Why the Seahawks vs. GB final call was wrong

[jason]

Establishing a few things about the NFL rules I have read this morning:

1) Control precedes Possession

2) Possession precedes a catch

3) A catch requires two feet or some other body part that is not the hands to contact the ground

 

In the NFL and College rule books they have what are called Approved Rulings (AR). They explain what the correct call is in an odd situation where the rule is not perfectly clear. The following is the AR for the final play [A is the offense and B is the defense]:

 

A.R. 8.29: First and 10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. RULING: B's ball, first and 10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.

 

So, the reason the GB defender should have been awarded the INT is because of the word "control." There is no doubt that Tate was the first to catch the ball (i.e. he had control, had possession, and his two feet touched the ground in bounds before Jennings), but he was not the first to control the ball.

 

If the control of the ball in the air wasn't so clear cut, and the ball wiggled a little or was spun laterally while they were grabbing for it, then the call would have been correct because Tate satisfied the other requirements first. As it stands, however, control-->possession-->catch.

[madlithuanian]

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Looks like it was a bad call.

 

But I'm happy it was.

 

Establishing a few things about the NFL rules I have read this morning:

1) Control precedes Possession

2) Possession precedes a catch

3) A catch requires two feet or some other body part that is not the hands to contact the ground

 

In the NFL and College rule books they have what are called Approved Rulings (AR). They explain what the correct call is in an odd situation where the rule is not perfectly clear. The following is the AR for the final play [A is the offense and B is the defense]:

 

A.R. 8.29: First and 10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. RULING: B's ball, first and 10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.

 

So, the reason the GB defender should have been awarded the INT is because of the word "control." There is no doubt that Tate was the first to catch the ball (i.e. he had control, had possession, and his two feet touched the ground in bounds before Jennings), but he was not the first to control the ball.

 

If the control of the ball in the air wasn't so clear cut, and the ball wiggled a little or was spun laterally while they were grabbing for it, then the call would have been correct because Tate satisfied the other requirements first. As it stands, however, control-->possession-->catch.

 

[rockren]

Don't make this any more complicated than it is.....

 

That was an INT.

 

There. Done.

[jason]

Don't make this any more complicated than it is.....

 

That was an INT.

 

There. Done.

 

Unfortunately, when dealing with the actual rules of football, it's not as simple as you think. When dealing with the NFL's rules, it's even worse. Otherwise, you'd have never heard of the Tuck Rule. This is especially true in regards to the play in question, because, technically, Tate was the first one to catch the ball (by the strict definition of a catch and possession in the NFL). But control of the ball by Jennings was first.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Don't make this any more complicated than it is.....

 

That was an INT.

 

There. Done.

 

 

Acutally you complicated it, Seahawks won. Bad call or not.

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Unfortunately, when dealing with the actual rules of football, it's not as simple as you think. When dealing with the NFL's rules, it's even worse. Otherwise, you'd have never heard of the Tuck Rule. This is especially true in regards to the play in question, because, technically, Tate was the first one to catch the ball (by the strict definition of a catch and possession in the NFL). But control of the ball by Jennings was first.

 

I can understand and appreciate the frustration many have shown about how this call should or should not have gone. But in my opinion this is turinng into, what I used to hear in the Navy, as a "nuking it situation". That means its getting WAY too overnalyzed. I further understand the advancement of technology and how things are not what they once were. I honestly miss the days of leather helmets (not that I was alive in those days) and the basics of football. This call last night on any other day would have been determined a TD or INT LAST NIGHT and that would have been the end of it. Packers or Seahawks fans would have hurt feelings but oh well. With the analysis of a call like this what ends up happening is we find ourselves looking for miniscule details that are impossible to determine at game speed and with the naked eye. Before you know it we (as fans) will be watching games for 5-6 hours because the ref has to look at replay film of 30 different angles to determine if the receiver's toe touched green grass or white grass, when catching a ball out of bounds, while first his one hand touched the ball then the second and his shirt was tucked in.

[rockren]

Acutally you complicated it, Seahawks won. Bad call or not.

 

This reminder is good news.

[madlithuanian]

Well said...

 

 

I'm just happy it wasn't us and it was them.

 

 

 

I can understand and appreciate the frustration many have shown about how this call should or should not have gone. But in my opinion this is turinng into, what I used to hear in the Navy, as a "nuking it situation". That means its getting WAY too overnalyzed. I further understand the advancement of technology and how things are not what they once were. I honestly miss the days of leather helmets (not that I was alive in those days) and the basics of football. This call last night on any other day would have been determined a TD or INT LAST NIGHT and that would have been the end of it. Packers or Seahawks fans would have hurt feelings but oh well. With the analysis of a call like this what ends up happening is we find ourselves looking for miniscule details that are impossible to determine at game speed and with the naked eye. Before you know it we (as fans) will be watching games for 5-6 hours because the ref has to look at replay film of 30 different angles to determine if the receiver's toe touched green grass or white grass, when catching a ball out of bounds, while first his one hand touched the ball then the second and his shirt was tucked in.

 

[LT2_3]

Establishing a few things about the NFL rules I have read this morning:

1) Control precedes Possession

2) Possession precedes a catch

3) A catch requires two feet or some other body part that is not the hands to contact the ground

 

In the NFL and College rule books they have what are called Approved Rulings (AR). They explain what the correct call is in an odd situation where the rule is not perfectly clear. The following is the AR for the final play [A is the offense and B is the defense]:

 

A.R. 8.29: First and 10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. RULING: B's ball, first and 10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control.

 

So, the reason the GB defender should have been awarded the INT is because of the word "control." There is no doubt that Tate was the first to catch the ball (i.e. he had control, had possession, and his two feet touched the ground in bounds before Jennings), but he was not the first to control the ball.

 

If the control of the ball in the air wasn't so clear cut, and the ball wiggled a little or was spun laterally while they were grabbing for it, then the call would have been correct because Tate satisfied the other requirements first. As it stands, however, control-->possession-->catch.

 

You got any links for any of this?

 

I'm primarily looking for a definition of "control". I'm not certain if the defender "controlled" the ball long enough in the split second between when he got his hands on it first and when the offensive player got his mitts on it too.

 

We all know that for something to be a catch, the ball can't be moving around in a guy's grasp before he goes out of bounds. That's the "control" part. Can you show me indisputable visual evidence that the defensive player had full and unequivocal "control" before the offensive player got his mitts in there to gain "control" and "possession" simultaneously?

 

My point is that it happens in a split second and replay probably can't overturn it because of the back and forth nature of the players fighting over it. This would be a controversial call either way even if it was made by regular refs.

 

I applaud your research into it. I'm just not sure that the defensive player gained "control" before the offensive player.

 

 

[ChileBear]

This reminder is good news.

Shit happens! Welcome to the NFL, Puckers. Refs, all of them, are human. Let's go back a few years to that Lions catch in the endzone that wasn't a catch thus saved our butts.

[Controlled Chaos]

You got any links for any of this?

 

I'm primarily looking for a definition of "control". I'm not certain if the defender "controlled" the ball long enough in the split second between when he got his hands on it first and when the offensive player got his mitts on it too.

 

We all know that for something to be a catch, the ball can't be moving around in a guy's grasp before he goes out of bounds. That's the "control" part. Can you show me indisputable visual evidence that the defensive player had full and unequivocal "control" before the offensive player got his mitts in there to gain "control" and "possession" simultaneously?

 

My point is that it happens in a split second and replay probably can't overturn it because of the back and forth nature of the players fighting over it. This would be a controversial call either way even if it was made by regular refs.

 

I applaud your research into it. I'm just not sure that the defensive player gained "control" before the offensive player.

Exactly. How does one determine control when talking about hundredths of a second. Initially, Tate had one hand on the ball when Jennings had 2 and I would argue control cannot be established when there are 3 hands on it. So in reality nobody had sole "control" in the air.

 

What is the outcome of this same exact play on a sideline?? Let's say both players feet come down in bounds before tumbling out of bounds, and the receiver had one hand on the ball the same way Tate did, do you think it would be ruled an IT?? I don't. I think it would be ruled neither player had control or possession before going out of bounds. I just can't see conclusively determining control while another hand is on the ball, which means the A.R. example above...doesn't apply.

here's a new look... http://m.nfl.com/news/0ap1000000066164/

 

Either way....it's not clear cut....

 

[jason]

You got any links for any of this?

 

I'm primarily looking for a definition of "control". I'm not certain if the defender "controlled" the ball long enough in the split second between when he got his hands on it first and when the offensive player got his mitts on it too.

 

We all know that for something to be a catch, the ball can't be moving around in a guy's grasp before he goes out of bounds. That's the "control" part. Can you show me indisputable visual evidence that the defensive player had full and unequivocal "control" before the offensive player got his mitts in there to gain "control" and "possession" simultaneously?

 

My point is that it happens in a split second and replay probably can't overturn it because of the back and forth nature of the players fighting over it. This would be a controversial call either way even if it was made by regular refs.

 

I applaud your research into it. I'm just not sure that the defensive player gained "control" before the offensive player.

 

I'm working on it. But, ultimately, I agree with what you said. The problem of course is that eventually this will be a judgement issue, and if the official on the field judged that "control" was established, it almost doesn't matter what comes after that.

[jason]

I can understand and appreciate the frustration many have shown about how this call should or should not have gone. But in my opinion this is turinng into, what I used to hear in the Navy, as a "nuking it situation". That means its getting WAY too overnalyzed. I further understand the advancement of technology and how things are not what they once were. I honestly miss the days of leather helmets (not that I was alive in those days) and the basics of football. This call last night on any other day would have been determined a TD or INT LAST NIGHT and that would have been the end of it. Packers or Seahawks fans would have hurt feelings but oh well. With the analysis of a call like this what ends up happening is we find ourselves looking for miniscule details that are impossible to determine at game speed and with the naked eye. Before you know it we (as fans) will be watching games for 5-6 hours because the ref has to look at replay film of 30 different angles to determine if the receiver's toe touched green grass or white grass, when catching a ball out of bounds, while first his one hand touched the ball then the second and his shirt was tucked in.

 

Yes, the analyzation is getting crazy. People are shitting themselves over a call that is milliseconds away from being right or wrong. The human eye just doesn't work like that with 100% accuracy. And even with replay it's difficult to ascertain at times.

 

Naked eye: Looked like joint possession to me. Several fellow officials and I were texting back and forth during the game, and during the controversial plays, and you'd be surprised at the disagreement between several VERY good officials, some at quite high levels.

[madlithuanian]

It's really the perfect storm. I'm shocked at the utter outrage besides some former players and Green Bay fans.

 

But, you tack in 3 weeks of shoddy officiating, a game deciding call, against n NFL regime pounding their chests about bounties, the recent NFLPA deal fiasco, that we live in a world of twits facebooks and instant media, the fact that it was on a national MNF game, and that it was against the darling Packers...thus everyone but a minority is outraged.

 

It's far from the worst call in NFL history. That was the coin flip. Even my grandma could get that one right. This one required, at minimum, a really amazing knowledge of some intricate rules. And there is some gray area there despite what every so-called expert is saying. Or even the Testverde TD... The ball never got in the end zone! Here, at least one could argue Tate had Some possession of the ball.

 

Sadly, this is going to permeate the entire season as Fudgie fans are going to want to put an asterik on the season. If those dolts don't make it in the playoffs, we're going to hear about this ad nausea.

 

Yes, the analyzation is getting crazy. People are shitting themselves over a call that is milliseconds away from being right or wrong. The human eye just doesn't work like that with 100% accuracy. And even with replay it's difficult to ascertain at times.

 

Naked eye: Looked like joint possession to me. Several fellow officials and I were texting back and forth during the game, and during the controversial plays, and you'd be surprised at the disagreement between several VERY good officials, some at quite high levels.

 

[adam]

Jennings could've just batted the ball down and none of this would've happened. Isn't that what they are taught to do?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Jennings could've just batted the ball down and none of this would've happened. Isn't that what they are taught to do?

 

Or as many have said, Green Bay could have played better (like everyone assumes they will) and put the game away in the 2nd or 3rd quarter.

 

"If you wanna crown their a**, then go ahead!"

I'll say it again... The Pack is NOT what we thought they were.

[jason]

If anyone wants a PDF of the NFL Rulebook from last year, let me know. It provides the A.R. that I pasted previously in this thread.

 

As for control, possession, and catch, it's kind of fuzzy. Possession is established when a player controls the ball and comes down inbounds, with either both feet or some other body part that is not the hands. That process completes the catch unless they go to the ground, in which case they have to have control of the ball all the way through. But in terms of a definition of control, it's not there. The best that is there is the A.R. I provided, because it clears up the gray area of whether a player can have "control" of the ball while he is in the air. The guideline appears to be control-->possession-->catch.

 

To be honest, with that close of a call, with that many bodies around, with the inability to see what Tate's hands are touching, I'm not so sure the regular NFL guys wouldn't have screwed the pooch on that one as well.