Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
The call at the end of the Seattle/Green Bay game was correct.
Try reading the rulebook, watching the slow-mo, and not being a sheep.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/
http://lifexinxrewind.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-the-seahawks-packers-finish-was-not-an-interception-and-why-it-would-have-been-called-the-same-by-any-referee-crew/
If you have a moment.
"secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and"
1) If you want to wordsmith the rules, then notice that it says "hands" not "hand". It never says anything about one-handed catches.
Even if you accept one handed catches...
2) It says "secures control", which is obviously a judgement call. There is no way to scientifically determine what "securing control" means. Therefore, simply placing you hand on the football in no way demonstrates proof of any control. The very idea that you can "secure control" a football with one hand while another player has TWO hands (or even ONE hand) on the ball, is, by my judgment, ridiculous at best.
The article then points out examples of individual players making uncontested one-handed catches where they maintained control for seconds after the catch. Those are absurd comparisons. It's like saying, "By placing my hand on top of this boulder, I have proof that I am holding its entire weight with the palm of my hand, despite the fact that the ground is also touching the boulder." vs, "I am holding a rock in my hand with nothing else touching the rock, so obviously I have control."
Then the article talks about how it is a touchdown the MOMENT the Seahawk player has two feet down and nothing else that happens after that matters. This completely ignores the rule below...
"(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."
And this part...
"Some people think Tate moving his right hand off of Jennings for a moment before moving it back for the ball means he lost control. This is not true,
as we have seen examples of plays where a player can move their hand off the ball, but it is fine as long as they still maintain control the whole time. Tate always had control with his left hand."
Say wah?
"A player can move their hand off the ball"? What if they only had ONE hand on the ball and then moved that ONE hand off the ball? How many hands do they now have on the ball? ZERO. And no, in no conception of the rules does having zero hands on the ball "maintain" anything.
This is the most crucial part of the play, and I love how the article conveniently talks about "frame-by-frame" analysis, but of course does not show any frames of the moment when this occurred.
It also does not show a single frame where he had two hands on the ball. Not ONE frame. There are several frames where Jennings had two hands on the ball.
That being said, it is possible for the refs to miss that type of thing live, but there is no excuse for the replay refs to miss it.
I'm sorry, I'm glad the Seahawks won that game, because it was against Green Bay, but there is no way that call is legit. The rules require a JUDGMENT call with "control", and to think that placing one hand on a ball automatically gives you control, is fallacious.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Dec 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM ]