MNF Ending

[Billso]

One hand touching the ball is not "possession", especially when the other guy has both arms around it.

Tate's hand was between the ball and Jennings' chest because it was trapped there by the fact Jennings had both arms around the ball and was hugging it to his chest.

Also notice Tate's right arm falls away while they are both on the way down. Once that happened, any possibility Tate had "possession" disappears.

Please cite NFL rulebook or casebook stating two hands are required for control or possession.

Please cite NFL rulebook or casebook stating that one player having more control than the other (e.g. two hands vs. one) is relevant to the definition of simultaneous catch.

You are introducing perfectly reasonable opinions which are, unfortunately, not found in the NFL rules.

 

[83Hawk]

Please cite NFL rulebook or casebook stating two hands are required for control or possession.

Please cite NFL rulebook or casebook stating that one player having more control than the other (e.g. two hands vs. one) is relevant to the definition of simultaneous catch.

You are introducing perfectly reasonable opinions which are, unfortunately, not found in the NFL rules.

Please cite where one hand is sufficient.

So it doesn't specifically say one or two hands...what's your point?

My point is: Jennings had both arms around the ball. Tate had one of his hands pinned between Jennings' chest and the ball. The other hand...while it may have been near the ball while in the air, fell away from Jennings' body during the fall...THEN once they were on the ground, Tate grabbed at Jennings' arm with that hand.

How is that any kind of possession by Tate...much less simultaneous possession?????? What do YOU think constitutes simultaneous possession? Since it really isn't spelled out in the rules?

If you think just putting a hand on the ball makes "simultaneous possession", then any time a pass is intercepted, or a hail mary is thrown...the receiver should just touch the ball at any time and be awarded possession.

Obviously the rule requires a ref to use common sense. I would think clutching the ball to your chest with both arms would be sufficient to establish possession....but to the one ref...I guess not.

It was a blown call, pure and simple.

 

[Billso]

Please cite where one hand is sufficient.

So it doesn't specifically say one or two hands...what's your point?

One-handed catches are credited every week. My point is two hands aren't required for possession in the NFL. That's why they don't specify it in the rules.

My point is: Jennings had both arms around the ball. Tate had one of his hands pinned between Jennings' chest and the ball. The other hand...while it may have been near the ball while in the air, fell away from Jennings' body during the fall...THEN once they were on the ground, Tate grabbed at Jennings' arm with that hand.

How is that any kind of possession by Tate...much less simultaneous possession?????? What do YOU think constitutes simultaneous possession? Since it really isn't spelled out in the rules?

If you think just putting a hand on the ball makes "simultaneous possession", then any time a pass is intercepted, or a hail mary is thrown...the receiver should just touch the ball at any time and be awarded possession.

Obviously the rule requires a ref to use common sense. I would think clutching the ball to your chest with both arms would be sufficient to establish possession....but to the one ref...I guess not.

It was a blown call, pure and simple.

I never said "just putting a hand on the ball" is sufficient for a sim-catch. Tate not only got his left hand around the ball AND in front of the defender's chest, but clearly had simultaneous control at the moment of ground contact. His right hand popped off briefly as they fell further, then he got it back on as the fall continued, without ever losing left-hand contact. See photo and end-zone video at Golden Tate's feet touch down

I'm a life-long Packers fan with an Aaron Rodgers jersey in my closet, and yet I can somehow manage to control my disappointment enough to look at this objectively. I thought it was a blown call on Monday night. Now I believe it's debatable at a minimum, and quite possibly the correct call (though they obviously missed Tate's obvious OPI)

 

[kicker22]

Nothing finer than listening to two people argue their interpretation of a rule and arguing that their interpretation is right and the others opinion is wrong. Sorry but it makes me laugh.