That is what Goodelle is counting on. I heard a piece on NPR the other day that the NFL is taking a hard line on the referees' union not for money (it would only cost them about $100K per team to accede to the referees' demands) but to send a message to the players' union.
No! I won't support this baaaaaaaaahhhhhh baahhhh bad product anym.....Oooo Brown vs Raven on Thursday!
My point is you can't say precisely one way or the other though. Although extremely unlikely, there is no way to prove that Tate WOULDN'T have made a miraculous catch with his left hand, holding onto it with one hand and maintaining possession through the ground. If the ball slipped out then all this would be wrong but it didn't and Jennings and Tate both had the ball at the end on the ground so it's impossible to tell. This is coming from a guy who lost money by betting on the Packers spread.
Why would any stop watching? If your still watching after all the other botched calls throughout the history of the NFL why would you stop now? You won't.
What replays are you watching? There are no hypotheticals at all here. Jennings had both hands on the ball brought it to his chest and came down with it in total control. It makes no difference how much Tates hand is touching the ball. If you think Tate has equal control of the football on the ground than you've just changed the entire determination of a catch from here on out. There will always be someone trying to justify what is blatantly obvious. There is no grey area here. The reason it wasn't overturned is because the replay officials can't determine possession. The call on the field should have been touchback.
You can say precisely, because he didn't catch it, the other guy did, which is why the one official correctly ruled a touchback and the other brainfarted his way into a mangled version of "simultaneous possession" Note - here's the part about the "simultaneous possession" rule that the official didn't know:
Like I said before, it comes down to Jennings who had CLEAR possession vs. Tate who MIGHT have had possession and on that grounds alone, it should be an interception because that to me is not "equal possession". The point I'm trying to make is, it's also impossible to prove that Tate DIDN'T have possession because he snuck a hand in there and wrestled it away and leaves it open to be interpreted as possession by a bad ref, which is what happened.
Because botched calls before were examples of the NFL trying its hardest to officiate games fairly and correctly. Now botched calls are all direct result of the NFLs greed and contempt for the players and the fans. Not saying it's gonna stop anyone, but the justification to stop watching has never been stronger.
I understand, and I agree with you, but the ball did hit Tate's left hand the same time Jennings wrapped his arms around it so Jennings technically didn't have possession "first" if you deem that Tate would have made a ridiculous one left handed catch.
You don't have to "prove" a guy didn't have possession. The situation you describe is expressly prohibited, again: Sure, if you deem something that clearly didn't happen to have happened, you can arrive at a conclusion saying it's justifiable.
The replay can't overturn it. That's the rule. A stupid one but most people would think a replay should be able to overturn it. It's stupid how replays have rules like this because it would have easily been overturned if the rules allowed it. There's no downside to a replay overturning something like this which is why I don't understand why it doesn't exist. The only thing the replay does is make sure the ball is caught with clearly maintaining possession to the ground.
I see didn't know that. Although you see replays determine often when a turnover is made and when it wasn't.
How can you say it "clearly didn't happen" though, how do you know 100% that Tate wouldn't have done this? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZLq3SWnhgUE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> The key thing with the "simultaneous possession" rule is that one person has to have possession FIRST, but that wasn't clear because the ball got to three hands simultaneously, two for Jennings and one for Tate.
because what could have happened isn't remotely relevant here to what actually happened. No it's not, you haven't read the rule again; the key thing for the "simultaneous catch" rule is for 2 players to catch the ball at the same time. One guy caught it, another guy grabbed him and stuck an arm in an attempt to claim it, and later wrestled his way into better position. By the letter and spirit of the rule, it's not a simultaneous catch. End of argument.
You're creating something out of nothing. It's simultaneous POSSESSION, not simultaneous touching. It doesn't matter if Tate's hand touches the ball at the same time as Jennings grabbing it. It's really very simple.
We're viewing the replays differently then. Watch the replay carefully. It looks like to me that Tate's hand is on the ball the same time Jennings has two hands on it. Unless it's in the rules that two hands beats one hand somewhere, this isn't has clear as people make it out to be.
I dont' buy this excuse, you can use the replay to determine whether or not it's a catch, that's all you need to overturn the call.
That's the thing though. They couldn't overturn the call if they said touchdown on the field. By rule, it's not possible for them to do it. Obviously with one's two eyes, you can clearly see Jennings had it, but this rule that you can't overturn it just doesn't make any sense. I really don't understand why anything that's controversial can't be looked at and overturned, it doesn't hurt to look at a replay and get it right.
