Am I the Only One Who Thinks Seattle Won?

[Footman DCXLV]

No matter what sports show you turn on, this is all anybody is talking about. Was it an interception or a touchdown?
Nobody can say the Packers player didn't catch the ball first, but everybody seems to be forgetting that catching the ball in the air does not give you possession of the ball. You have to hold it all the way through the ground. By the time he hit the ground, Golden Tate had gained possession, as well. And, as we all know, ties go to the receiver.
It's a real bummer for the Packers player, because he should have had an interception. He caught the ball, on his own, and that should have been that. But, you can't just catch a ball in the air and expect guaranteed possession by the time you land. You have to follow the catch all the way through. He essentially allowed Golden Tate to catch/steal the ball from him, which he wouldn't have been able to do if the Packers player hadn't caught it the way he did.

There are many other points involved, like the missed PI call, the confusion of the refs (the real officials would have called this the exact same way, by the way), but the only thing that matters, and the thing everybody is either forgetting or ignoring, is that you do not have possession of the ball until you land without losing it. By the time they landed, which is the only point throughout the process of the catch that matters, it WAS mutual possession.

Am I missing something, here? Or, is everybody just bent out of shape because it should have been an interception?

[ravensdfan]

Being discussed here:

http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/topic/48611-week-3-discussion-other-games/

But be prepared. It's just me and one other guy against the world lol

Honestly, while it is impossible to say definitively, my gut says that had this been the other way around, a TD awarded to GB and Seattle's INT negated, no one would be talking about it all in the media. It is just that it happened to GB and Rodgers.

[RavensFanInCA]

You're not the only one, but you're probably in a minority. I can understand how the refs would call it a TD, but the definition of a catch to football and a catch to people is different, so to say they both caught the ball "simultaneously" is a stretch for most people. Other than that, it's still questionable if Tate actually had true possession (control) or just two hands on the ball. I would argue that to truly call a simultaneous catch that given both players current grip on the ball, there is a better than 25% chance they could gain sole possession of the ball. Do I have confidence that Tate could've done that? No. Hence, I don't agree with the call, but I can see where the refs called it a tD.

[Purple Punishment]

The sports media blew this situation the hell up to get the ball rolling. I'm for the lockout ending. We were royally screwed in Philly

[Footman DCXLV]

That's exactly the point. We don't make the rules. The NFL makes the rules, and based on the rules we use every single week, it would not have been an interception until he landed with possession. Also, based on those rules, there isn't a difference between possession and having two hands on the ball. If you have two hands on the ball, and it isn't moving, that's possession. Based on those two facts, by the time BOTH players landed on the ground, they BOTH had possession.
As a person using only common sense, I completely agree that Green Bay intercepted the ball, and that player had much greater control over the ball than Golden Tate did. But, unfortunately, it's not about common sense. These people should be arguing with the NFL over the rules, not saying they're wrong.

[Gordo52]

Imagine the receiver was the packers guy Jennings. It would be ruled a touchdown no doubt about it.

[RavensFanInCA]

[quote name='Footman DCXLV' timestamp='1348678544' post='1168054']
That's exactly the point. We don't make the rules. The NFL makes the rules, and based on the rules we use every single week, it would not have been an interception until he landed with possession. Also, based on those rules, there isn't a difference between possession and having two hands on the ball. If you have two hands on the ball, and it isn't moving, that's possession. Based on those two facts, by the time BOTH players landed on the ground, they BOTH had possession.
As a person using only common sense, I completely agree that Green Bay intercepted the ball, and that player had much greater control over the ball than Golden Tate did. But, unfortunately, it's not about common sense. These people should be arguing with the NFL over the rules, not saying they're wrong.
[/quote]

Well, they [i]do[/i] sometimes make a distinction between possession and two hands on the ball. If it's on the ground and you have hands on it, it's not necessarily possession since the ground "has" the ball. It ends up creating this grey area (at least to me). Plus, possession when you're a single person doesn't require to hands. You can do a one-handed catch as well. There's a factor of "control" that seems to be up to interpretation.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Footman DCXLV' timestamp='1348678544' post='1168054']
That's exactly the point. We don't make the rules. The NFL makes the rules, and based on the rules we use every single week, it would not have been an interception until he landed with possession. Also, based on those rules, there isn't a difference between possession and having two hands on the ball. If you have two hands on the ball, and it isn't moving, that's possession. Based on those two facts, by the time BOTH players landed on the ground, they BOTH had possession.
As a person using only common sense, I completely agree that Green Bay intercepted the ball, and that player had much greater control over the ball than Golden Tate did. But, unfortunately, it's not about common sense. These people should be arguing with the NFL over the rules, not saying they're wrong.
[/quote]the only person who had possession on the ground was Jennings. Tate got hands on in the air and lost it again. By the time he hit the ground his hands were hooked onto Jennings arms and then he wrestled for the ball.

Codizzle I think it was posted an image in the other thread a couple of pages back showing this. And until that pic I thought it was simultaneous possession, which would be a td. But it wasn't.

[Footman DCXLV]

[quote name='RavensFanInCA' timestamp='1348680767' post='1168100']
Well, they [i]do[/i] sometimes make a distinction between possession and two hands on the ball. If it's on the ground and you have hands on it, it's not necessarily possession since the ground "has" the ball
[/quote]

That's again only true if the ball moves. If you have two hands on the ball, and it then hits the ground but does not move or come loose, you retain possession and it's ruled a catch.


[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1348683281' post='1168127']
Codizzle I think it was posted an image in the other thread a couple of pages back showing this. And until that pic I thought it was simultaneous possession, which would be a td. But it wasn't.
[/quote]

I just saw that image, and it only strengthens my feel that the rule should be different, but by the rule it's still a catch. Jennings lands with one foot seconds before his second foot hits the ground, which I think was a big part of this. He won't have possession until he has both feet on the ground. By the time both feet hit, it has become simultaneous possession. That being said, he did wrestle the ball away from Tate for just a second, as seen in that picture. But, Tate always has one hand on the ball and quickly gets his second hand back on it. Had both hands come off the ball, it would have been ruled an interception. But, you don't lose possession of the ball unless it's forced loose in your possession (Jennings simultaneous possession made that impossible) or if the ball is separated from your body (one handed catches, a catch between your knees, it doesn't matter as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground, or come completely loose).

[gabefergy]

The real blunder was by the officials on the field. I can understand why there was not sufficient evidence through replay to overturn the call by strict letter of the law.

[Footman DCXLV]

Agreed. I honestly think the real officials would have called this a touchdown, too. But, hopefully, they wouldn't have looked quite as confused about it, so it wouldn't have been as big of a deal.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='ravensdfan' timestamp='1348677458' post='1168033']
Being discussed here:

[url="http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/topic/48611-week-3-discussion-other-games/"]http://boards.baltim...on-other-games/[/url]

But be prepared. It's just me and one other guy against the world lol

Honestly, while it is impossible to say definitively, my gut says that had this been the other way around, [b]a TD awarded to GB and Seattle's INT negated, no one would be talking about it all in the media. It is just that it happened to GB and Rodgers.[/b]
[/quote]

Nah, I disagree. Even though GB is much more respected nationally than Seattle, the main story coming out was the refs, and rightfully so. I don't think it matters who was playing, the story is the refs.

But I can make a case for Seattle. There were bad calls all over the field that night, some going against them and some going against GB, which helped change the SCRIPT (for lack of a better term) of the game, and helped set up the situation at the end. But who else is pointing that out?

Having said that, Jennings had it trapped against his body, and had more possession than Tate. I think they got it wrong, and they certainly missed the blatant push off.

[kingcars]

I personally find it hilarious that we were much more obviously robbed of a touchdown last week against the Eagles, and when Flacco made one comment about it, everyone just said "LOLZ FLACCO you suck, learn how to close out a game and quit crying!" but now that it happened to pretty-boy Aaron Rodgers, people are acting like it's the end of the world and every single player on the team is crying about it. I also believe that this was a call that the regular refs could very easily have made and upheld. Truth be told, they need to stop worrying about the ref call and instead worry about the fact that the "high powered" Packers offense only scored 12 points. And no, Aaron, a non-kicking ball would not have made your receiver magically be open on the 2pt conversion.

[arnie_uk]

I only just found out the Seahawks dominated gb and had 8 sacks, 4 by Clemons alone after watching the game on game pass. This dominating performance didn't make one headline, not one, and I'd be willing to be that's the best performance by any d all year. It also reinforced my feeling the Seahawks that the seahawKs are one of the best defences in the league, and if they retain their YOUNG core will be no.1 in a few years.

[raybaby]

The simultaneous rule does not apply to possession it applies to CONTROL. Those two things are very different. Green Bay's defender clearly had control first while in the air. Tate possibly getting his hands on it as the they go to the ground is irrelevant. The media is not wrongfully blowing this up. Players all around the league are not wrongfully blowing this up.

[Moderator 3]

ESPN just "proved" on a Sports Science segment that Tate could not possibly have caught that ball.

[Cville-Raven]

In all honesty for those Packers fans, the game should have never been that close. Rogers and the O-line stunk it up; they had opportunities and drives to separate themselves and they did not capitalize.

[BrownsFan]

Answer to the title of this thread: yes.

[1/28/01]

Yes, you are. And your explanation is flawed and incorrect. Sorry

[display name]

[quote name='Footman DCXLV' timestamp='1348675872' post='1168005']
No matter what sports show you turn on, this is all anybody is talking about. Was it an interception or a touchdown?
Nobody can say the Packers player didn't catch the ball first, but everybody seems to be forgetting that catching the ball in the air does not give you possession of the ball. You have to hold it all the way through the ground. By the time he hit the ground, Golden Tate had gained possession, as well. And, as we all know, ties go to the receiver.
It's a real bummer for the Packers player, because he should have had an interception. He caught the ball, on his own, and that should have been that. But, you can't just catch a ball in the air and expect guaranteed possession by the time you land. You have to follow the catch all the way through. He essentially allowed Golden Tate to catch/steal the ball from him, which he wouldn't have been able to do if the Packers player hadn't caught it the way he did.

[b]There are many other points involved, like the missed PI call, the confusion of the refs (the real officials would have called this the exact same way, by the way),[/b] but the only thing that matters, and the thing everybody is either forgetting or ignoring, is that you do not have possession of the ball until you land without losing it. By the time they landed, which is the only point throughout the process of the catch that matters, it WAS mutual possession.

Am I missing something, here? Or, is everybody just bent out of shape because it should have been an interception?
[/quote]
wow