just that they were right not to overturn it. The NFL knew they blew a judgement call, not that they didn't see something. The NFL only cares about protecting itself.
How do you not see in this picture that Jennings is in possession of the ball? Saying Tate has possession is like saying Charles Woodson does just because he is touching the ball.
Please read over my posts in this thread. I agree that Jennings' has 100% possession of the ball, that is not the question. The question is that if you think Tate's one hand under the ball that ends up being between Jennings' chest and the ball is enough for qualify as having possession, then you can argue that it is simultaneous possession because the ball hits all three hands at the same time. I'm just saying it's not as clear-cut as everyone makes it out to be.
Whoops, meant to say Seahawks player. Edited. Jennings had complete possession of the ball, yes, but with Tate's under the ball between his chest.
No, his hand, which doesn't even have the palm on the ball at the time Jennings catches it, should not qualify as possession. Tate does keep his hand on the ball, but how could he not since Jennings is pulling the ball down to his chest?
Like I said before, I actually agree it probably shouldn't count as possession, key word being PROBABLY. I'm just pointing out there at least an argument to be made and is not clear-cut, if you go by the letter of the rule.
You say probably. I say an absolute. What you are saying is essentially what the NFL wants everyone to really believe, that it wasn't 100% clear. It is 100% clear to me.
Why is it so absolute though? No one's explained why it's so absolute. Because crazy stuff like the Randy Moss catch has happened before, isn't there at least a small chance that the one hand can be interpreted as possession? I thought this immediately when the initial replays were being made, not after anything the NFL has said. Like I said, I actually had a bet on the Packers beating the spread and am in no way a fan of the Seahawks, I don't believe there was any personal bias when I first looked at it.
Randy Moss's catch isn't amazing. He grabbed a ball with his full hand and pulled it back in. It is clear that Tate didn't have possession when Jennings first did. Could Tate have caught that football? Yes. Did Tate have possession when Jennings first did? No.
No. It shouldn't have been come down to this play (though the Seahawks defense is legit). In the 4th quarter, the Packers should have had possession at the SEA 26 when Wilson threw a pick that was overturned on a questionable roughing the passer flag. Same drive, the Packers should have gained possession at the SEA 43 when, on a 4th down play, Sidney Rice CLEARLY committed offensive pass interference against Sam Shields, but instead gets the call to go in his favor. Instead Green Bay began their last possession on their own 7 yard line. An hey, maybe the last (blown call) only leads to overtime if Rodgers isn't given a KICKING ball by the refs on the 2pt conversion in 4th quarter.
If they don't call a phantom pass interference on the Seahawks on the Packers' TD drive, we might not be here either.
