Rants, Reviews, Musings, and otherwise unconstructive critisisms of what you like and why I'm always right.

Why the Seahawks-Packers finish was not an interception, and why it would have been called the same by any referee crew.

You probably have seen the play numerous times by now. Monday Night Football. Seattle Seahawks vs Green Bay Packers. After a game full of dubious calls by the much-maligned replacement officials, fans of both teams are heated at perceived injustices. With the score 12-7 and needing a touchdown to win, the Seahawks face a 4th down, do or die play from the 24 yard line:

The game ends with Seattle winning 14-12. The announcers, initially stunned at the play, decide upon replay that the touchdown call is incorrect. With each passing viewing of it in slow motion, they declare it a “tragedy” and spend the rest of the broadcast bemoaning the “jobbing” Green Bay has been handed. Controversy erupts across the nation at the Touchdown call that brings an epic end to the game. But instead of Golden Tate and Russell Wilson being praised for their unlikely last-second epic win, the Seahawks are branded as “cheaters”. The internet explodes as 70,000+ voicemails are left for the league complaining about what many dub “the worst call in NFL history”. The verdict is clear to most: Green Bay was robbed and Seattle didn’t deserve to win. The two complaints are that offensive pass interference should have been called on Golden Tate for pushing a Green Bay DB out of the way, and that Jennings should have been awarded an interception on the actual catch.

Before we dive too much more into the controversy on this, I will cover one thing. Golden Tate definitely, definitively pushed off and committed what should have been offensive Pass Interference. The NFL agreed after the fact that it should have been called. The only problem is, this was on a hail mary pass where you would be hard pressed to find even one example of that being called in a past NFL game, even though pushing off routinely happens. Much like in NBA games where officials basically never call a foul with under 5 seconds left, NFL referees are not going to call a subjective penalty on the last play of the game if they can help it. So while Offensive PI would be the correct call, according to the rules it is unreviewable by instant replay, and once it was missed it is out of the conversation. You would be unlikely to convince this NFL fan that any other referee crew would have flagged Tate for the push, either. There’s plenty of evidence going around to show just how rare a Pass Interference call on the defense OR the offense is in these situations.

For the purposes of this article we are going to focus on the claim that it should have been called an interception. Let’s read over and keep in mind the exact NFL rule for this situation:

“Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.”

In real-time, it looks like it this rule would apply. Both players jump into the air, come down with the ball and wrestle with it on the ground before the official makes the touchdown signal. The national announcer even says “Tate..with Jennings…simultaneous…who’s got it?!” when it happens live, implying it is not clear at all who has caught the ball. Did anyone who watched the game live feel differently? If I’m that ref, I know what I saw: A bunch of players jump into the air, the ball comes down and then Tate and Jennings are wrestling over it. The ref sees they both have a hold of it and clearly decides “simultaneous possession goes to the offense. Touchdown.”

The point of contention for most people  is that when the replays came up, Jennings of the Packers seems to grab control of the ball first, pull it in and maintain control the entire time, whereas Tate seems to not have nearly as much control of the ball, only trying desperately to get some of it. To the vast majority of fans, Jennings should be credited with an interception, because they don’t feel Tate had mutual possession of the ball. Some people are saying that Tate has “fingers” or “an arm” on the ball, but conclude that he doesn’t have enough of it to warrant getting credit for the catch.

Here’s where the rule and careful analysis comes into play.

It becomes clear from the above angle that Tate actually gets his left hand on the ball first, right before Jennings grabs it. A lot of people will then point out that Tate removes his right hand briefly to get a better grip, and thus supposedly Jennings keeps possession and Tate loses it. One important thing to note is that Tate’s left hand never releases the ball, so saying he loses all control at the point he readjusts his right hand is very dubious. There’s no evidence Tate has lost control with the left hand when this happens. The other important part is that when Tate’s right hand readjusts, he does so before Jennings feet touch the ground. By NFL rules Jennings has not established possession yet as both feet are still in the air, so not interception has taken place anyway. When they both hit the ground and both have two hands on it, they both are awarded possession, which would go to the offensive player. Tate’s left hand has partial control over the ball at all times, and Tate also gets a nice grip on it with the right hand before Jennings touches down. Either way, Tate has some of the ball the entire time, lands and completes the requirements for a catch.

In fact, Tate actually touches ground first:

According to the rules, this is why the call was correct. 2 Feet down, mutual possession of the ball, while Jennings is still in the air which by rule means he can’t have possession yet. Touchdown.

People have been posting a picture a lot that shows them on the ground 5 seconds later, after the players roll over and BOTH officials are on the field. At this point Jennings has way more of the ball due to torquing his body and Tate is holding on for dear life. That has nothing to do with the actual catch, just shows how Jennings had better positioning. There is no questioning Jennings had more control of the ball and better positioning, but the play was over when both hit the ground. If this was a game of flyer’s up, where both players are equal, Jennings gets credit for the catch. In this case, though, all the offensive player needs is share some of the possession as well, which Tate did. Once Tate has possession in the end zone, it’s a touchdown and the play is over even if the defender had managed to wrestle it away after they roll over.

Still not convinced? More evidence can be found in this video. The video is zoomed in on Tate’s left hand, where it becomes clear he immediately has a grip on the ball and maintains it throughout the entire catch. Keep an eye on the left hand!

A back angle also shows how Tate has his hands on the ball at the same time as Jennings, right at the beginning of the catch! It just isn’t as clear on other replays due to their positioning.

Possession for Jennings would begin as soon as he touches the ground, which begins here in the play:

You can see that by that time, Tate has both hands on the ball. Jennings still has better positioning, of course, but as we’ve covered that doesn’t matter. And interception could not have occured until this moment, and Tate has had partial control the entire time. As long as Tate doesn’t lose the ball upon completing the catch, it stays a touchdown.

Moving on, Tate  hits the ground on his butt:

The play is officially dead when both men are on the ground, which again looks like both still have a handle on the ball:

At this point we can safely say that Tate had one firm hand on the ball throughout the play, and two hands gripping the ball from before the point where he OR Jennings hit the ground, starting actual possession.

When both players hit the ground, it sure looks like equal possession of the ball, so how can anyone say Tate only gets “a finger” on it, like has been repeated?

Here we can see a clear view of the ball, and Tate obviously has a claim to it:

(Thanks to Mike Sando for providing this image in his MNF Last Play album)

A back angle (and longer take) of the video provided by Q13 Seattle is helpful to pose this question: If Jennings has sole control, and Tate doesn’t, why can’t Jennings get the ball away from Tate at all? Throughout the catch Jennings never pulls the ball away from Tate. Even after they land and Jennings has rolled over, using all his strength to try to pull the ball away, he can’t, because Tate’s left hand is around the ball tight the entire time. Again, Tate does move his right arm during the catch, but this happens before he or Jennings touches the ground anyway, and more importantly he never loses that other hand on the ball.  If Tate does not have possession or control over the ball, the way Jennings reacts and struggles makes no sense. He should be able to rip it away easily. Check out the video in the link below:

(This means you, skeptics that think Tate has no control over the ball)

http://www.q13fox.com/sports/football/seahawks/kcpq-seahawks-capitalize-on-lastsecond-hail-mary-pass-beat-packers-1412-20120924,0,5401209.story

Analyst Steve Gallo provides us this great image taken from the video, clearly marking out Golden Tate’s left hand securely around the ball, stopping Jennings from pulling it into his chest. You can check out the original image along with his informative take on the play over at Full Impact Football:

The back angle video and image shows clearly that while Jennings initially appears to be holding the ball to his chest, he’s actually holding it against Tate’s left hand. Tate has his left hand firmly around the ball from the top of the jump all the way to the ground. Coupled with the fact that he got his right hand on it before Jennings was out of the air, it’s clear that Tate had at least partial control of the ball from the beginning of the catch until he landed. That’s all he needs. It doesn’t matter if Jennings has most of the control. It’s still a touchdown.

So to recap, we’ve established:

-Tate touched the ball first, and had it with his left hand all the way from the beginning of the play until the end.

-Tate adjusting his right hand had no effect on his left hand/arm being around the ball at all times.

-Jennings could not pull the ball away from Tate at any point during the play, implying Tate has some control over the ball as well.

-Tate completes the requirements of a completed catch before Jennings has even touched down, and therefore before an interception could ever take place.

To me, this is more than enough to call this play a touchdown, and at the very least enough to get rid of this opinion of an “obvious interception” or “terrible call”.

Finally, to hammer home the point. Here’s an example of the SAME THING happening with no controversy in an NFL game. Two players go up, the defender appears to have the interception but the offensive player grabs on too. Touchdown. Notice the similarities, and how the result is the same. Touchdown:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d822277bc/Austin-steals-jump-ball

In my opinion, the ESPN and the national media coverage of this game has been atrocious. In addition to not covering the actual specific rule properly when judging the play, they also have not bothered to be reasonable considering what the play looked like in real-time to the officials and judge them fairly. In my opinion, this is such a big deal nationally for three reasons:

1.. A less popular team from the northwest won in controversial fashion over a very popular team from the east. Does anyone doubt this would not be as big of a controversy had it been reversed, with the Seahawks losing?

2. To create controversy and draw ratings. The Sportscenter following MNF was the highest rated since 1995.

and most importantly,

3. To finish the storyline of the replacement referees ruining the game. People want the real refs back and this pushes the argument over the edge by running with the storyling that the replacements cost a team a game unfairly.

No one is arguing that the replacement refs have done a good job. This game alone was filled with at least 8 dubious calls going against both teams. That is not the argument though. People seem to be letting their perception of the ineffective referees decide that the play must have been ruled incorrectly without considering the details.

I believe that you are not being reasonable if you can’t admit, at the very least, that it was a close play. I don’t expect to change everyone’s mind. But even if you think it was an interception, calling this the “worst call ever”, as many videos of the play have been named, is ridiculous.

Is this call worse than the infamous Vinny Testeverde touchdown against the Seahawks that led to instant replay being implemented to begin with? (On the play in question, the ball never came close to the endzone, but officials mistook Vinny’s helmet for the football, which barely crossed the goal. They awarded him a touchdown).

After all, if you saw this in real time:

Would you be 100% sure you could make the correct call, all while interpreting the rules to the letter? Not even a regular official would have called it differently. Watching it live like the officials did, it’s completely understandable why they called it a touchdown for the Seahawks. Admit that it could have gone either way, and you will have my respect. And consider that maybe, just maybe, they got it right (at least, as right as the NFL ever gets it). Thank you.

EDIT: Please make sure to check out this other excellent article on the play, which uses many of the same points I did, and also does a great job referencing other plays to form precedent:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

About these ads

719 responses

  1. JRS

    You sir, are a fucking moron. Having your finger tips on the ball does not establish posession.

    September 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    • Mikey84

      Tyree in Super Bowl 42 used his helmet and established possession.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      • JJ

        go back and watch that catch again. Tyree held the ball to his helmet for a second or two but got both hands on the ball to make the catch

        all this is is a seahawks fan trying desperately to defend the win they dont deserve. and no, im not a packers fan. actually, ive disliked the packers for a few years now and id prefer if they didnt win. but losing to the refs on a fucked up call like this is ridiculous

        September 26, 2012 at 11:26 pm

      • James

        @mikey84–Tyree didn’t have a defender holding on to the ball already. Try again. A helmet doesn’t invoke the simultaneous possession rule.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:57 am

      • He was simply demonstrating that you don’t need two hands in your chest to have any control of the ball. Tate only needed partial control, and he had that from beginning to end with his left hand. Touchdown.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:00 am

      • James

        I am astounded by claims made by Seahawks fans. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. You don’t need two hand to catch a ball, correct. However, you do need to establish clear possession of the ball; and touching a ball already in the arms and chest of another player does not count as possession.

        Ever wonder why EVERYONE besides Seahawks fans say it was an interception? Including Packer’s rival teams? Including every expert analyst.

        But you’re right, they all must be wrong.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:09 am

      • Everyone used to think the world was flat, until we had evidence otherwise. Can you please use the actual evidence presented, and not just consensus from those that might have jumped the gun?

        September 27, 2012 at 11:16 am

      • James

        Germany all thought Hitler was a good man and a great leader, until we had evidence he was conducting mass genocide. That point goes both ways.

        Your argue partial control with his left hand outweighs two hands clutching the ball tightly to Jennings chest? I guess the NFL has it reversed, possession is only 1/10 of the law…

        September 27, 2012 at 11:23 am

      • You don’t seem to understand simultaneous possession at all. It does not matter if one player has most of the ball. All that matters is they both have a piece of it, with partial control. No one is saying it “outweighs” Jennings. The ball goes to the offensive player because they both have partial control. Sucks to be on D in that case but that’s how it goes.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:38 am

      • The rule says nothing of ‘partial control.’ It only speaks of ‘first control’ (or “control first”) and ‘joint control.’ Saying that Tate had ‘partial control’ the whole time, or that he had ‘partial control’ when he got his left hand behind the ball misstates the rule. You have to say that Tate gained control of the ball when he got his hand on it. It’s all or nothing, you either have control or you don’t under the rule.

        You can say that Tate gained control of the ball when he had one hand buried in there, but that’s what you have to say. You can’t soften your argument by saying that he had partial control because the rule says nothing of partial control.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:35 pm

      • Join = partial. The rule mentions nothing of 50/50 or equal control, as many are arguing. When I say partial, it means joint. Because they both have a piece of the ball. Sounds like you are arguing semantics. If it’s such an obvious call, why do you have to do that?

        September 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      • It’s not semantics. It’s what the rule says. And it’s all we have to go off because the rule doesn’t define what it means by control.

        Why won’t you respond to the actual issue and say that you think “Tate gained control of the ball when he had one hand buried in there”? That’s all you can say given the plain meaning of the rule on its face. I won’t say that you’re flat out wrong if you say that, I just think it’s unpersuasive.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:54 pm

      • jake

        Ever seen the call where AP is losing the ball but still has it by the nose so the refs rule no fumble? These receivers are big guys with big hands. You can possess the ball with one hand, bro, and you can possess it by holding onto just the slightest amount of it.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm

      • A great point.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      • James

        Now you are taking about loosing possession, not establishing. Your argument (Jake) refers to when does a player loose possession of the football when he has already clearly established it by himself. This situation, again, is about establishing possession. Just because they are big guys with big hands does not allow one to assume he has possession.

        Had Jennings not had the ball clenched to his chest, Tate would have not have been able to establish possession of that by. Therefore, he had to use Jennings body to establish what you call “partial possession with his left had”.

        Jennings caught it regardless. Tate needed Jennings to pretend as if he really was able to catch that ball.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm

      • Mordecai

        But regardless of who had their hands on the ball or not it’s really who comes down with the ball. In this case If both player comes down with the ball then the ball actually belongs to the offensive player. That is the official NFL rule. Also if the possession of the ball for the defensive player is at question, you must also ask the same question for the defensive player. Did he have full control of the football to call it a clean interception? In any case if two players have possession of the football the ball belongs to the offense.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    • you are retarded … did you read the whole thing
      ?

      September 26, 2012 at 8:11 pm

      • Anthony

        you justin are correct this guy is a fuckin retard

        September 26, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    • Steve

      Haha. You read nothing. Or at least comprehended nothing if you think this guy is a moron. He is incredibly correct. Does NO one frikking understand you MUST have TWO feet DOWN to have possession of the football? Learn the game.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm

      • dlove

        shut up stupid

        September 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm

      • Anthony

        so if a db intercepted it while he has one foot in the air count as pic? feet have nothing to do with possession in this scenario and anyone that thinks this guy is right has absolutely no football knowledge

        September 26, 2012 at 10:38 pm

      • wasteland2112

        Feet have nothing to do with possession, true, but to intercept a pass, you must have 2 FEET down in play, and if that occurrs while an offensive player has any part of possession, with his 2 FEET down, it goes to the offensive player…period. get a freakin clue and stfu!

        September 26, 2012 at 10:57 pm

      • Scott

        You must have two feet touching the ground in order to establish possession. OR, consequently, an iota of any other part of your body. (Anyone who has ever played football above the high school level could tell you this.) If you can show me that no other part of Jennings’ body touched the ground, the argument on this point would have some merit. Too bad this isn’t the case.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:52 am

      • mcw

        The rule says nothing about ‘posession’. It clearly states ‘control’. The argument concerning posession in no way affects this play.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:11 am

      • Jon

        @wastelant – there’s no such thing as “part of possession”. You either possess the ball or you don’t. One hand touching the ball while the defender has both hands wrapped around the ball means the defender has possession and the receiver does not

        September 27, 2012 at 10:27 am

      • Watch the reverse angle video, Tate has far more that just a hand “touching” the ball, he has a grip and is cradling it firmly.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:32 am

    • 49sf

      Good article.

      ESPN’s one sided take on the whole thing is sad. They’re just a tabloid trying to get ratings.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm

      • Chooch

        They also have a clear agenda to find reasons to get the replacement refs out (which is good, of course)… The entire pregame show of that game was about how bad the refs are. I think this was the first decent chance they had to show the refs were inept…. so they jumped on it like a fat kid on free cake.

        I thought it was an interception too (and it looks like one), but once you READ THE RULES and take an better look at the play… it is a shared catch (Tate actually touches it first, and lands first) and it is a TD. The moment while they are midair and Tate’s right hand comes off the ball is irrelevant.

        It’s a shame that ignorant people don’t want GB to lose so badly that they ignore reality and facts. It’s also a shame that this isn’t an interception because of rules technicalities… but that’s how it is. Get over it people.

        The replacement refs got pretty lucky, but they made the right call, even if by accident.

        September 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      • We share a similar opinion. Thanks for reading.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      • THANK YOU!

        October 3, 2012 at 12:24 am

    • Leif

      This is EXTREMELY well done. Good fair analysis.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      • JB

        Check out my comment towards the bottom and let me know what you guys think. Tried to prove why the logic of who’s feet touched the ground first has nothing to do with it.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:57 am

      • Scott

        No it isn’t. Being a fan of neither team this guy keeps talking about Tate having his right hand on the ball. Looking at every video and picture here, it is never obvious that this occurs. We have no idea where his right hand is, only that it is part of the scrum. Even the left hand may be touching the ball but not around it. So all we know for sure is his arms are in there somewhere with the defenders, not that he has possession of the ball in any way. I say the 90% of the people who say this is an interception are correct, no matter how you try to analyze it.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:03 pm

      • The feet touching down was to show that Tate had fulfilled the requirements of the completed catch. That’s it. It just so happens that Tate has shared control of the ball with 2 feet down before Jennings can officially have an INT yet. Once Tate has part of the ball in the endzone it’s a Touchdown, so that just adds to Tate’s case.

        However, what is also important is that Tate has some control over the ball with his left hand from the beginning of the catch all the way to the end. This is shown clearly from the beginning angles all the way to the end where it is revealed how Jennings cannot pull the ball into his chest because Tate has his hand and arm cradled firmly around it. There’s plenty of evidence to support my stance, and the evidence people seem to be using for why Jennings has 100% control and Tate has none is that they “can’t tell”.

        If you can’t tell, that just shows how close and difficult to judge the play is. The fact that someone can’t tell what Tate has a hold of during parts of the catch cannot possibly be evidence that he doesn’t have any control of the ball, especially when we can see with 100% certainty that he touches it first and has a firm grip with that same hand at the end.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    • QuitUrWhining

      QQ moarly bish

      September 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    • Jeremy

      actually he is saying he had possession before Jennings did because of his feet being in the air. So you are the fucking idiot!! Read his entire article, not just what you find interesting.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    • Joe

      First off let me state that i am not a Packers fan at all! Matter of fact i am very glad they lost that game! All that being said though, that was not a touchdown. You say Tate had simultaneous control with Jennings when all that happened was the ball touched his hand. As Jennings grabs the ball it hits Tate’s left hand and Tate grabs Jennings arm with his right hand. You say Tate is readjusting his left hand to get a “better” grip, he is really only getting his first grip. The rule says, “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.” Jennings clearly has control of the ball before Tate gains any control. As far as Tate having his feet on the ground first, that does not matter. Tate’s feet may be on the ground before Jenning’s but Tate does not have control of the ball at that moment. Tate’s left hand is the only hand in contact with the ball and that is because it happens to be pinned between Jenning’s chest and the ball. Tate does not have control of the ball until after Jenning’s feet have also touched the ground and Tate reaches his right hand in to grab the ball. Not only is this an interception, it was even ruled 50% an interception on the field. One ref signaled interception, one ref signaled touchdown. Right there is where the officials go wrong. The head official should instantly think to discuss the play with those two refs. Instead he rushes to replay. A lot of the refs had been doing that, over using instant replay and not using it for what it was designed for. I agree that this play was used as leverage to get the refs back, but it was used rightfully so.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm

      • LBrinks

        Good point Joe. I wasn’t sure what to think about all this cause everyone has such good points but everyone presents them so one sided. Thanks for just stating the facts. I think this was an interception.

        September 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm

      • One thing I need to mention, as has been stated the second ref merely blew the play dead, he did NOT signal an interception.

        September 28, 2012 at 6:07 am

      • So you think Tate has no control over the ball, and Jennings has all of it.

        Jennings established sole control by…how? Removing it from Tate’s left hand? Nope. Having two feet on the ground with nobody else holding the ball? Nope. Colloquially, the NFL seems to call control ‘the ability to continue, unabated, with another football type motion.” He could not do anything unabated, since Tate’s left arm was wrapped around the ball and between the ball and Jennings’ body. End of argument.

        I would have a whole different view if Tate only had fingers on the ball from outside Jennings’ grasp. But that is not the case. The entire time (and from a split second before Jennings ever touched the ball) it is cradled in Tate’s left hand and, later, arm.

        There seems to be some notion that having two hands on a ball, while in the air, falling, after another guy already has one hand on it, is possession according to NFL rules. That is not the case. So any argument based on the notion that Jennings had sole control is immediately invalid.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm

      • Lastly, it seems you need to check out the picture of the back angle view, showing that the ball could not have been on Jennings’ chest because Tate has his hand around the ball blocking him from doing so.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      • if you watch it carefully after tate grabs the ball first with his left hand, jennings right hand touches it and his left hand appears to actually grabbing tate’s hand, not the ball. tate’s right hand is on jennings right arm at the same point. so both players had 1 hand on the ball, but tate’s was their first and his feet are on the ground first. that’s TD folks!

        September 28, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    • SG

      Why all the haters?? This is a guy who took the time to piece together what is a clear-cut case for why it was a catch, or at least a partial catch. (which by NFL rules goes to the receiver.) Get over it! Lots of blown calls in the game. Remember that! Also, if Seattle didn’t completely DESTROY Green Bay’s line in the first half, they wouldn’t have been in this mess. When you come to Seattle you face the 12th man. We dominate all QBs! The D takes care of the rest. *COUGH* 8 SACKS IN THE FIRST HALF *COUGH*. Enjoy watching the post seasons as this win has probably cost you the season! Nicely done on the article!

      September 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm

      • This article is awesome and I added it to the end of mine! Thanks!

        September 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    • FairLogic

      The only moron is you JRS for not being able to follow Life in Rewind’s arguments! Life in Rewind did a nice job with his analysis. My take on this Jennings/Tate play is a bit different but the result is the same. The play resulted in a Seahawk’s TD.

      Everyone who claims that Jennings intercepted the ball argues that Jennings had two hands on the ball and was the first one to control the ball in the air. I will for argument sake agree with all of you that Jennings controlled the ball first and had two hands on the football in the air.

      Everyone would agree that in order to have a completed “catch” or “interception” by either a offensive player or defensive player, respectively, that player must come to the ground with two feet or other part of the player’s body in the field of play with control of the football. This is the definition of “catch” under NFL rule 8 sec.1 art. 3

      Everyone would also agree that an NFL player who has total control of the football in the air has yet to complete a catch until that player comes down with the pass with control of the football with both feet or some part of his body landing in the field of play.

      Everyone would also agree under NFL Rule 8 Sec. 1 Art. 3 a legal “catch” cannot be completed by merely having control of a football in the mid-air.

      Everyone would also agree that the provision under NFL rule 8 sec.1 art.3 item 5 which deals with “Simultaneous Catch” was created to address the issue of offensive and defensive players “catching” the football at the same time pursuant to NFL Rule 8 Sec. 1 Art. 3.

      Everyone would also agree that the first to control the football exception to the Simultaneous Catch provision was created to reward the defensive player for getting to the pass and being the first to control the pass in mid-air all the while the offensive player attempts to also catch the ball. The NFL foresaw the scenario where the defensive player has control of the football in mid-air first but before he comes down, the offensive player obtains joint control of the football and the players land simultaneously to complete a legal NFL catch. This provision has no effect on the offensive player since all simultaneous catches already go to the offensive player.

      This narrow exception to the Simultaneous Catch Rule is only applicable in case where both players jointly control the football in the mid-air and come down to the ground at the same time.

      Thus in order for the “Simultaneous Catch” provision to be in effect and the narrow exception to the Simultaneous Catch Rule regard first to have control in mid-air in this Jennings/Tate case, both Jennings and Tate would have to complete a legal “catch” of the football at the same time pursuant to NFL Rule 8 Sec. 1 Art. 3 “catch” rule.

      However, as the video shows and Life in Rewind correctly states Tate completed a legal “catch” first when his two feet touched and he had control of the football in the end zone while Jennings was still completely in the air.

      Because Jennings did not come down to the ground at the same time as Tate, the “Simultaneous Catch” provision does not go into effect and the first to have control exception to the Simultaneous Catch provision is irrelevant and who controlled the football first or how many hand Jennings had on the football versus Tate is thus irrelevant and and non-factor in this case.

      Had Jennings and Tate come down at the same time with joint control then the first to control provision would have been relevant and if applied would have resulted in an interception to Jennings. But since Tate and Jennings did not come down at the same time, it is a completed catch for a Seahawk’s Touchdown.

      January 6, 2013 at 2:55 am

    • WRONG…I know there’s a lot of inbreeding in the GB area, but you should probably just keep your mouth shut if you don’t want it to be that obvious…

      January 12, 2013 at 3:58 pm

  2. Neither does having one foot in the air must have two feet in the air. Thanks for being a condescending prick though and calling names.

    The point Ben is making is the real refs call this a TD as this is a TD by the wording of the rule.

    Don’t be mad at the call be mad at the rule(this is Tuck Rule part two).

    September 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    • aj

      Thank you Kshell, I can’t stand either team; but you said it perfectly!

      September 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm

  3. JRS

    Two feet on the ground does not equal posession if you don’t even have a hand on the ball. Get the fuck out of here you stupid twat.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    • Z-Ball

      Read the rules pal, two feet DOES have a part in establishing possession. This type of narrow minded thinking is what caused the whole thing to blow out of proportion in the first place.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm

      • AnnieZ

        the reverse angle image of Tate with arms wrapped around ball and two feet on ground is by far the most compelling evidence that perhaps the right call was made.. but I think we can all agree now that this was in no way a slam dunk call especially for the refs in real time. Could it have been handled better hell yes! But it was reviewed by real refs and the league both of which were likely not fed the same angle over and over again by ESPN! but also the reverse angle which shows touchdown! Hey, I didn’t think there was anyway it was a TD either before seeing those reverse angles. Once ESPN began vocalizing their displeasure for an hour straight the freight train couldn’t be stopped.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:51 pm

      • This is actually in response to AnnieZ: “but I think we can all agree now that this was in no way a slam dunk call especially for the refs in real time.”

        That’s just it, it absolutely was. Put yourself mentally in the physical position of the ref. What does he see? The BACKS of the players. So, what does he see? The ball come down into, **most likely**, Jennings hands, but about six other hands in there. In real time, and long before they are on the ground, the ball is out of his view almost instantly. He cannot know if the ball was caught by *anyone* because he can’t know if it was knocked away, pulled away, just not caught, is being juggled, etc.

        The next time he sees the ball, both Jennings and Tate have their hands around the ball, both with joint control and joint possession. In fact, it is the ONLY call he could make, and it’s not even close! He can’t rule it a catch for Jennings because he cannot see the ball until well after Jennings is on the ground. Same for Tate.

        By objective reality from the physical perspective of the ref, and by rule based on that, he made EXACTLY the right call, the only call, and the correct call. Seriously not even close.

        This issue of the ref’s perspective has gotten far too little attention, and the poor guy got vilified for absolutely no reason. It rises to the level of moronic for people to not see the play this way.

        And this is where the question begins and ends. All the jibber-jabber about feet, hands, possession, etc., is absolutely irrelevant to the call. One thing and one thing only, matters: What did the ref see? Only from that perspective does anything else matter. Actually, the replay rule comes first: Whatever he rules, the game is over. Period. There is no replay here. So, his ruling IS the rule and IS the outcome regardless of what it is.

        From his perspective, either call will be the correct call IF he follows the NFL’s rules. And he does. To wit:

        1. Could he see if either player clearly had possession from behind them while they were in the air? No.

        2. Could he see who clearly had control while they were in the air from behind them? No.

        3. Did he see one player or other clearly with the ball after they were on the ground? No.

        4. Did he see both players clearly with control and possession on the ground? Yes.

        5. Tie goes to the Offense.

        6. TD.

        Done.

        Oh, and one-handed catches happen all the time, dingbats. Oh #2, just what do you people think pulled Jennings’ body FORWARD rather than it going straight back down on his feet? Tate pulling the ball to his chest, along with Jennings. The physics are indisputable. Jennings would have come down directly on his own two feet without Tate pulling him toward himself while pulling the ball to his chest.

        In fact, rather than Jennings having the best position, if you pay attention, you see Jennings FIRST hits not the ground, but lands almost full frontal, face first on TATE! Then he turns to his left trying to pull the ball away. But they land first nearly chest-to-chest.

        Also, the rule about control isn’t meant to be split in milliseconds, as is the case here. It is intended for catches where there is a beat between one player getting possession and the other player getting possession. There is no beat here. You only see any difference in possession in very slow motion, and then the tapes clearly show Tate getting ONE- HANDED possession first, one-handed catches being a legal catch.

        The example here is the same as the case where a guy has the ball between his hand and some random body part or piece of uniform, like a shoulder pad, thigh pad, helmet, etc. All that matters is that the ball is under control. It doesn’t matter between what! So, the ball being kept in control by three players hands or four players hands is irrelevant. Both have possession in a short enough time frame that it is simultaneous to the refs, and even by rule.

        July 10, 2013 at 1:04 am

    • jrs you are either an idiot, can’t read or you’re blind….it’s clearly shown in MANY examples that Tate has his hand around the ball the entire time….great article, and spot-on research…

      September 26, 2012 at 9:42 pm

      • Mo Jo Pro

        Stephen Canfield: I don’t know what you THINK you saw but it is absolutely clear that Tate had his hands around JENNINGS (who had the ball) and not the BALL ITSELF.

        the logic in the entire argument fails when viewed in the reality of Tate’s lack of possession of the ball… a hand touching the ball (regardless of moment of feet on the ground and/or simultaneous timing) does not constitute CONTROL of the ball and is therefore not a CATCH under the rules. the argument for simultaneous possession is without merit and voided.

        by that definition, the moment of contact between a defensive player and a running back holding a ball would result in a “fumble recovery” every time… a defensive player gets a hold of an offensive player who has the ball with both feet on the ground resulting in instant EQUAL POSSESSION of the ball. that is hardly the reality of the game as we all know… you must have possession of the BALL, not another PLAYER.

        Jennings had sole control of the ball and therefore POSSESSION of the ball at the time both of HIS feet hit the ground. it is therefore an interception by rule, not “simultaneous possession” and should have been called as such.

        the Back Judge who was in the best position to view the play, called it an Interception and the other Official, who was not in position to see control of the ball, mistakenly ruled Touchdown. in a moment such as that, the regular, experienced Officials would have huddled up and discussed the play away from the players prior to making a ruling to begin with. the Official with the better position to view the play would have made (and likely won) the argument to rule the play an Interception and the ruling from the field would then have reflected that. upon review, the ruling would have been upheld as there would be NO compeling visual evidence to overrule the decision of the Officials on the field.

        the lack of experience of the Replacement Officials and their lack of control of the situation is what lead to the incorrect final ruling. that same situation would likely have resulted in a consultation by experienced Officials to discuss the outcome and make the correct determination. the placement of Temporary Officials by the NFL into that game and therefore that final play, is the real tragedy of the situation. it was/is an absolute embarrassment to the NFL and fortunately has lead to a swift ending to this lockout.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:33 am

      • Patrick

        Actually MO Jo Pro, you are officially blind -because Jennings is behind Tate, and Jennings not Tate has his arms around Tate’s shoulder while Tate’s Left hand, not finger tips, not just a little piece, Tate’s whole palm is death gripping that ball as soon as it touches it. And by the back angle video this guy provides at the end of the play you can still see Jennings trying to wrench the ball out of Tate’s left hand that originally made the catch in the first place.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:44 am

      • Mike

        Also, actually MO JO PRO, the back judge never called interception, his initial SIGNAL of waving BOTH arms over his head is the signal to stop the clock which is done numerous times during a game. If he disagreed with the call, he would, at least, have said something to the other official, which he did not do. Did ANYONE from ESPN ever ask the back judge if he had a different opinion?

        September 27, 2012 at 11:45 am

      • I don’t believe they did! Funny how that works. They must have just read his mind ;-)

        September 27, 2012 at 11:53 am

    • Patrick

      This article is awesome. It totally proves that the last play of the game was a TD. Which shouldn’t even be the main focus of this game anyways. Anybody saying GB got hosed or ripped off, is either trying to get ratings, a pissed off packers fan, or blind. There were soo many bad calls that benefited GB and led to them scoring points, that no one is analyzing or talking about. The PI call on Chancellor that extended the drive for GB and allowed them to score a TD, was by far the worst call of the game. That was textbook coverage on the receiver, and not even remotely close to PI.
      This call at the end of the game was very very close, and for anyone who keeps saying “Tate only hand a finger or maybe a hand on it for part of the time” is like I said blind. Even in real time it was easy to see Tate’s Left hand palmed the football as it landed in his hand, and he gripped it with his left hand, never letting go til the play was blown dead. And from the back angles that this guy nicely has dug up, you can see Jennings ranking and ranking and wrenching at that ball, at the end trying all he can to get it out of Tate’s left hand. Tell me if Tate’s left hand that palmed the ball at the same time that Jennings hands touched it , ever left the ball, why was it that Jennings could never pry the dang ball out of Tate’s hand. I have seen many amazing one handed catches in the NFL, and this happened to be one of them.
      You can tell the whole time in every angle and even in real time, that the ball isn’t even touching Jennings chest, Tate’s Left hand that is palming the ball is against Jennings chest.It was called correctly Tate even got possession of the ball with his Right hand before Jennings feet ever touched the field.
      Anyone who looks at these video angles and reads the rules of a simultaneous catch and a regular catch, should have the smarts to say the last call of the game was correct.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:33 am

      • “It totally proves what I wanted to believe in the first place!”

        September 27, 2012 at 4:17 am

      • oz

        “If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.”

        Tate taking one hand off the ball and then garbing it again means he did not have full control… Jennings had two hand on it first and control first… It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

        simple

        September 27, 2012 at 6:15 am

      • Patrick

        You do NOT need two hands for control. I myself have made a one handed catch playing football and it was in the endzone. I never established the second hand or even brought it to my body. Result: Touchdown.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:15 am

      • Exactly. Most of the people arguing for Jennings apparently believe it’s not possible to make a one handed catch, or to gain control of the ball with one hand. The fact that Jennings grabbing it helped Tate hand on with that hand is Jennings’ fault, not Tate’s. Tate has partial control the entire way, which is all that is required for the TD. Doesn’t matter that Jennings has “more” control.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:34 am

      • hmmm… you speak of PI to extend drives for the Packers, yet omit the PI that extended the Seahawks drive. THAT was the most atrocious call of the game. And lest we forget there is a big difference between possession and catch that seems to be ambiguously interchanged.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:20 am

      • I think the big different between the PI’s to Patrick is that GB scored their only TD on that drive. The drive which was extended by roughing the passer and PI the Hawks didn’t end up scoring on anyway and just wasted time. But agreed that they are all terrible calls.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:54 am

      • Mike

        Life In REwind, as to the roughing the passer call being bad, maybe you should check with Carson Palmer about the “Carson Palmer Rule” which says it is roughing if you roll up on the quarterbacks legs.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm

      • That’s a fair point. I was attempting to be objective when responding to the non-Seahawk fans ;-)

        September 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm

      • @raigae: Yes, the PI call on the non-scoring drive for the seahawks was a pitiful call but there’s a huge difference between that call and the one that went against Chancellor in Green Bay’s favor. The difference being Chancellor’s PI was on a 3rd down and the incompletion would’ve ended their drive. Their drive was artificially extended and they scored on the ensuing plays.

        The PI call that went in the seahawks favor was on a first (or 2nd?) down and they didn’t score anyway.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:24 pm

      • rissman@doit.wisc.edu

        “You do NOT need two hands for control. I myself have made a one handed catch playing football and it was in the endzone. I never established the second hand or even brought it to my body. Result: Touchdown.”

        It’s a 1 handed catch if you gain control and maintain control to the ground. If the ball was in your hand for a fraction of a second without your feet on the ground, but then it LEFT YOUR HAND and the opposing team gained control, even after you put your hand BACK on the ball, it is NOT simultaneous possession. This is what happened. It can be argued that Tate initially had 1-handed control. However, at this time, his feet were in the air. His hand was removed from the ball, and Jennings maintained control while Tate’s hand wasn’t on the ball. Tate put his hand back on the ball AFTER Jennings had control, and that’s when his feet touched the ground. That is why under NFL rules it was NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH! This is why the vast majority of professionals who analyzed the situation came to the conclusion that it should have been an interception. Sorry Seahawk fans.

        December 11, 2012 at 2:00 pm

  4. mackdiesel

    That picture with the circles shows it perfectly. If you know the rules, which by now have been plastered everywhere it’s clear why the ref with the much better view ruled it a touchdown and the replay official (who is an NFL employee and not a scab) saw zero video evidence from every angle to disprove that it was in fact a touchdown.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    • rgb

      According to the article, the better view was from the back. The referee on that side ruled it an interception.

      Struggling with consistency.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:52 am

      • richardlpalmer

        Not at all. The side judge could see the ball, who was touching it and who’s feet came down first. The back line judge could only see the hands above the other players until he ran over.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:38 am

      • db

        The ref that called for the CLOCK TO STOP not interception was on the other side of the goal post at LEAST 15 yards away when the catch/int happened so get your facts straight.

        September 27, 2012 at 7:10 am

      • I hate this too. It keeps being reported that the other ref called an INT. No, the announcers were assuming he would because he waved the play dead and hadn’t signaled TD. In reality, he didn’t know what to call so he waved the play dead, leaving it up to the other refs or relying on them to conference first. If a ref doesn’t know what happened he’s not going to call anything, he will leave it up to the ref that has the better viewpoint. A touchback/INT signal is not the same as waving the play dead. Ignorant analysis by ESPN.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:32 am

  5. mackdiesel

    If it weren’t for ESPN, who is notorious for blowing things way out of proportion and has zero regard for facts, just speculation and conjecture (Brett Favre retirement, Tim Tebow, replacement refs) the real story would be why MD Jennings was idiotic enough to allow simultaneous possession to be gained, instead of batting it down which pee wee players are taught. I mean that’s first day stuff.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    • durrrr

      Yeah, bat it down! That always works! It’s not like Detroit managed to go into overtime earlier *that day* when a Titan DB batted the ball right to their receiver. And the Jags certainly didn’t win a game last year in the exact same circumstances right?

      September 26, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      • durrrr

        Whoops, actually the Detroit game was the day before. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      • Patrick

        that was not a bat, that was a set in volleyball making it an easy catch for anyone. He basically tipped it like an offensive player is taught. So your point is bogus.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:19 am

      • Also, Jennings should have batted it backwards out of play. That way even if Seattle catches it, it’s out of bounds. Don’t bat it back into play like in the other game. Bad example to use someone who tried to do the right thing and failed, if it had been executed properly it would have succeeded in the Titans game.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:36 am

    • richardlpalmer

      Agreed on how the announcers blew this out of proportion and just ran with it. And sadly everyone jumped on the bandwagon. So instead of Wilson/Tate being heroes of the week, there’s all this discussion about how Tate’s a cheater, how the Packers had a game stolen from them, etc. It’s ironic that the very call everyone’s all up in arms over, was actually a legit call from beginning to end!

      September 27, 2012 at 1:41 am

      • TBone

        Tate would be called a cheater, regardless of the outcome, and regardless of who officiated. Though this article intentionally set it aside, Tate’s shove prior to the catch was cheating, and would be whether flagged or not.

        September 28, 2012 at 3:58 am

  6. ripfish

    Good article, I am glad someone is showing the other angles, instead of the on the ground version. after the play was dead. and from the reverse video angle, you see jenning with one hand on the ball reaching with his left arm over and over again. This was way blown up to make the refs look as bad as possible. There have been much worse calls. and if you want to take this away, take the Green Bay Touchdown away that they scored on after the phantom PI on 3rd down that would have had them punting. Seahawks D was locking them down.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm

  7. Great article. Well done.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:37 pm

  8. For Mr. JRS, here’s what an actual official has to say:

    http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawksblog/2019252539_note_on_the_off.html?prmid=obinsource

    September 26, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    • Grundorama

      that’s not a “real” official – that’s the replacement referee from the game – and he clearly doesn’t know the rules

      September 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      • nope you’re wrong grundorama…..real nfl official…

        September 26, 2012 at 9:44 pm

      • "Real" Ref

        Oh, and you guys, who have never officiated a single down of football do?

        I can tell you as a 30+ year official with experience at all levels that this breakdown is outstanding and 100% correct.

        Watching this in real time the only call that could be made is the one that was made. And in a “hail mary” situation PI is never going to be called.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:50 pm

      • Officials (even real ones) are not infallible.

        The official here (if quoted correctly) and the interviewer are both conflating terms (simultaneous possession with Simultaneous catch, and possession with control). Both the questions and the answers are ambiguous and don’t really stand for anything.

        It is true that if both a receiver and a defender “simultaneously possess” a ball (which I interpret to mean simultaneously catch the ball per the simultaneous catch rule) then the ball goes to the receiver. What the interviewer should have asked was “What if one player gained control over the ball before the other, but by the time they hit the ground they’d both gained control over it?” The refs answer to THAT question would have been a good measuring stick to gauge whether he really understood the simultaneous catch rule or not.

        OR, an even better question would have been “Do players have joint control over a ball when one player has it in two arms and pulled into his chest and another player has (possibly) one hand on it?” That is really the only question that matters.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    • durrrr

      If by “real” you mean “scab,” and if by “scab” you mean “the same scab who blew the call in the first place.” Seriously, your source for Wayne Elliott supposedly making the right call is Wayne Elliott? Yeah, sounds like a real unbiased place to get the answer.

      Meanwhile the actual, real-life, Super Bowl-experienced NFL ref who was in the booth with Gruden and Tirico said it was clearly an interception. He said possession means having the ball pinned to your chest with both hands. He said Jennings did so, and he said Tate had one arm at best and didn’t even keep that arm on the ball the whole time. And this whole article conveniently ignores Tate’s uber-blatant OPI. He straight-up shoved Shields to the ground; the game should have ended right there, as the league itself has acknowledged. So have fun with the circlejerk, pissy Seahawks fans. Your team lost that game and you know it. That’s all that will ever matter.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      • Herman Dobard

        Calm down then if you go back and actually read the article you will clearly note that the writer did not ignore the offensive pass interference.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:59 am

      • Joe Blob

        Hey Dumbass … Tate actually grabs the ball FIRST, starting with his Right hand, then his Left. Then Jennings gets both hands on it. Jennings couldn’t have thrown the ball out of bounds, ( or rip it away for that matter) even if he wanted to, because Tate was gripping it all the way to the ground. I repeat, if Jennings had total control, then why not rip it from Tate, who supposedly never had any shared control.

        Major Fail – TD Seahawks

        September 29, 2012 at 11:50 am

      • I think you mean his left hand, THEN his right. To clarify.

        September 29, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    • rgb

      You’re citing a Seahawks blog from a Seattle newspaper… the article loses all credibility right there.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:55 am

      • Herman Dobard

        ESPN lost its credibility years ago………….this is just another example of it.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:01 am

      • Niners fan? Go away

        January 12, 2013 at 4:04 pm

  9. Z-Ball

    Lots of thick headed people who cannot look at this objectively will disagree. But this is pretty clear that is was at least close, and both players had a hand in catching this one. Great job of looking at all the evidence and having an open mind to see what really happened

    September 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    • Joe Blob

      Actually, no Jennings couldn’t have ‘easily’ swatted the ball away. Tate literally had his hands (yes, both hands, look at the first video in the article) FIRST. Then, Jennings, who is on top appears to have a superior hold on the ball because of him being easier to see (he’s just more visible).

      My point is, Jennings couldn’t just ‘swat’ the ball out of bounds. Hell, he couldn’t even rip it away from Tate. BECAUSE THEY BOTH HAD A SHARED GRIP ON IT.

      The more you watch, the more obvious it becomes that Jennings was in no position do anything with that ball other than hang on to it, like Tate.

      September 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm

  10. impartial

    mackdiesel has it right. Jennings should have swatted the ball away instead of going to an interception. He could have easily done that. Seahawks win.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    • Joe Blob

      Sorry, my comment right above on a “Swat” being impossible is for you :)

      September 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm

  11. reality

    You massively failed. Your slow-mo, close ups just show how clearly WRONG the call was. Tate clearly was second in getting to the ball, he clearly never had possession of it, he clearly never could have actually caught the ball there, and it was painfully, obviously an interception that Tate barely put a hand on the ball later and somehow got told he caught a TD with. Ridiculous

    September 26, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    • This is a chronic problem in listening to the opinions of people who watch football but clearly don’t have an understanding of rules in the interpretation of rules that go together with other rules. This is a two-part explanation. First, you have to have control and possession. Secondly, you have to have 2 feet on the ground before it is considered a reception or interception. It doesn’t matter what happens in the air, it’s what happens once someone has 2 feet on the ground. Superman could have intercepted that has first hand flown around Seattle for an hour, but if he came down and Golden Tate grabbed the ball as well, it would be considered a simultaneous catch once one of them or both of them touched 2 feet to the ground. Read the freaking rulebook and not just the section about simultaneous catches, you have to read what constitutes a reception or interception in combination with the simultaneous catch rule.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      • That part about Superman isn’t really true. They do have to catch it at the same time, but I believe I demonstrated how Golden Tate had at-minimum partial control of the ball at all times, which is all that is required for it to be awared to the offensive player.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:05 pm

      • durrrr

        Read the rulebook, eh? Done. I’d suggest you take your own advice, and while you’re in there maybe take a glance at the casebook contained within it. This is from the 2011 edition that’s available on NFL.com:

        “A.R. 8.26 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
        First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players fall down to the ground.
        Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. The ball is dead.

        ***A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
        First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground.***”

        See that? In the first case they both control the ball IN THE AIR at the same time. In the second, Defender (B3) “controls a pass I THE AIR ***BEFORE*** A2, who then also controls the ball before they land.”

        This stuff about nothing that happens in the air mattering was made up by the guy who wrote this post. It’s a complete fabrication. Maybe he’s confused or maybe it’s an outright lie; I don’t know, but either way both he and you are wrong.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:00 am

      • Durs a Joke

        Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. you’re dumb, you shot yourself in the foot with that one, Why don’t you show me an angle where Tate never touched the ball. And it says “come down”, where if you looked at the picture Tate was on the ground and Jennings is in the air. Seriously dude everything you’ve posted has been poorly executed and hardly an argument. I’m a Texans fans just to let you know, and Daniel Manning would have never let Tate even touch that ball. Poor Defense by the packers, and that what it comes down to. Last year they went 15-1, now they cant even beat the Seahawks. So don’t blame Tate, the rules or the refs, its all McCarthy’s fault for having bad DBs.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:32 am

      • I’ve seen people point out that MD Jennings should have swatted the ball away and we wouldn’t be in this situation, and I’d have to agree. That’s stuff they teach every DB. Swat it down and out of play. Don’t even chance it. It’s Jennings’ fault for letting Tate get his hands on it too.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:46 am

    • Doesn’t matter if Tate was the 100th man to touch the ball on that play. Until Jennings fulfilled EVERY element of a catch then its NOT a catch.. As long as Tate got at least PARTIAL possession of the ball before Jennings fulfilled the required parts to a catch, then it IS deemed a simultaneous catch.. I was kind of up in the air before.. But I never saw the image from behind the endzone until this article.. IMO i’m not convinced it IS a TD for Tate….

      September 26, 2012 at 9:11 pm

      • You’re right that “Until Jennings fulfilled EVERY element of a catch then its NOT a catch.”

        But you’re wrong that “As long as Tate got as least Partial possession of the ball before Jennings fulfilled the required parts to a catch, then it IS deemed a simultaneous catch.”

        The Simultaneous Catch rule pretty clearly states that “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.” The real question is “Who gained control first?” And then the question becomes “Did the person who gained control first complete the catch by satisfying all the other catch requirements?”

        So the real question here is control, not possession. In fact, possession is never mentioned in the Simultaneous Catch rule; people just keep conflating the terms. FORGET ABOUT “POSSESSION” AND WHATEVER YOU THINK IT MEANS, IT’S AN IRRELEVANT TERM.

        The rule also doesn’t state anything about “Partial” control; its just control. The fact is, as long as a defensive player gains control FIRST, and then satisfies all else that is required to make a ‘catch,’ it doesn’t matter who else gains subsequent control over the ball. Those johny-come-lately’s have gained control (Joint control to be specific) its true, but they have not satisfied the Simultaneous Catch rule because they didn’t gain control over the ball simultaneously with the First person! Again, its about initial control, not simultaneous possession, or partial possession, or anything else.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:40 pm

      • Then by all accounts, Tate had both feet in bounds in the endzone with two hands on the ball first. fulfilling Every element of a catch. TOUCHDOWN!

        September 27, 2012 at 3:28 am

      • He clearly mistyped. He meant that he now IS convinced that it WAS a Touchdown. There’s no other conclusion to be drawn given the context of his statements.

        BUT, he’s wrong. His analysis that is. And his conclusion. Basically the whole thing he wrote. It comes from nowhere and has no support in the ACTUAL RULES THAT GOVERN HOW THE ACTUAL NFL WORKS. You both are kinda making the same point, so you should know that you’re wrong too. At least in your analysis. And your conclusion based on that analysis. (Hint: The real argument here is over control)

        September 27, 2012 at 3:46 am

    • Patrick

      so when the exact same thing happened in a real game with real refs with Cromartie and Austin. Those refs were wrong also because Cromartie obviously had two hands on the ball first and both ended up with possession after going into the ground. OH WAIT that was the Cowboys that is allowed. Sorry my bad. If the roles are reversed and Packers get the TD this exact same way. It would have been okay. Pure bias.

      September 27, 2012 at 8:28 am

  12. What reality is “reality” living in? You’re seriously not able to admit so much as “it was close”? You can’t see that Tate had a hand on it the whole time, with so much force that Jennings can’t ever rip it away even after landing? If Tate has no control or possession, Jennings has nothing to play tug-of-war with from beginning to end.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    • Well, to be fair, no-one can really see if Tate had a hand on it “the whole time” because the view is pretty quickly obscured. There’s no doubt that Tate’s hand touches the ball at the same time that Jennings’ two hands also touch it, but the Simultaneous catch rule isn’t about initial TOUCHING, it’s about initial CONTROL.

      At what point does Jennings establish control over the ball? At what point does Tate establish control over the ball? In my mind, two hands on a ball with the ball pulled in to the chest is control. Would you agree? Can we agree that at this point Jennings has gained control over the ball? If Tate hasn’t established control at this point then there’s no simultaneous catch. At the point where Jennings has control over the ball Tate has one hand reaching into Jennings’ chest and possibly touching the ball and nothing else. Do you agree with that? The only argument is that that—possibly touching a football while another player has two hands on it and has pulled it into his chest—constitutes control. I think that’s a pretty weak argument for control but I understand that one would make it. But I hope you realize that that weak argument is the only argument you really have.

      The fact is that nothing that happens after that point really matters as long as both players subsequently satisfy all that is required to make a ‘catch.’ A player who gains joint control over a ball after another player has already gained control over it had made neither a reception nor an interception as long as the other player satisfies the rest of the ‘catch’ requirements.

      Of course this whole course of events is nearly impossible to see in real time unless you have a ref that is looking very carefully for it; but that’s why we have instant replay. To me, this whole situation is a failure of the instant replay system; and ultimately a failure of the Replacement Officials who should have held a conference on the field before making a call.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      • Anthony

        jennings had clear control after pinning the ball to his chest your comment is the most compelling and correct one on this post

        September 26, 2012 at 10:41 pm

      • MrCarter

        The replay officials can NOT determine who has possession of the ball. They can only determine if there was/was not a catch. Since the ball never touched the ground, they had no evidence to overturn the call on the field which, correct or not, was a touchdown.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:54 pm

      • There’s some debate about whether replay officials can review ‘possession’ via replay. The talk on all the sports stations today was that replay officials DO have the power to review such questions when the play resulted in a touchdown.

        I don’t feel like looking up the rule right now or independently verifying it so lets just say that they CAN. What result? The replay officials probably missed the call here because it really looked like Jennings had control BEFORE tate did (if Tate ever really did).

        Let’s say they can’t. What Result. In this case there’s not much they could have done because the ultimate call on the field was Touchdown. This is part of my point though; replay officials should have the power to review such plays especially when it’s nearly impossible to see everything that you need to see in the split second when the action’s happening and especially when a wrong call will change the outcome of the game.

        The real question is Why have a simultaneous catch rule that incorporates an assessment of initial v joint control of the ball and where, INHERENTLY, it’s going to be very difficult to decide whether the defender gained control first in real time and not let the review officials have a say? The rule doesn’t say ‘However, its not a simultaneous catch when it’s obvious that one player gains control first . . .’ or ‘However, its not a simultaneous catch when its clear to the naked eye that one player gains control first . . . .’ It just says ‘However, its not a simultaneous catch when one player gains control first . . .’ When that assessment (the initial control assessment) is inherently difficult to make by the naked eye, and when that assessment may change the outcome of the game, why NOT allow the review officials to make the call? To my mind that’s the PERFECT circumstance for replay review; why have it if it can’t be used in its most advantageous situations?

        September 26, 2012 at 11:28 pm

      • wasteland2112

        simultanious catch. what does a “catch” entail? It requires 1.) control of the ball, 2.) 2 feet in the field of play. as long as Tate has any part of possesion of the ball as his 2 feet hit the ground, and doesn’t lose control as he comes to the ground(ripping of the ball while on the ground excluded) it is a touchdown.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm

      • Please actually read comments before you reply.

        Also, don’t make up rules. I don’t know where you got “as long as Tate has any part of possesion of the ball as his 2 feet hit the ground, and doesn’t lose control as he comes to the ground(ripping of the ball while on the ground excluded) it is a touchdown” from but it’s not entirely true. There’s a pretty important sentence right in the middle of the Simultaneous Catch rule that says things about initial control and subsequent joint control. Just go up and actually read my post to understand more about it!

        September 26, 2012 at 11:38 pm

      • Sandman

        It’s good to see someone else that fully understands the rule. To me though, I find it fairly clear that Tate’s one hand was sufficient to claim he LIKELY had control and that this play is therefore LIKELY a touchdown. His hand is never removed from the ball (some camera views I’ve seen show his left hand gripping the ball quite firmly), Tate feels comfortable enough about his left hand grip to attempt repositioning of his right hand, and Jennings clearly struggles to get the ball from Tate through the entire process. Jennings is never able to claim the ball, which he really should be able to do if Tate truly just had his “fingers” or some such nonsense, on the ball. Watching videos in slow motion, or even at real speed, show that it was a “fight” for the ball the entire time even though Jennings position was clearly stronger.

        I am willing to debate what should qualify as “control” of the ball, as the NFL doesn’t seem to have a definition for this, but at this point I am no longer willing to entertain any ideas that this was anything more than a 50/50 judgment call that happened to go the Seahawks way, and that there was in no way video evidence available to overturn that judgment call (whichever way it had gone). It think ESPN, the game announcers, and sports media in general have done a disgusting job … a far more disgusting job than the replacement refs have ever done … and owe an enormous apology to sports fans in general, not just Seahawk fans in allowing this farce to continue. They even owe a pretty big apology to the replacement refs now.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:40 pm

      • Hello fellow sane person, nice to meet you here! :D

        I agree that it was pretty much an impossible call to make on the field by the field refs because it happened so fast. Unless one of the refs was looking directly at the ball and thinking “okay who gets control first” there’s really no way they could have made that call accurately (and I’m pretty sure the replacement refs weren’t thinking about the Simultaneous Catch rule and its control component :p).

        I don’t entirely agree that the call was 50/50 though, at least not to the replay officials on review. But, I can’t really argue this point more because I’m not sure about the authority those review officials (or official) had to make the call on who had control. I’ve heard conflicting things. In any case, I DO agree that even though I wouldn’t say it was 50/50, it still would have been difficult for the review official to be entirely certain about who had initial control, if anyone. (Although, I admit that if I were the official I would have found initial control for Jennings, but that’s just my assessment)

        September 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      • Patrick

        congrats on determining what your interpretation of the rule is. Better tell the league!!
        Just because you believe “control” means holding the ball with two hands to the chest, does not make it so. The league weighed in and agreed with the call. So much for your interpretation. Don’t even try the ‘covering their ass’ theory either. You do not need two hands for control. All you are trying to argue is, he had more control. No where in the rule does it say what determines control. That is for the refs to JUDGE. The call was made, they upheld it.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:37 am

      • Patrick: Congrats on not making any coherent point or contributing to the conversation in any way.

        The fact that you come after my statement when it is one of the most objective statements here tells me how unpersuaded you will be when you’re hit upside your head with sense, but I’ll try anyways.

        Nowhere do I say that a player can’t establish control with one hand. Nowhere do I say that a player can only establish control with two hands. All I said was, given all the evidence, I’m more persuaded that Jennings had control first and that Tate gained JOINT CONTROL subsequently. That’s it. Nowhere in the Simultaneous catch rule does it say anything about degrees of control or percentages of control or partial control. It’s just control and joint control.

        You said, “All you are trying to argue is, he [Jennings] had more control.” That’s not at all what I’m trying to argue because, again, the rule says nothing about degrees of control. Please read more closely and carefully next time. I’ll tell you what my point was again to save you time: At some point, Jennings gained ‘control’ of the ball, and at some point Tate gained ‘control’ of the ball. When they hit the ground they had joint control. My point was to get biased people like you to admit that you think Tate had CONTROL of the ball (not partial control, not some control, not continuous control, JUST CONTROL) when he had one hand possibly touching the ball at the same time that Jennings had CONTROL of the ball when he had both arms around the ball and had the ball pulled into his chest. That’s it. That was my whole point. I never said that if you agree that Tate had control at that point that you’re wrong, I just said that your argument is weak.

        And by the way, do you think that if that play is called an interception that it gets overturned on review or that the league comes out and says that it was the wrong call? You’d be high to think so. Of course the league is going to stand by the decision, it benefits them nothing to say otherwise.

        I look forward to your incoherent response.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm

      • Durs a Joke

        Garcia i like how you said “I don’t feel like looking up the rule right now or independently verifying it so lets just say that they CAN” and then you said “Also, don’t make up rules.”

        And I’m guessing, you are so bad ass that you have to contradict yourself, you and ESPN are a JOKE!

        Maybe if the NFL MVP actually knew how to keep a balanced offense the Pack would have won, Packers are a one trick team that worked for two season and know everyone figured. them out

        You’re just as full of shit like everyone else. Go Home, wait till the Packers fairly lose to the Texans.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:41 am

      • Wow, How blind and biased are you? Did you actually read what I wrote?

        I said I didn’t feel like looking up the rule, so I decided to look at it FROM BOTH POINTS OF VIEW! Do you understand what that means? Tying to be objective? Trying to see things from more than your own ingrained perspective?

        It’s true I said “Lets say they CAN,” but I also said “Lets say they CAN’T.” Seriously. It’s right there. All you had to do was read for another 30 seconds. Here’s some advice: make sure you actually understand what you’re talking about before you spew off your own biased opinion and make yourself look like an idiot.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:58 am

      • Howard

        Devin,

        You make some fine points. I would argue with you on two points though. You think that Jennings controlled the ball first. From the video it appears that Tate and Jennings possess and control the ball at the same time. Tate with one hand and Jennings with two but that does not matter. I have seen many one handed catches. Also, you claim that Jennings pulls the ball to his chest. I would say that Jennings may have pulled the ball TOWARD his chest but it would have been impossible for him to pull it to his chest as Tate’s left hand appears to be between the ball and Jennings chest the entire time. I see no video evidence that Tate’s left hand was not grabbing the ball the throughout the catch. Do you? If not I don’t see how this catch could be ruled an interception.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm

  13. impartial

    reality, seriously, did you read the article? Tate had possession first because he had hands on the ball with feet on the ground. Jennings was still air-born. You don’t have possession when you’re in the air.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm

  14. 49rslayer

    this article is awesome and you my friend won me as a reader of your fine art. ive been looking at all articles about this game and no one breaks it down like this. WOW that ref seen what 99% of america couldnt see. espn sucks and all packer fans wont read your article because it hurts to know the truth.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm

  15. impartial

    Geez, it’s not like it’s the Superbowl (XL) or something. :-p

    September 26, 2012 at 8:18 pm

  16. 49rslayer

    hey reality! this article is so well written that a third grader would say the hawks won. theres even pictures for the haters! so you must be blind since you cant see the article and pictures.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm

  17. oscarclove

    Reblogged this on Ghetto Vegas and commented:
    Can everyone shut the fuck up about this

    September 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    • Durs a Joke

      Go get a job, my post is about as relevant as your post.

      September 27, 2012 at 11:44 am

  18. Drew

    Everyone who thinks about “simultaneous possession” is incorrect.

    The rule is simultaneous *control*. NOT possession. For possession you need control *and* to touch the ground, thus control does not require touching the ground. Order of *possession* does not matter, the receiver did not have control just by having a hand on the ball. The defender had control first, while in the air. Once he got control, maintained it, established possession, and touched the ground with two feet, he’d intercepted it.

    But it’s not the worst call in the world. I’m more concerned about no-calls on defenseless receiver hits taking out some players. *That’s* why you need the best refs you can possibly get, to minimize injuries in a game that has them in abundance.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    • You’re clearly grasping for straws. The rule is CLEARLY Simultaneous CATCH. Directly from the NFL rule book it states :
      A player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch listed here.

      Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:

      A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

      (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

      (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

      (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.).

      When a player (or players) is going to the ground in the attempt to catch a pass, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

      Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

      Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states:

      Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

      Clearly Jennings didn’t fulfill the requirements to a catch BEFORE Tate.. Tate actually fulfilled the requirements BEFORE Jennings considering he definitally had both hands on the ball before jennings was deemed “down by contact”… Learn the rules.. Don’t bend them to make it work for you…

      September 26, 2012 at 9:20 pm

      • It’s painful to see you tell someone to Learn the rules when you so clearly do not understand them yourself.

        Let me throw a hypo your way. Jennings jumps up in the air a foot higher than Tate and grabs the ball and pulls it into his chest unimpeded and holds it there. On his way down Tate, also in the air, grabs at the ball and gets his hands on it and pulls it toward his chest as well. Remember, both players are still in the air at this point. Who has caught of the ball?

        I hope your answer was NEITHER. Neither player has caught the ball because there are other requirements to be met, like landing in-bounds and maintaining control before a catch can be made (either a reception or an interception).

        Next, both players land roughly but neither player gains or loses any amount of control they had over the ball. They’re both just laying there kinda scrapping and tugging, like any NFL player would do. Who has caught the ball at this point?

        I hope your answer is, THIS IS WHERE THE SIMULTANEOUS CATCH RULE COMES IN! LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT IT . . . . Then I hope you would look at it again. How many times in the simultaneous catch rule do you see the word “possession”? How many times in the rule do you see the word “control”? I hope your answers were “None” and “A couple.”

        In my hypo Jennings grabbed the ball and gained control of it before Tate came up and gained JOINT CONTROL. In my hypo, BOTH PLAYERS HAVE CONTROL OF THE BALL WHEN THEY HIT THE GROUND. Who’s made the catch?

        I hope your answer was JENNINGS. Why? Because Jennings had control FIRST. OP was right, initial control is what matters here, not ‘who touches the ground first’ or anything else. As long as Jennings has control FIRST and then satisfies all else that is required to make a ‘catch,’ the ball goes to Jennings, EVEN IF Tate has subsequently gained control and touched the ground first.

        The actual play is a much tougher call because Tate CLEARLY gets a hand in there from the beginning. But to argue that Tate and Jennings simultaneously caught the ball you have to argue that that ONE HAND established control for Tate at the same time that Jennings established control with both hands and with the ball pulled into his chest. That’s the ONLY argument you can make, it really is! If that’s your argument then fine, so be it, you and I have different definitions of Control (a word that the NFL Rulebook does not seem to define).

        Don’t be a jerk (I’m a hypocrite, I know).

        September 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    • Patrick

      another self interpretation of control. I can control a car with one hand, even though two is preferred. control is a judgement call, not a rule. Get a clue.

      September 27, 2012 at 8:41 am

      • I prefer to control my wheel with two fingers sometimes ;-) According to these guys two firm hands gripping something tightly is required at all times to have even 5% of control.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:09 am

      • Stop setting up straw men. The argument is not whether you can have control with one hand. The argument is not whether you can have control over the ball with one hand, the argument is whether you can have control (just CONTROL, not PARTIAL CONTROL) of the ball with one hand when someone else has control over the ball with two hands/arms and has the ball pulled into his chest. That’s the point.

        You and OP seem only willing to look at this point in isolation. You have to look at it in context. The question isn’t “Could Tate establish control with one hand?” The question is “Did Tate have control with one hand when Jennings had control with two arms and his chest?”

        Would you really say that you had control of the wheel when the person in the passenger seat is leaning over the center console with their chest on the wheel, holding it tightly in both hands? Tell me who’s steering that car.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm

      • Howard

        Again Devin, I would say that the video evidence does not show that Jennings had the ball pulled to his chest. Tate began with his left hand grabbing onto the ball at the same time Jennings two hands grabbed the ball. Tate’s hand was between the ball and Jennings chest and there is no video evidence that shows it ever left that area. Therefore, Jennings could not have pulled the ball to his chest only toward his chest. And with Tate’s hand also on the ball I would say Jennings only had partial control of the ball and Tate had partial control of the ball. Or, if you would prefer, they both had control of the ball.

        To answer your last question I would say that if the person in the passengers seat is leaning over the center console with their chest on the wheel, holding it tightly in both hands then they would be steering the car. But if I had a hand gripping the steering wheel in between the persons chest and the steering wheel then we would both be steering the car.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:51 pm

  19. I watched the other example from the jets dallas game and the jet defender according to the rule had possession first way before the Dallas receiver had 2 feet down. I think you are blowing the feet down as possession out of proportion. It is based on the whole play. It is clear that Tate didn’t have control of the ball since he had to readjust his hands to be able to continue to wrestle with the ball. The other angles only show he had his hands close to the ball. Your seeing through your own blindedness

    September 26, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    • Two things:

      -The feet down shot was to show that Tate had established possession with 2 feet down, equaling a catch. It doesn’t matter who lands first if they both have possession of the ball, but it does matter that the offensive player establish 2 feet down and a share of it, which Tate did.

      -I also pointed out that Tate’s left hand never leaves the ball and never loses control, there are multiple angles especially the back angle video that show this pretty clearly.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    • In the Jet-Dallas game, the defender can land first but the offensive player has a share of the ball, so as long as the offensive player caught it at the same time and landed with 2 feet without losing the ball at all the catch goes to the offensive player. That’s what happened here. Tate got his left hand on it cleanly at the same time or even a split second before Jennings, and kept it there the whole time without losing the ball. So they are totally applicable.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      • Anthony

        tate didnt have possesion over jennings after jennings had landed which brought them down its most definetly an interception you must be a seahawks fan

        September 26, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    • Derek

      Did you also not notice jennings taking his hands off the ball as well? and the only blind ones here are the packers you guys lost and you still cling to hope that it’ll get overturned not once do the guys on espn or nfl.com mention the fact that tate had a hand on it the whole time why is that?

      September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm

  20. To the gentleman that wrote this post; you’ve done a very good job of illustrating just how inconsequential it is who had the ball while both players are airborne. What matters in the 2012 NFL rulebook is who has the ball in possession once they touch the ground with 2 feet and that player was Seattle Seahawks’ Golden Tate. The end, so stop crying about it Cheese heads. Aaron Rodgers has been showing exactly what a crybaby he really is. The Packers won 15 games last year and apparently they’re not accustomed to losing, but it does happen in the NFL and you simply are not as good as you were last year. Just remember, it wasn’t the officials the logged nine sacks on your supposedly reigning MVP.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:31 pm

  21. The way you describe it, a defender could grab the ball while the reciever is in the air and if he doesn’t have both feet down and the defender does, he would get the interception while still touching it since he is the one with both feet down first. That sounds ridiculous but it is what you are proposing is the rule.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    • Actually no. You are forgetting that the offensive player gets the ball if it’s simultaneous possession. Golden Tate had 2 hands fully on the ball with 2 feet down, before Jennings even gets his feet down. It is pretty clear cut at that point that at MINIMUM Tate shares possession. If Jennings was the offensive player, then it’d be a different story.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      • TexFan014

        Look… In the 2011 rule book (including approved rulings) it says this:

        “A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
        First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also 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.”

        You are completely ignoring this part of the rule that applies in these situations

        September 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      • Patrick

        TexFan014 you leave out the interpretation of control. Again mute.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:47 am

      • C

        decent article. the call is a lot closer than i originally thought. however, i still think you are confusing “control” and “possession” in your analysis. See,

        http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/

        i have a hard time believing that tate had any amount of “control” over the ball when jennings initially placed his two hands around the ball. it even appears that tate only had his fingertips on the ball at the moment that jennings grabbed it with two hands. but again, close call.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:10 am

      • Thanks for the comment. Your opinion is a fair one, I would have to disagree that Tate had zero control on the ball to begin the catch. But I’m glad we can agree it was very close. My main goal was to help stop this thought of this as the worst call ever and what not. Watching live, it’s bang bang and could have been called either way. The Seahawks just happened to get this one. If I’m the ref, I probably side with the offensive player too, considering how close it is to simultaneous either way.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:22 am

    • TexFan014

      Seriously… This “article” is trash, just like the NFL’s press release about the call.

      It absolutely matters who controls the ball first (even if their feet hit 2nd), otherwise a defender can stay on the ground and reach in just before the offensive player touches down to try to get a cheap INT.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:46 pm

      • I believe I showed that Tate had partial possession all the way through the catch, even if his right arm moved he had part of the ball for the full catch and he definitely had 2 hands on it by the time he touched down and possession was established.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      • TexFan014

        I believe you spent entirely too much time on this considering the NFL rulebook has a rule (and approved ruling) for this exact scenario

        September 26, 2012 at 9:26 pm

      • Control is defined as:
        “(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground;”

        In other words, whether Jennings pulls the ball into his chest first is irrelevant.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:02 pm

      • Patrick

        Exactly David and “control” is a judgement call that has to be determined by the naked eye in real time. not all judgement calls will be perfect as if it was slow mo and still framed.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:50 am

    • Remember that the tie goes to the passer. this is the third time that case has been brought up

      September 27, 2012 at 3:49 am

  22. diy75

    Thank you for the post. I cannot say you are 100% correct, but at least you did a much better job explaining the whole than any of the “professional” reporters.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:37 pm

  23. da HOOK

    The Cowboys-Jets example shows two receivers each with two hands on the ball. That is not what happened in the Packers-Seahawks game.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:41 pm

  24. simultaneous symmetry

    In the Dallas/Jets game, the two players were _symmetric_ around the ball. The ball was in the middle, both had hands, arms, chest, hips in the same place relative to the ball. That was simultaneous, so Miles Austin got the call.

    Not so with the the Green Bay/Seattle play. Jennings had all parts close to the ball: both hands, chest, knees. It was the classic catch position of his body relative to the ball. I do agree that Tate had a hand on it throughout, and sometimes had two hands. The big issue for me is that Tate was curling around Jennings. Tate was behind and lower than Jennings. Jennings was all ball, Tate was definitely ball, but also caught Tate. It is for that reason that I would say the two plays are not the same, that the Dallas/Jets play deserves the simultaneous rule but this one does not. On a contested play, referees do look at how the ball is managed after the ground is contacted. That can come into play I believe, which would argue that Jennings did have a physical advantage due to a lack of symmetry and thus the interception.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    • I hear you, but again it doesn’t really matter if Jennings has 95% of the ball, there is no “this guy has more of it so he gets it”, just like a jump ball in basketball doesn’t go to the guy who has more of it. They jump it up in basketball, and even if Tate has way less of the control, I believe I’ve shown that he has SOME control at all times, which means it’s simultanous possession and he is awarded the TD.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      • simultaneous symmetry

        With the amount of wrestling that naturally happens in this most physical game, we would probably have to consult that CaseBook mentioned a few comments below to see what they say about simultaneous possession examples. I am doubtful that some control (more like some contact) at all times is enough to constitute simultaneous catch. I bet they make simultaneous catch really, really rare. Someone has to win, this is football!

        The most persuasive video _detail_ I have seen is the video clip below that shows one of Tate’s hands on Jennings wrist early in the reception. Jennings hands were all ball all the time. That kind of detail again says they two players did not have a symmetric relationship to the ball. Jennings was all ball, Tate was ball and Jennings.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    • Sandman

      Although there perhaps should be, there is no stipulation in the rule regarding “degrees” of control. It actually doesn’t even matter how great and clear a catch it was for Jennings, as that isn’t even in dispute. Other than to check for the timing of initial control, there’s no other reason to even look at Jennings in this play. The call fully revolves around whether Tate got “control” at the same time (or before) as Jennings and if he maintained it through the requirements of becoming a “catch”. Tate’s left hand was the first to contact the ball, and if Tate can be deemed to maintain “control” with that left hand, even if it’s far less control than Jennings (control is something that can be shared, apparently can be done with one/two hands or arms, and need not be equal to the other persons control, but is otherwise undefined by the NFL), than it was a simultaneous catch given the other conditions of a catch have been met (which no one is really arguing any more).

      September 27, 2012 at 2:14 am

  25. Student of the Rules

    Quoting directly from the NFL’s 2011 Official CaseBook (the latest edition released).

    “A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
    First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also 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, as you can plainly see, A.R. 8.29 addresses the very situation that we found at the end of the game, and the ruling is “NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH”. Who lands when does not enter into it. The intercepting player clearly gained control first, and there is no argument that he maintained control.

    For those who are not familiar with the CaseBook, the CaseBook is the “other half” of the rule book. It gives many examples of plays and explains how to apply the rules to them. (It used to be that you could get a paperback of the rules but the CaseBook was not available, but since last year, both the rule book and the CaseBook have been made freely available on NFL.com.)

    (The CaseBook is fascinating reading. Anyone can know the rules well enough to know, for example, the precise circumstances in which a one-point safety is awarded, but without the examples in the CaseBook, their knowledge would be missing a good chunk of how to call an NFL game.)

    September 26, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    • I believe that I have demonstrated that Tate maintained partial control/possession of the ball from the first catch with his left hand (where he completely stopped the movement of the ball) all the way through the catch. It does not matter that Jennings had a better angle, position, and possessed “more” of the ball, they both had a piece of it from beginning to end therefore it’s awarded to the offense in this case. Touchdown.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm

  26. Billy Hanke

    After reading this article and seeing those pictures etc. I agree that golden tate made the catch over MD Jennings. Touchdown. However, I’m still sick to my stomach that the refs didn’t call OPI on him for shoving down sam shields. I don’t care that they don’t normally call it… so they don’t normally enforce the rules? So frustrating. It wasn’t a ticky tacky we all jumped into eachother type of interference. He freaking mugged the guy. In my opinion he should have been fined for it and flagged for it and the catch shouldn’t even matter.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    • I’m completely with you, sadly the fact is that they NEVER call that. I wish they didn’t have that practice. A foul is a foul. (Although, it could be argued that there is PI on the other Packers hitting the other Seahawk early, or that Clay Mathews roughs the QB on the throw)

      September 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm

  27. David

    Whatever helps you sleep at night diehard hawk fans. Even the NFL has explained that it was a bad call.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    • Brad Hobbs

      The NFL did not say it was a bad call. The only part of the call they said was erroneous ones that Golden Tate should have been called for the pushoff before the simultaneous reception.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      • David

        Just from the first day of response, not counting today:Two NFL analysts and even several of the players on the NFL network stated it was a bad call. The NFL’s official position is that it should have been further reviewed. That is a nice way of saying that it was a bad call. I rest my case.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      • Patrick

        analysts are not league officials, they do not work for NFL. and the league did not say that. show your source.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:57 am

    • diy75

      NFL said the TD call was correct. They said the PI call was missed.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      • David

        The exact opposite is true actually. They stated that the review should have been looked at further. They did not state it with any clarity, but that clarifies for those with some common sense.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    • Patrick

      one bad call among many many bad calls that benefited GB. 9 of GB 12 points were scored off bad calls. The phantom hands to the face that gave GB a first down on a 3rd and short and lead to their second FG, and the ridiculous and actual worst call of the game, the PI call on chancellor that allowed GB to continue the drive to score the go ahead TD. Not to mention the blown call on the spot of the ball after Rogers tried to scramble into the end zone on the same drive. In that replay it was obvious the ball never passed the first down marker, it should have been 4th and short twice that drive, not first and 10 or first and goal. And by the way GB had been playing the rest of the game compared to are defense I highly doubt GB would have converted either of them, no to mention the first call on Chancellor for the PI, if not called would have left the Packers at 4th and 2 on the 47 yard line with 11:28 left in the 4th quarter. In which the Packer would have punted.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:05 am

  28. Max

    So, I have a question for you. After you discuss to rule, you gone on to use the word possession to describe them as they come down from then on out. But the rule describes control. My argument, which I am sure you will disagree becuase of your single left hand point, is that Jennings had control first, then once they hit the ground Tate grabbed control with Jennings. Possession at that point isn’t the issue, its who had control… and Jennings had it first, which doesn’t make it a simultaneous catch, or a touchdown.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    • Actually the one video shows Tate had the ball in his left hand a split second before Jennings…but either way it was close enough to consider it mutual possession because they both had part of it the whole way.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:26 pm

  29. Jess

    Whole lotta words just to drag something on that is over and done with.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    • Brad Hobbs

      That may be true, but it’s worth discussion. The NFL analyst and many fans are interpreting this as something that the Seattle Seahawks are guilty of. Seahawks fans and players and their coaches have nothing to be apologetic for. The calls during that game were hideous for both teams. I simply wish they were able to play the game over with the original officials, but this is not a perfect world so we discuss what happened.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm

      • Exactly, and again my point with this post is even if I do not convince someone it was a touchdown, the fact that it is that close and that debatable should show that this isn’t the horrendous, league integrity-killing jobbing it’s made out to be.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm

  30. diy75

    But this case is not the same as A.R. 8.29 .”B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land.”

    Jennings did not control the pass in the air when Tate got his hand on the ball

    In my opinion, this case A. R. 8.29 is as vague as the rule itself. e.g. What do you mean by control?

    September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    • Re-read the rule on control. It states:
      “(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground;”

      It doesn’t matter if Jennings pulled it to his chest first or not. If he has control of the ball with his hands, which I believe this article shows pretty convincingly, it’s a touchdown. Period.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:06 pm

  31. Voice of Reason

    The NFL VERY rarely admits when there is a pass interference in the end zone. When they do, it it BLATANTLY obvious. This was one of those cases. The TD is thus null and void, game over 12-7 GB wins. The only reason Seattle won is because the NFL didn’t want to over-rule the out-matched referees, therefore making themselves look bad by not negotiating harder with the actual refs.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    • Katherine

      agree. There have been numerous REAL referees who said they would have called that. This excusing away of cheating (Shields could have very plausibly intercepted or batted down the ball) by saying “Oh, refs don’t call this” is garbage. They might allow a little more pushing and shoving during a hail mary, but if they let them get away with something this egregious then what’s the point of even refereeing the final play? Why not just let it be a free for all, do whatever you want? By the way there was also a chop block that you can’t see on screen that allowed Russell to have more time.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:14 pm

      • There could have been a number of penalties on this play on either team, that isn’t what this article is about though.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    • MrCarter

      This is funny, considering that anytime a flag is thrown and a penalty is assessed on a play, it cannot be reviewed. It is a penalty for a coach to challenge another penalty in 99% of situations. Also, if a player gets away with a penalty, it can’t be reviewed. Your “null and void statement” is just more unnecessary whining.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:10 pm

  32. Ghost

    What everyone seems to be missing is the atrocious PI call against GB that got the hawks down the filed, where the SH receiver MUGGED the GB player and the call was on the GB defender! THAT was atrocious! Without that call they arent even downfield far enough for this play to happen. I do admit that you make a good case for the call standing up under scrutiny- I can also see that it could have been called opposite as possession is FIRST established in the air, then MAINTAINED to get a touchdown. Remember several calls last year where the calls were controversial because the players didn’t hold on after the catch, even though they came down with the ball uncontested?

    Ive been on the side of the replacement refs all season as they have a very difficult job- but the calls in this game were horrible BEFORE this play…

    September 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    • db

      And you must be missing the bogus call on Kam Chancellor that directly led to Green Bays only TD.My point being there were atrocious calls all the way around that led to points for BOTH teams.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      • Katherine

        I love that it ‘directly’ led to GB’s td. Speculation. It would have been 4th and 2 and I could plausibly argue that they would have gone for it and gotten it and the drive continues. If I admit this was a bad call will you admit the roughing the passer was bogus and gb should have gotten the ball with that interception?

        September 27, 2012 at 9:02 am

      • Absolutely the roughing the passer was BS! So was the Shields PI. There were many bad calls (and non-calls) in the game, and they went both ways. No argument there.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:35 am

    • scott

      Funny you should mention that, because if you rewind the game a few minutes to a 3rd down before greenbay scored the go ahead TD, a horrible PI was called on cam chancellor of the hawks that gave GB a frist down instead of having to punt. this was HUGE call and nearly cost the hawks the game. The whole game was a plethera of bad calls. But the reality is that the Seattle D dominated most of this game, it should not have been close, but it was, mostly because of several bad calls. If the PI on chancellor had not been called the game would have gone differently and would probably had ended 10-6 as the hawks would have scored 3 instead of gong for it on 4th with just over 2 minutes to go. People are focusing so much on this one call, which was actually correct. The missed or non-called hail mary PI is irrelevant, calls get missed even by REAL refs. The hawks won a game they should have won anyway, and like mentioned before had the situation been reversed it would not even be a topic… the other reality is that this was purposefully used by ESPN and other as a reason to get the real refs back fast and force the NFL to negotiate the deal with the refs, which was to the refs advantage, fans and teams were screaming for the real refs…funny thing is after a few bad and missed calls in the weeks to come it will be the usual bitching about bad calls that cost teams games, it happens every year, refs are human and things go fast, it sucks, but it still happens.

      This was a great article and showed us angles and pictures that certain agencies (ESPN) failed to show us. I laugh how people keep focusing on control. Control doesn’t matter when you are in the air and 2 people make a simultaneous catch. Say what you want, but we all know players can make one handed grabs, so to say that Tate only having one hand on the ball makes it a non=catch is stupid. And those that keep bringing up the ruling on about a non-simo catch, that was in the middle of the field, there is a different set of rules when in the endzone. Even if you want to claim Tate’s possession doesn’t matter if it occurred with jenning’s in the air, that jennings still had partial possession. So what. If they both have the catch guess what, it’s a TD.

      The reality is if Gregg Jennings made this same catch against brandon browner or any hawks defensive player, and Gregg was in tate’s place and the hawk’s player was in jennings place, this would be a non-topic. The only point of contention would be the PI that wasn’t called. Get over it. It was the right call. And the reality is, if a previous horrible call had not occured this would have never happened and the Hawks would have won anyway. The better team that night won, controversal call or not. And best of all a good thing has come out of this bad press and whiner outrage….. THE REAL REFS ARE BACK.

      FYI,,,, a few of these same real refs screwed the hawks out of superbowl 40, and all but die hard steeler fans who watched that game will and do agree. Sure the hawks could have played better at times, but its hard to win when the refs are against you. But that is another arguement, my point is even the real refs aren’t perfect…..

      September 26, 2012 at 11:38 pm

  33. thats hilarious

    looks like someone is going to incredible lengths to validate a seahawks win.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    • Wolf

      It’s called analysis and research, which is what intellectually curious people do. And since this was the hot national topic for 48 hours, I’d say it’s good, topical coverage of at least a semi-important story. Kudos to the guy who undertook the effort. It beats the hell out of the usual Internet garbage that is done by half-wits with no attention span and no ability to write a complete, correct sentence.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:02 am

    • Patrick

      Thats hilarious -we don’t need to go to great lengths to prove anything. The Sea-hawks validated it themselves when they sacked Rogers 8 times in the first half, the most Rogers has ever been sacked in a single game. We held GB running back to 45 rushing yards for the game. While Lynch pounded it for 98 yards, half of which were after contact. Rogers spent the next morning crying on a radio show about how they got hosed, because his Ego was bruised, amongst other things, after he spent more time in that game with his a** laying on the field ,then he did making plays. Packers should spend more time learning how to defend the rush for their super bowl MVP, then crying about a game they never deserved to win.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:17 am

      • Katherine

        You’re right. GB’s o line was UGLY that first half. If they continued to play that way, I’m thinking it would have been a blowout by Seattle. There are two halves though. How many sacks did they get the second half? You have to give GB some credit for adjusting their game plan. And how did Seattle’s offense do the second half? (besides that last minute ‘td’ anyway) Seriously, don’t slam Rodgers for what he said because you think Wilson wouldn’t say the same thing? Probably. You have to expect a team to be frustrated when it can be argued they should have won.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:07 am

      • I would contend there were many obvious holds on GB not called in the 2nd half, which is why they managed to go from 8 sacks (with no blitzing) to 0. But that’s besides the point of this article.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:38 am

  34. Katherine

    Sorry to disappoint, but if you watch the video, you see who really catches the ball.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    • diy75

      sorry. this is disappointingly inconclusive. how did he get those numbers (seconds). those numbers sound like they are convincing, but they are not, if they were made up to impress

      btw, that other ref was stopping the clock.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      • Katherine

        Regardless of the numbers, the pictures show it all.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      • Ryan

        DIY –
        The other ref was stopping a clock with no time? You mean he was signaling a touchback ie. an interception? Head ref never makes it over there to talk with them to talk to them about what they saw. Head ref for that game should be fined for not doing his job properly.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    • That video is hilarious, apparently the makers have never seen one of the hundreds of one handed catches in NFL history. Also, it doesn’t matter if Tate has 5% of the ball, he has partial possession the entire catch so it is a simultaneous catch. Thanks.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:30 pm

      • Katherine

        I really shouldn’t bother because you are obviously going to deny anything that doesn’t agree with you. It shows he clearly doesn’t have partial possession the entire catch so it can’t be simultaneous catch. No biggie…you won’t ever change your mind, probably not even if Tate spoke up and said he didn’t catch it. I’m going to move on….

        September 26, 2012 at 9:42 pm

      • Sandman

        No kidding. It’s comical how many people automatically assume it takes 2 hands to have “control” of a ball. Considering the entire crux of the call revolves around the definition of “control”, why don’t they even address the issue? And where did they come up with 1000 lbs of force garbage? What a made-for-the-mindless-masses joke of an analysis that was.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:44 am

    • Sandman

      Right off the bat they have it wrong. We already know Tate made first contact with the ball.

      They couldn’t even get the easy parts right.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:38 am

    • Randy

      This Sports Science views like an ESPN propaganda film. If Jennings grip had 1000 lbs of force, I tate only holds 10% of the ball, why can Jennings STILL not rip it away from Tate’s left hand (which maintained control of the ball from original contact, again SS overlooks this) the entire way down, or on the ground? If you view the footage from the link posted on the article from Q13, it’s the reverse angle, that SS doesn’t even acknowledge or show. That angle shows Tate’s left hand maintaining solid control the entire way to down, DESPITE Jennings having 2 hands, AND better leverage. I am usually entertained by Sports Science, but wow, research ALL the videos next time.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:51 am

      • Katherine

        Look, I posted the video more for the close up angles than the numbers which I can’t validate. I watch the video and I’m looking and trying really hard to see what you see, but just can’t. Oh well. I am glad the ‘real’ refs are coming back because there have been so many mistakes that just wouldn’t happen otherwise. Seattle getting an extra timeout in week one. 49ers getting two challenges when they don’t have timeouts. Balls being marked in the wrong spot after a penalty. 5 minute conferences to decide what to call. Things like that. I’m not delusional in that I think the regular guys are perfect, but there should be higher quality football. Guess we’ll see how tonight goes.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:14 am

      • With the “Sport Science” video, they start with the completely inaccurate assumption that

        1. One hand cannot constitute control
        and
        2. That two hands on the ball overrules one hand on the ball

        Both of which are completely false. All Tate needed was partial control, which he had. Doesn’t matter if Jennings had way more control, if Tate has any as well at the same time (which he did, from beginning to end), it goes to the offense. Touchdown.

        Saying “Tate didn’t have his right hand on the ball at all times is irrelevant unless you show his left hand lost control as well, which is completely disputable at best. There’s no evidence of that happening, in fact there is evidence it didn’t happen since Jennings tries so hard but can’t get the ball away from Tate. Watch the reverse angle video again. Tate’s hand cradled around the ball tight while Jennings pins the ball to Tate’s hand.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:58 am

    • Patrick

      LMAO first contact. Jennings controls the ball half a second before Tate. It fails to break it down the whole play entirely. AND only proves how hard it is to call.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:11 am

    • cop

      I agree…this Sportsscience video was ridiculous. A hand on Jennings arm makes it “impossible” to control it with the other? What difference does it make how high Jennings jumps whatsoever? What they should have looked at is when the ball arrived at each players hands (simultaneously) and then who had possession as the play ended (Jennings AND Tate). The end result is a TD for the Seahawks. ESPN is clearly trying to persuade the masses of their narrative…one they have been heavily invested in since the post game coverage. Does anyone seriously think they would provide any evidence to the contrary at this point?

      September 28, 2012 at 2:57 am

      • The Sports Science video is a joke from the start when they assert it’s impossible to control or catch a football with one hand. Everything after is equally invalid.

        September 28, 2012 at 11:58 am

  35. Kip

    Fantastic article, just fantastic. I have no idea who you are, but great job with this.
    The biggest thing I’ve been trying to drive home to people is the fact that catching the ball in the air does not immediately constitute possession, but I had not considered the fact that Jennings was unable to pull the ball away from Tate’s hand as proof of Tate’s possession. Excellent point.
    Again, great job with this.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    • Max

      idiot

      September 26, 2012 at 9:15 pm

      • Fucking Max's Mom in the Ass.

        Your Shit is on my dick….as is your mothers.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:03 am

  36. scottM

    He say’s regular refs would call it the same. That is stupid because on sports center and tthe post game show on MNF had two ex NFL with 25+ experience both said they would have called it an INT. They said they could not believe it was called a TD. They both said it was a bad call. Two refs with 50+ experience. So your article is stupid.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    • Katherine

      agree again. ESPN sports science proved scientifically impossible for Tate to have caught ball. It’s done with, not getting changed. Just admit you got away with a bad call and move on. Stop trying to validate a point that is impossible to validate.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:16 pm

      • Sandman

        “not getting changed.”

        Yeah, it’s done with. Call on the field stands. I agree with you on that point at least.

        You do know on Sports Science they once said M.Lynch had the pulling power of a full sized truck, right? That show has, and continues to be a joke.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:48 am

    • Anyone who claims they would call it differently is doing so after analyzing slow motion replays of it. Watching it live, were you so 100% sure that Tate never had a piece of the ball? But thank you for proving my point. Hindsight is of course 20/20.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm

  37. willstamp

    I think you’re confusing ‘control’ with ‘possession’.

    When Tate’s feet hit the ground, they both have possession, that’s true. But the rulebook states:

    “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

    Jennings clearly had control first, Tate got one hand in there, but you can’t tell me that having one hand pinned between the ball and Jennings’ chest equals control.

    There’s a subtle difference between ‘control’ and ‘possession,’ be careful not to confuse the two.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    • diy75

      I think that NFL’s fault. If you read the rulebook (or the “cases”), they never explained what “control” means. It is possible the “regualr” refs have their convention to interpret it, but it is subjective at best.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    • Jennings did NOT have control first. Read the rule on control, it’s very clear:
      “(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground”

      Jennings and Tate both have their hands on the ball at the same time. The video is very clear on this point. Touchdown Seahawks.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:10 pm

      • Ryan

        False. Jennings has 2 HANDS on the ball before Tate even gets one on.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:44 pm

      • You need to cite a source my man. There’s more context to this sub-part than your quote lets on.

        This statement begs the question anyways. ‘Control is when you secure control.’ That’s circular. That control needs to be in a players hands or arms tells us (assuming your quoted statement is actually relevant) the LOCATION of control but not what control actually is; how to measure it; what it means; you get my point, right?

        September 27, 2012 at 3:54 am

  38. Bob

    one thing that you arent understanding is the simple fact of gravity. md jennings has the ball the whole time. GRAVITY of him falling into tates arms is why md jennings cant strip the ball from him. tate is on the bottom of the two. which makes it easier for him to grab onto md jennings. also during the play when md jennings catches it you can see that he hasnt even touched it yet. the rule states that possession ISNT when you hit the ground it is when you are in the air. the two feet on the ground mean nothing because when the possession was made it was in the air. it is the ten percent of you who think that it was the right call who arent looking at the rules for the NFL.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    • You’re confusing control and possession. Control is established in the air. When the reciever has control with his hands. Possession is established on the ground.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    • Patrick

      the first person to touch the ball is Tate’s left hand, he palms the ball and never lets go of it. That video of the backline footage in this article, shows Tate’s left hand still palming the ball in the same spot while Jennings is trying to wrench it out, but can’t. It is obviously a catch, I thought it was obvious it was a catch even in real time. I mean come on really, do you not see the football land length ways into Tate’s Left hand as he palms it right off the bat, it’s obvious. Jennings is grabbing at the same time the ball lands in Tate Left palm, i never see the ball leave Tate’s left hand throughout the play. And I saw one of the old officials with 25+years experience and what he said, yes. He said there should have been more concise discussion between all refs including the head ref before making that call, he never said which way he would have called it. The one ref sitting in the booth with Steve Young and all the other atrocious announcers, yes he said he would have called the play an interception, but he was watching from the sideline from 20 yards away, and every one in that broadcast booth was worried about one thing, ratings and getting the regular refs back. It was hard to watch the spectacle known as the media that day,actually I used to respect Steve Young, no he just tries to spin BS stories.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:33 am

      • ‘He palms the ball and never lets go of it” . . . “He palms the ball and never lets go of it” . . . “He palms the ball and never lets go of it”. This isn’t working. No matter how many times I repeat that statement I still can’t understand how another presumably reasonable and rational human being can make it and believe it.

        Teach me how you shut your brain off so completely. It would help me with my sleeping problems at night.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:58 am

  39. Brian

    It’s worth noting that Tate didn’t even get his second hand on the ball until both players are on the ground. He was holding Jennings’ wrist. That said, this is one of the better troll pages I’ve ever seen. Good job on that.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    • Katherine

      Why are people trying so hard to prove it was a valid call? It’s not like there’s a risk of the NFL changing the result.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm

      • diy75

        why are you trying so that to prove it was not?

        September 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      • Katherine

        diy75, fair enough. I guess I just truly believe it and I feel like the other side is just trying too hard. I am a Packer fan and the one thing I’m most proud of is McCarthy’s reaction to it. Whatever, real refs are back and on to the rest of the season.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:38 pm

  40. One thing seems to be confusing people. I wrote in the blog that:

    “According to the rules, this is why the call was correct. 2 Feet down, mutual possession of the ball, while Jennings is still in the air which by rule means he can’t have possession yet. Touchdown.”

    If Jennings had been the offensive player, he would have been awarded the TD because he also had partial possession the entire play. The fact that Jennings has his feet still in the air when Tate is down isn’t in itself what gives the TD to Tate. My analysis shows Tate has partial control from beginning to end of the catch and also is shown with 2 feet down, mutual possession and is the offensive player. The fact that he is the offensive player with 2 feet down and mutual possession is what gives the catch to him. What people need to realize is the tie goes to the offensive player, no matter how much “more” of the ball the defensive player seems to have. The fact that Tate comes down first just hammers this home more because he is the offensive player, he has established a catch and the defensive player hasn’t established a catch yet.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    • Ryan

      What you are ignoring is that Jennings establishes control with BOTH hands before Tate gets even one hand on. Even if that one hand got on there at the same time or even a bit before, MD has the ball with both hands first, establishing control before Tates other hand gets on there.

      This rule is very tricky and can be interpreted a zillion ways. I applaud your article and it brings many other facts to this debate. But if you talk to any NFL player or any competant ref, MD has control first, and that cant be disputed.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      • Sandman

        Two hands are not necessary for control. There are surely hundreds of one-handed NFL catches to show this. Or on your own, just toss a football in the air a couple feet and catch it with one hand and hold it there for a couple hours … then come here and tell us you still don’t have control of it.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:51 am

  41. Brad Hobbs

    I find it amazing how people see what they want to see. Green Bay fans are seeing Jennings with an interception, Seahawks fans are seeing Tate with possession and every Seahawk hater, which are vast and far reaching see anything but Seattle winning that game. I’m not really a Seahawks fan or a Packers fan, I just love football and I love to see it played at a high level. Seattle spanked the crap out of the Packers offense through most of the game and the Packers damn near gave the game away at the end with a fumble on the one-yard line. I think this call very well could have been blown by the regular NFL officials because not as cut and dried as it appears the way it has been portrayed on most of the high profile media channels, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story. Teams get lucky, we’ve seen it before with the Steelers, the Jets and even the Ravens on the day before the Seahawks, Packers game. The field goal looked wide by most analysts, but you don’t see anybody crying for Bill Belichick and the Patriots the way they are attacking the officials in the Monday night game. It’s not a perfect world, it’s not a perfect game and they’re not perfect officials, even the regular officials and when they come back, I guarantee you they will not be sharp. Every preseason and throughout the beginning of the season, the regular officials make mistakes. However, the replacement officials are under a microscope right now and that’s where all of this controversy is coming from. I agree, the replacement officials are not as savvy and conditioned to make proper calls and the regular officials, but they’re not perfect either and sometimes bad calls happen. Believe me, those poor Seahawk fans have had to endure some very high profile bad calls, just go back and check out Super Bowl XL. So, everybody just calm down and just let the game happen in the imperfect way it has for decades. Think about how many called strikes and balls have been wrong over the decades of baseball and many of them decide baseball games. It’s human and let it continue to be human. The game is over, it may or may not have been an errant call, move on and play football in stop all the whining. It’s just a fucking game.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    • I appreciate the comment!

      September 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    • TexFan014

      Did you really just say that the field goal in the Pats-Ravens game looked wide to “most analysts”?

      Who might those analysts be?

      September 27, 2012 at 7:32 am

  42. Erik

    So, consider this. A defender jumps in the air and catches a ball, and a standing receiver slaps at the ball at the same time in a downward motion trying to dislodge the ball. It seems that you are argueing that it is irrelevant whether or not the defender possesses the ball, if the receiver maintains contact with the ball through the end of the play by keeping that hand on the ball until the play is blown dead, it is in fact a reception by the offensive player.

    I see absolutely no difference between the real life play and the one I described as far as how your arguement should be applied. I don’t want to degrade you, but I believe that your logic is false. You can provide snapshots and slow-motion replays all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Jennings controlled the ball, Tate did not. There would be NO ONE arguing against the call if they had called it a pass interference. Not one person.

    Just for a point of reference, I’m a die hard Vikings fan, and was rooting for the Seahawks. But first and foremost, I’m a fan of the NFL, and it gave itself a wedgie on this one.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    • Your logic is that a receiver who is clearly not catching or trying to catch the ball slapping at it downward is the same thing as Tate holding onto the ball and never losing it beginning to end?

      September 26, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      • Erik

        I’m contending that your logic is flawed. If the player offensive player, according to you, maintains a hand (or an arm, I am guessing by reading some of your posts) in contact with a thrown ball that is caught by a defender, it’s a reception, not an interception. That’s an extrapolation of your stance.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm

      • Erik

        Its not my logic in question, its yours. I’m not contending that Tate made the catch by having a hand on a ball that another player clearly catches.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    • Sandman

      How is a “slap” maintaining contact? Control is seemingly undefined by the NFL, but I would guess common sense would include at least the ability to guide it in various directions if necessary without losing it. A slap is certainly exerting control on a ball in a way, but I don’t know if I would use the ability to cause an instantaneous, single direction only movement as my definition of “control”. I don’t think he does this in the article either.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:24 am

  43. Darius

    Thank you, for this article. This highlights the points I’ve wanted to tell people, but they were too angry to see. I would even add that “simultaneous catch” is considered a judgement call and therefore cannot be reviewed. Also, the scope of the instant replay for the touchdown is narrow and doesn’t account for a Jennings INT, as long as the ball is still in control.

    Lastly, I bet Jennings just wished he had knocked the ball either down (which has led to a WR catching it for a TD) or out of the back of the endzone.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:23 pm

  44. mr.niceguy

    damn these seahawk fans are pissing me the hell off!! trying to convince others and themselves that it was a “clean” and “golden” play

    September 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm

  45. Erik

    Lol…. in your clarification, you say that “What people need to realize is the tie goes to the offensive player, no matter how much “more” of the ball the defensive player seems to have.” SO,if he has a single finger on the ball… touchdown. He’s touching it so therefore possessing it, right?

    You have got to be a homer Seahawks fan.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    • I think you and I both know there’s a difference between what’s on the video and having a finger on it. Thanks for the comment.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    • D B H

      Exactly, Erik!

      And mind you, although it may not be visible on the replay, Taint likely has at least a few fingers on the ball through the end of the play = Seahawks Touchdown :P

      September 27, 2012 at 1:54 am

    • Randy

      Erik, if he only had a finger rested on it, why was Jennings not able to rip it way at any point on their descent? Tate had the ball secured in 1 hand, while Jennings had the ball secured in 2. Now if you can find me the NFL rule that says, “control of a catch requires 2 hands”, then I as a Seahawks fan will admit right here and now it was a blown call. But since everyone has searched for that for 2 days, and hasn’t found it in the rulebook OR casebook, a 1 handed catch can be just as much control as a 2 handed catch. And Tate clearly does have 1 hand of control the entire time, as you can see from the newly released back angle, and proved by the fact Jennings and his 2 hands (and 1000 lbs of force) can’t pry it away from Tate’s “finger”.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:00 am

    • Sandman

      Erik, why don’t you go ahead and supply a definition of “control” for us? You seem to have such a clear idea of what it must mean, so I’m interested in hearing it.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:29 am

  46. Chad

    ROFL this article leaves a lot out, but that’s OK, the missed OPI call on Tate would have ended the game anyway, so whether it was a TD or INT, is completely inconsequential at this point, what matters is that is was a bad call no matter how you look at it. And BTW there are other sites just like this one that show how it was an INT using the exact same rules LOL. What lengths Seattle fans will go to justify the win. Hilarious.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    • Both players had part of the ball, it goes to the offensive player. If Jennings was on offense it would go to him.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    • No one is arguing that it was a bad call. What we are arguing is that the bad call was the missed PI, not the catch. By the rulebook, with the video displayed above, that was a catch, simultaneous possession, and Touchdown. Read the rule on control and possession. It’s very clear.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      • Ryan

        Actually, thats what most everyone is arguing. So your definition of simultaneous possession is 2 hands on the ball is not possession, but one and then eventually the other is? So because Golden lands on the ground first, he gets it? MD was higher in the air, had both hands on it first, therefore, interception. Just my 2 pennies on the ruling.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    • Patrick

      this is sad. Why even argue the last play, there was many bad calls that benefited Gb before this call at the end of the game solidified their loss. The go ahead TD GB scored before this call, was only made possible by a way worse PI call on chancellor. The fact is Rogers got sacked 8 times in the first half, (most he has ever been sacked in a single game),GB Running Back had 45 yards rushing for the game, Rogers spent more time with his a** firmly planted on the field then making plays, and GB definitely lost this game regardless of the last play.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:48 am

  47. ben RAPISTboerger

    great job explaining i was one who thought jennings had it then i read and understood the rulings u posted which explains alot just wished it was against the steelers in a superbowl instead of a week 3 game

    September 26, 2012 at 9:29 pm

  48. Erik

    Why people are so upset isn’t because of the outcome of this one game, it’s what it does for the season of 2 divisions and an entire conference in the NFL this season. That victory/loss MIGHT change the playoff picture. Is that loss going to keep GB from making the playoffs, is it going to get the ‘Hawks in? Is it going to cost GB homefield advantage (ask the Saints how important THAT was…)? Is it going to get the ‘Hawks a wild card spot they arguably don’t deserve? In short, this ONE PLAY might change the entire season for the NFL. Then again, it might just be a blip on the radar… I hope for the latter.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:30 pm

  49. Joe Pas

    Any body who thinks FOOLS GOLDEN TATE is not a cheater and liar and an ignorant moron , and any body who believes he even had a piece of the football , or that pete carroll , who slinked out of USC like the cheating scumbag that he is , you should start watching pro wrestling. And the little bich Seatle fan who wrote this article should pull his head out of his over stretched , abused asshole.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    • Joe Pas

      P.S. Who is the gutless author of this fantasy article? Watch SPORTS SCIENCE on ESPN to see how it was truly an interception .And next time you pen an article , put your John Hancock on it. You brainless ,anal, cretin!

      September 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      • Katherine

        Don’t worry, I posted a link to the sports science video and he dismissed it. There are certain people who are blind to the truth even when it’s staring them in the face.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      • Patrick

        this is sad. Why even argue the last play, there was many bad calls that benefited Gb before this call at the end of the game solidified their loss. The go ahead TD GB scored before this call, was only made possible by a way worse PI call on chancellor. The fact is Rogers got sacked 8 times in the first half, (most he has ever been sacked in a single game),GB Running Back had 45 yards rushing for the game, Rogers spent more time with his a** firmly planted on the field then making plays, and GB definitely lost this game regardless of the last play.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:54 am

    • Randy

      Katherine, feel free to refute what I said in response to your sports science post. Or you are just as guilty as someone who “dismisse” it.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:05 am

  50. Jackie

    You can justify it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Jennings was up in the air and caught the ball FIRST had BOTH hands on the ball while Tate didn’t AND Jennings also HAD THE BALL TO HIS CHEST FIRST! 2 men fighting over a ball its very possible for BOTH of them to have their chests on the ball. The only reason why Tate wasn’t up in the air is because he got there late because of his offensive pass interference and ran over getting an arm on the ball as everyone else came down! Tate just got lucky having any part of his body on the ball at all! The ESPN broadcasters talked with Tate after the game and when they asked him about his “OPI” he said that didn’t happen. Video does lie Tate! You are NO HERO!

    September 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    • Huh? Did you even watch the video? Both players have their hands on the ball simultaneously. The only possible issue of contention is the issue of control of the ball. The rulebook clearly states how control should be applied:
      “(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground;”

      They both gain control at the same time.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm

      • Ryan

        Again, you spout falsehoods. MD had BOTH HANDS on the ball FIRST. Watch that sportscience vid again, Goldens other hand was on MDs wrist. Tool.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    • Do you even watch football? You sound about as retarded as my sister.

      September 28, 2012 at 4:47 pm

  51. s bennett

    Finally, someone somewhere that has not only a brain, a pair of eyes, but also understands the rules as set forth by the NFL. I applaud your intellect, your close scrutiny of the film from all angles, and for being intelligent enough to understand the rules. First and foremost for anyone reading this and thinking I’ve lost my mind let me say … it was absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt pass interference … game over Green Bay wins!!! But unfortunately due to … once again … NFL rules : penalties cannot be reviewed or challenged. After you get over that blunder, the facts and rules are plain and clear, the problem most people are facing when looking at and reviewing this catch is they have not seen all the footage from ALL the angle’s which finally someone has shown here. Tate clearly has his hand one the ball the entire time, and if you slow down the footage slow enough the ball clearly hits his hand at the same time Jennings puts both hands on the ball, this is what makes it a simultaneous catch, but it is not what made it a touchdown verses an interception. The difference is the rule when applied to an end zone catch. The receiver’s feet hits the ground first with both hands on the ball, sharing possession of the ball with Jennings whose feet are still in the air, this by rule is a touchdown. Once both players hit the ground and are rolling around and even with Jennings doing everything he can to pull the ball away from Tate, he clearly can’t because it’s Tate’s arm that’s between the ball and Jennings chest, clearly once again showing dual possession, but this is also after the fact. According to NFL rules, all the offensive player has to do is have possession and cross the goal line, if anyone watches the video above and looks at the pictures there is no one who cannot admit that Tate clearly has both hands on the ball, hits the ground with both feet first, and by NFL rules is a touchdown regardless of whether someone else had one or two hands, chest, or any other part of his body against the ball. That is irrelevant. Don’t play officials or the league for making the correct call based on the rules as they are now. If you really want to be mad …. then be mad for the following two reasons … first : change the rule to allow instant replayand challenges to be made on penalties … and second : to change the rule about what’s considered possession and dual possession in the end zone. Final analysis as much as everyone may hate it … the ref’s made the correct call based on the “current” rules of the NFL. If you disagree, or are still upset after seeing all the facts and seeing all the video … then it’s not the call you hate … it’s the rules as they are now.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    • Great comment, glad you understood it all!

      September 26, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    • Erik

      Homers….. gotta love them

      September 26, 2012 at 9:57 pm

      • Vick

        I like how you assume the Pack will likely take home field advantage again this year while the lowly Hawks would be lucky to be in an – undeserved – wild card hunt. If that’s not a false sense of entitlement I don’t know what is. It probably hurts to realize your Packers are no longer an automatic lock for best record in the NFC. I regret to inform you that there are other NFL teams your Packers actually have to play and beat this year to get the Lombardi. I am truly sorry the Seahawks forgot there place for a minute and played well against a couple of the NFL’s elite franchises.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    • Very good post. Guess some people at least understand it. Frustrating the amount of fans that just go with what “ESPN Science” says without reading the rulebook and being able to comprehend what it actually means.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:22 pm

  52. Mike

    For one thing, they can call any penalty when reviewing the play. So, once the ref looked at that tape, he should have called the PI on offense. Second, you are way off the realm of saneness. Tate barely had one hand pushing the ball into the defenses chest. That is not a completion so it couldn’t have been a touchdown. Third, the defense had two hands on the ball and held it to his chest the whole time. not removing his arms at all or ever unlike Tate who removed his right arm. Please how can you say they made the right call ever. Just to review, when the refs review the touchdown (by their own rules to review every touchdown) they should have caught the PI because it can be called from a review, the defense clearly had the ball the whole time and offense let go as well as had one hand on it at the start (possibly) and bad call/officiating. Thanks for reading my thoughts

    September 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    • The back end view video clearly shows Tate had a hand firmly on the ball in front of Jennings’ chest, he had a piece of it at all times. And no, by rule subjective penalties like PI cannot be reviewed. This has been stated by the NFL.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:46 pm

  53. David

    I am not a packer fan nor a seahawk fan. I am just tired of the bad calls. These one was case closed from the beginning. If this post had merit too it, it would have been posted by NFL itself. The response by the NFL has only been that the play should have been further reviewed. This is a nice way of saying the call was wrong. It happened during a superbowl between the cardnals and steelers about the clock. The NFL does not admit mistakes, but states that perhaps something could be looked at further. If you can read between the lines, you can see that the NFL admitted this as an error, but nothing can change the outcome. This is now the past and is already recorded history. Tate will forever have the TD whether it was correct or not. Jennings will always be the guy that gave him the ball. We see calls like this all over the league. What isn’t shown is the amount of craziness that is going on in the games. Beer bottles have been thrown in a steady stream onto the field since the beginning of this; and fights have broke out between fans all around my seats to the point that I will refrain from participating in anymore events until it is cleared up. My kids are not safe in such a mob.These games used to be a fun and entertaining event. Due to the inability of people to control themselves upon such situations, it has taken away from the experience more than the poor reffing.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    • Joshuat

      You’re an idiot David, the NFL said they reviewed it and the call stands. Stop making shit up… moron.

      September 29, 2012 at 6:29 pm

  54. fetentia targaryen

    i actually think this article is great. second, it was finally a call that made some (SOME) justice of all the STEALS the seahawks had to endure in these years by the so-called “real referees”. We still have to avenge a playoff spot in 1998 (vinnie never excused himself for that steal) and even more from a SUPERBOWL where the referees made at least 3 incredible calls to steal us the victory. But at today i am still waiting for some steAlers “sorry”, whereas the chief referee of that game already has done it to the seahawks. So the point is. The refs made the call, is a TD and please, if your pathetic life works around the packers, kill yourselves please.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    • KapryBender

      Yeah, still waiting for Willie Parker for apologize for his 75 yard run. Still waiting for the Steelers to apologize for their trick play – the same play that was used against Cleveland a few games earlier. Still waiting for Joey Porter to apologize for getting into the TE’s head and causing him to drop several passes. Still waiting for the Steelers to apologize for Holmgren’s poor clock management at the end of the first half. Still waiting for the Steelers to apologize for their conversion of the 3rd and forever in the 1st half. Still waiting for Big Ben to apologize for throwing the pick that if he had put some arc on the ball it would have been a TD, a 21 – 3 lead; instead, the Hawks score a TD on the ensuing drive teasing Hawks fans with a 14 – 10 score and giving them hope.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:23 am

  55. kjhgutdutdu

    Pretty sure only ONE hand of Golden Tate MIGHT be on the ball in that youtube vid bud. The other was clearly on Jennings’ right arm, presumably the entire catch.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:36 pm

  56. 49rslayer

    does gaining control mean two hands on the ball?? because WR’s dont catch a ball with one hand??!! It doesnt state that control has to be in more control of the ball then the other player. it was evident enough to show that md jennings could not rip the ball loose from tates hand meaning he also had control.Tate was holding on to the ball hard enough to turn his body in mid air so to say tate didnt get control too is unjust. then as they go to the ground both have possession! To close to call its over week 4 is upon us.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    • Great comment, thanks!

      September 26, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      • 49rslayer

        if you also see the top gif. md jennings hand positions couldnt not hold the ball correctly by himself. holding the top and bottom of the ball on opposite sides without the third hand in there would not work very well(try it at home, out of a hundred times you wont get it). he needs the CONTROL with the third hand to hold it into a position to control it. hence two players sharing control.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    • Erik

      Or, maybe, just maybe, the pressure of the ball being crushed to Jennings chest by Jennings actually trapped poor Mr Tate’s hand, and he couldn’t get it out because it was trapped… Poor, poor Mr Tate.. LOL… Homer.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      • 49rslayer

        uh he brought it to his chest while falling! but initially he caught it from his chest. tell calvin johnson its impossible to have control with one hand you pud! i like how you guys state the rules but the rules dont state what control is? is it one hand with ball pressed against your helmet? is it with an open palm with stick um? they need to state what control is for your comment to have any weight. Its a rule that needs to be reformed to avoid this type of play. also homer?!! your a f’n tool bro! hawks won! top 3 defense! top 6 run game! wins over dallas and green bay. those wins will never change just like the ones before that were contriversial! keep trolling and justifing your feelings about the game.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:13 pm

  57. 49rslayer

    time to rewrite the rulebook i guess. put control means two hands because ive seen megatron make a career with one handed controlled catches.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm

  58. Keith

    The problem with this analysis is that “possession” is confused with “control”. The rule about the simultaneous catch does not mention possession, it mentions control. While it’s true that you need 2 feet (or one body part) down to have possession, this is not the case for control — you only need to control the ball.

    In short, possession = control + 2 feet or one body part down in bounds.

    As the rule states, once Jennings gets control of the ball in mid-air, it is NOT a simultaneous catch if Tate subsequently gains joint control. Because Jennings had control first, this is an interception.

    FWIW I’m a Dolphins fan and my only stake in this game is that I picked the Seahawks +2.5 in a friendly pool I have with my friends. I don’t really care about either team.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    • David

      Good call. The die-hard fans are fighting this one like it means they get the win personally. I like to see my team win, but it doesn’t take or add any of the necessities of my life. I still have to go to work and pay my bills if my team wins the superbowl. Lol.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    • I feel I made clear how they both had partial control the entire time, which is why Jennings can never get the ball away from Tate at any point.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm

      • David

        Your post is a sad attempt for attention. No person can truly believe the things that you stated. My final words before I head off to bed.

        September 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm

      • Keith

        My problem is the part where you state:

        “The other important part is that when Tate’s right hand readjusts, he does so before Jennings feet touch the ground. By NFL rules Jennings has not established possession yet as both feet are still in the air, so when they both hit the ground and both have two hands on it, they both are awarded possession.”

        That’s not an “important part”. It’s irrelevant. Being on the ground is important for establishing possession, but not control, which is what is referenced in the rule.

        While Tate is “readjusting”, Jennings has control and Tate does not. At this point, as the rule states, even if Tate later establishes joint control, it’s not a simultaneous catch.

        In other words, if the following happen in order:

        1. Defender jumps in the air and establishes control of the ball
        2. Receiver jumps in the air and establishes joint control
        3. Both land on the ground

        That is not a simultaneous catch. It’s only a simultaneous catch if #1 and #2 happen simultaneously. The fact that they are in mid-air is irrelevant.

        I do agree that in real-time, there is room for error. Luckily, we are not limited to real-time. Simultaneous catches are reviewable when they happen in the end zone (they are not when they happen in the field of play, but that’s not relevant here). So, while I believe it’s understandable for a ref to make this call in real time, I don’t think that it’s reasonable to not overturn it. I believe that there’s indisputable visual evidence that Jennings had control first, therefore it’s an interception.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      • Erik

        No, you have made clear what your opinion as a Seahawks fan is. Don’t try to present them as facts, because your arguements are laughable.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:03 pm

      • Ryan

        Uh, MD had full control the entire “catch”. Any video will show you that.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:02 am

  59. Mikol

    Tate’s right hand does NOT touch the ball (It touches Jennings’ arm/hand) until after he “adjusts” his right hand, as you put it. Saying that there was duel possession seems far fetched. I am not a GB fan, nor am I a Seattle fan, but right should be right. I’m not even saying that it should necessarily have been called an interception…but it DEFINITELY wasn’t a touchdown either. Final score in my book: 12-7

    September 26, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    • Michael

      By rule, it doesn’t take 2 hands to catch a football and have possession. He did attempt to close his right hand over the ball but that does NOT mean he didn’t have possession.

      September 26, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    • Sandman

      Go watch some old Chuck Muncie videos. One hand is completely sufficient for control. It would make this call much easier if Tate had both hands on the ball the whole time, but just having one can be sufficient.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

  60. Etienne

    The problem with your interpretation of the rule is that Jennings had the ball first, then Tate put his hand in. It was not a simultaneous catch. I understand that taking the speed into effect it’s hard to make a call. When I watch it in normal time I can see that Jennings was the first to control it with to hands. Tate only gained control while coming down. The only reason he got his feet down first is because he didn’t jump as high as Jennings, who caught the ball at the highest point.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm

  61. Bob

    also… if it wasnt i wrong call… then why did the nfl just so happen to agree to terms with the regular refs? a coincidence? i think not. to whoever said that the nfl said it was the right call.. they didnt say that.. it was a very well written document saying that they are sticking with the call.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:46 pm

  62. Tony Elder

    Your Joking right…….Jennings caught the ball…Tates one hand was behind Jennings BACK as the ball is caught!!!!! Tate then on the way down, takes his arm from Jennings back and brings it around to the front and TRIES to get his other hand on the ball and has a hard time doing it as Jennings has both his hands on the ball AND has it clinched to his chest. Get off your high horse and quit trying to cover for the BS that happened Monday Night. The reg refs are back come tomorrow!!!!! The BS is over finally. I HATE the Packers but they got screwed on this game and their precious shield got massive damage from this lockout.

    September 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    • Tony Elder

      meaning the NFL’s precious shield

      September 26, 2012 at 9:50 pm

  63. Michael

    I’m so glad someone did exactly what I wanted to do – take this from different angles and show how it WAS A CATCH. My brother and I got into an argument because I knew the rule and saw exactly what this article shows( except I noticed it in real time) and he swore Green Bay got robbed. This just shows what we have known all along – Green Bay is a bunch of whiners and cry-babies (the football players not the fans :) )

    September 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    • Erik

      …says the Homer….

      September 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm

      • Michael

        I live in New Orleans and am a die hard Saints fan, moron. Get a life, a brain, and a pair of eyes you twit.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      • MrCarter

        Do you say anything besides Homer?

        September 26, 2012 at 11:21 pm

      • Ryan

        Yeah, to people that arent subjective homers.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:03 am

  64. Katherine

    I have a hard time accepting things from people who call names and tell people to stop crying about it while they themselves are still arguing. Unlike some people, I am a Packer fan but I can admit when my team loses. The first game of the year I was worried about because the Packers played the 49ers. And correctly so, because we got beat. fair and square. I’m not crying about this loss because there’s no sense in ‘crying over spilled milk’ so to speak. Yes, there were penalties against Seattle that shouldn’t have been. I’m not ignorant. But that roughing the passer call? Bogus. And PLEASE don’t try to defend that pass interference call against Sam Shields. I can admit when my team plays like crap, when we do things wrong. But I was proud of them for coming back the second half and playing well. Our defense played great. Seattle’s defense played great (especially the first half…I mean, Clemons had 4 sacks! That’s amazing!) And if this was reversed, I would say Look, we got away with one. I just wish that Seattle fans (or Packer haters…) would do that with this one. Now on to the rest of the year…

    September 26, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    • I completely agree with you on a lot of this. The roughing the passer and PI on Shields were complete BS. So was the PI on the Seahawks, but what can you do. Bad officiating all through the second half and both teams had bad calls go against them.

      I can understand why you feel it’s still an INT, no hard feelings there. Like I said, I just ask that people admit that especially watching it live it’s a very close play and not this obvious travesty that ESPN is going on about. The ref did the best he could with it and I presented the best argument for why they made the correct call. I can’t say I would have called differently in his shoes and with 2 teams I am unbiased towards, but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel VERY fortunate that they called it our way. It could have easily been called either way, and with these refs who knew what would happen. Just glad we “got away with one” for once, ya know? Good game and good luck to your team the rest of the way. Thanks for being classy!

      September 26, 2012 at 10:23 pm

  65. In the 22 second slo-mo it looks to me like Tate grabs Jennings forearm first rather than the ball. Tate doesn’t have any semblance of mutual possession until after Jennings knee and hip touch the ground.

    I would agree that it was a close call. The slo-mo would give the evidence needed to call it an interception.

    Still it was nowhere near the worst call ever.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    • Joshuat

      Your are stupid if you see Jennings has possession after his feet are on the ground. That is one think about the play that is indisputible. Possession was shared on the ground.

      September 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm

  66. Keith- The reason Tate establishing two feet in the end zone is important is partially because end zone rules are different. Once Tate has control of the ball and two feel down in the endzone, it’s a touchdown as long as he doesn’t lose the ball- which never happens.

    Tate completes the touchdown before Jennings has even landed, therefore before there can even be an interception. The pictures are proof.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm

  67. Tony… Tate’s left arm is in Jennings CHEST when the ball arrives – not around his back. The power of denial is just amazing. I really have no clue what footage or who’s arm it is that you’re looking at, but it’s obvious that you need to clear your vision.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    • I feel like a lot of people are skipping over the link to the behind angle video, which shows very clearly that Tate’s left hand was on that ball firmly. The ball was not pinned to Jennings’ chest at any point because Tate has his hand there. People are acting like he just had an arm randomly near the ball, this is not the case.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:27 pm

  68. jcm

    So, first i have to say that the PI should have been called, but as previously stated, unless its extremely obvious in those situations it usually isnt, and it cant be reviewed, so thats the way it. I do have to say though, that Jennings had and kept possession and control of the ball throughout the catch, Tate did not. If you watch the second slow motion video, where it was stated that Tate removed his right hand to get a better grip on the ball, you can see that his hand never even touched the ball. And also, when catching a pass in the end zone the player must maintain control upon hitting the ground for it to be ruled a TD. The only thing Tate had on the ball was his left hand caught up in Jennings arms. Watch the video again and honestly say that Tate had possession over Jennings, he didnt.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:22 pm

  69. 49sf

    Here’s another play from last year for you to compare that Monday Night game to.

    This time it’s a Seahawk receiver who goes over the top to make the catch and you can even hear one of the sportscaster say that the Seahawk receiver gets his hands on the ball first. Listen to what the sportscasters say and to what the call is by a non-replacement ref.

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d823d47d3/Over-the-top-catch

    September 26, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    • The huge differences in that play are:

      -it doesn’t take place in the end zone
      -the seahawk doesn’t get 2 feet down first

      Because our play here takes place in the end zone, Tate having 2 feet down and partial control gives him a TD before an INT can ever happen.

      That being said, I have a hard time accepting that last year’s play was ruled correctly. Certainly seems to be a catch as well to me since the offensive player clearly has control first, but even if it was completely simultaneous I’d again give it to the offensive player. But I’m not too worried about that one.

      September 26, 2012 at 10:29 pm

      • 49sf

        Listen to what the sportscasters are saying. Basically, the only way that play can be ruled an interception is because defensive player has BOTH FEET on the ground FIRST, even though they both seem to catch the ball “simultaneously.” One of the sportscasters even says it looks as if the receiver grabs it first in the air going over the top, while watching the slow motion replay.

        The ruling is in complete contrast to what ESPN has been saying about Monday Night’s game and this was a call by the regular refs.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:45 pm

      • 49sf

        In that play the Seahawk, Baldwin, is the receiver. Sensabaugh, the Cowboy is the defender.

        In slow motion replay Baldwin appears to make contact with the ball first. At worse you can say both Baldwin and Sensabaugh caught the ball at the same time and therefor the simultaneous catch rule comes into play. However, it is ruled as an interception by Sensabaugh.

        The sportscaster’s rational is that even though Baldwin touched the ball first, Sensabaugh is the one that got both his feet down first. The play doesn’t even qualify to be called a simultaneous catch, because even though Baldwin caught the ball first he was still in the air when Sensabaugh’s feet were on the ground and therefor the first one to establish possession.

        By that same rational, Monday Night’s call would be correct because Tate was the first one down with both feet, it wouldn’t even matter if he was not the first player to touch ball.

        The call on the Seahawk vs Cowboy game came from a regular ref and probably received no more than 10 seconds of conversation from ESPN. Monday Night’s call however, has been blown way out of proportion by ESPN in an effort generate ratings.

        September 26, 2012 at 11:43 pm

  70. Pingback: Green Bay, Quit yer Bitchin’ | My 2nd Amendment Journey

  71. Chris

    You are all idiots! Just because you’re touching the ball doesn’t mean you caught it! Simultaneous catch means you both get POSSESSION of the ball at the same time like the video of Miles Austin in this article. Both the defensive player and the offensive player had the ball in both hands at the same time… That is a simultaneous catch! Tate clearly didn’t EVER have control of the ball and all the ignorant Seahawks fans just need to shut up and realize they lost the game but walked out with a gifted win. When all of the professionals who play and coach the game for their whole lives agree that it was a clear interception then they probably know a little more than people who watch the game from their couch a few hours a week

    September 26, 2012 at 10:30 pm

  72. ownu

    I can understand the game last year between Dallas and NY, Austin pulled it away from the defender but this one right away looked like an Int . In this one Jenning’s had it tight while Tate had his hand simultaneously grabbed with the ball by jennings and he landed on tates chest while was facing upward still with the ball solidly in his grasp, tate was fighting for dear life to put his right hand on the ball because im sure he didn’t even think he had possession. And while people like to say someone doesn’t know the rules this was a bang play and for the Replacement ref to realize tate had some kind of partial possession and have his feet on the ground would be highly doubtful, just the fact jennings being on top and having the ball against his chest (probably about the only thing the refs saw since they couldn’t even see the obvious off. pass interference) while jennings was trying to get that hand in I really believe the Real refs would have called it an INT which a former Real ref(25 yrs of exp.) said it should have been during the broadcast. Vets from around the league even HOF players were strongly voicing it was a blown call, there might be specific rules but considering the speed of the game only qualified experienced referees and experienced players who understand the speed of the game can see this was an INT. Nice try though but its a little to technical & armchair to sound like it comes from some real football knowledge, it is what it looks like. Even though i really hate the packer this one just isn’t right.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:35 pm

  73. TS

    Jennings’ two hands actually gripping the ball trumps Tate’s fingertips touching the ball when they are in the air. As a result, Jennings gains control of the ball first. When he pulls the ball to his chest, he also traps Tate’s left hand as well. Until that point, Tate does not have control of the ball in any form since touching does not constitute control. Even after Tate repositions his right hand to touch the ball and gain some form of control, Jennings is maintaining the control he already has on the ball and maintains it all the way to the ground. Since the rule states that it is not a simultaneous catch if one player has control before another, Jennings has the INT.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:53 pm

  74. fuckyou

    YEAH YOU HAVE TO HAVE FEET DOWN EXCEPT HE DIDNT HAVE HIS HANDS ON THE BALL YOU FUCKING RETARD

    September 26, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    • 49sf

      There’s no doubt Tate had his hands on the ball before both of Jennings’ feet hit the ground. You have to be either blind or delusional to think otherwise.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm

      • You’re right. But it doesn’t matter. Having your hands on the ball (or hand, in Tate’s case) has nothing, in and of itself, to do with whether a catch has been made.

        Imagine a situation where a DB catches a ball into his chest but at the same time a receiver comes from behind and grabs the ball by reaching around the DB’s shoulders, like a bear hug from behind where both players are holding the ball. Even though the players both touched the ball at the same time and maintained their contact with the ball to the end of the play, only the DB actually had ‘control’ over the ball, so, only the DB actually made a ‘catch.’

        Jennings and Tate’s situation is more complicated because Tate didn’t come from behind, he was right next to Jennings. But the ultimate question is still the same: “Who gained control first, or did they both gain control at the same time?” I’ll let you answer that question for yourself, but at least you should have the real issue properly framed for you.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:10 am

  75. Gail Storm

    Tate doesn’t have control of the ball so how many feet he has on the ground doesn’t matter…and the officials were not in position to make the call anyway so couldn’t have seen any of this.

    September 26, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    • 49sf

      The goal line ref was no more than 9 yards away from the play. He was in the endzone at that corner.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:41 pm

  76. Mike

    I’m sure by now you have seen the sports science clip that says it was not a Simultaneous catch and Jennings had the interception. The Video and 99% of America must be wrong. You have way too much time on your hands.

    September 26, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    • As I said in the article, I don’t expect to convince everyone but regardless my point is it’s very close and virtually impossible to tell when watching it live for the first time. If it takes you watching a so-called “sports science” video timed to fraction of a second and showing surface area %’s on the ball to show your side? That to me says it’s pretty darn close either way. My ultimate goal was to show that it was closer than most people think and to show how it was understandable to make that determination of simultaneous possession on the field. It’s far from the travesty of a call that the media is reporting. That’s all I ask to consider in the end.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:26 am

  77. Michael O'Sulivan

    Sir,
    Though I respect you for expressing an opinion, I regret to inform you that, the above rule doesn’t applying. Simultaneous possession would have worked, though Jennings had 2 hands on the ball before any other player, Tate had one hand on the ball compared to two hands and pulled against the body, it’s plain to see through your obvious lack of intellect and blatant ignorance of possession that you are in fact wrong, further more could not be more wrong. You state that the offensive pass interference would never be called, well once again you show your ignorance of the game, my friend there has NEVER been a case with that obvious of interference from one team to the other, that blatant interference shown before. You Sir are an ignorant pompous ass. Though this profanity does not do justice to you. Furthermore the Seahawks should never have been gifted the defensive pass interference to set them up for this in the first place. Then there is the fact that Tate officially said “he didn’t shove off” another player, another lie, how can he be believed he has now established his reputation as a bigoted liar. He later admits that he did infact shove off, so which is it? If he changes his word on this, maybe he can change it on the catch as well. So the Seahawks got lucky, I personally am just glad that the ‘real’ referees are back and about time. Also the 5 whole followers you have obviously means that you have enough of a following, also enough know how to express your opinion over those who are PAID to perform this. So you must be speaking from a massive wealth of experience. As well as the poor literation of points I can assume you do not have the authority to express a valid view, or one to be respected as a person.

    September 26, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    • in 87 game ending Hail Mary plays over the past 5 years, not once instance of OPI has been flagged.
      Of course you probably already knew that… and if the simultaneous possession rule doesn’t apply perhaps you should contact the league office. They thought it applied.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:36 pm

  78. What I find funny is that if Jennings had possession, why after hitting the ground was he fighting for the ball? The play was over, and nothing after hitting the ground made any difference. Fighting over the ball in the end zone means that Jennings thought he could gain possession, and he is clearly trying to rip the ball from Tate’s hands.
    If he had the ball, he would only trying to hold his own instead of trying to secure possession.
    And TJ Lang, you are an idiot.

    September 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    • 49sf

      True, if you have to fight to get away from a guy you are on top of, obviously Tate has a firm grip on the ball.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    • scott

      As I stated before this is a great article and shows us things that the reviews on ESPN did not. It is sad that it happened, but out ofthis chaos we are getting the real refs back. Who will make bad calls too, just not as many of them.

      People see what they want to see, biased by their allegance. Most non-biased fans can see that it was a simultaneou catch. And if they know the rules in the endzone and of simo-catches. Then they know it was the right call. The non-called PI sucks, but calls get missed and we all know leway is given during hailmary passes for some reason.

      If you watch the game, GB was dominated all day. The score board does not reflect the game, look at hte stats, and 1 huge stat…. 8 sacks in the first half alone. But the bad PI on cam chancellor that gave GB new life on a 3rd down during their TD that game them their first lead of the entire game, was a game altering call and nearly lost the game for Seattle.

      It’s funny how many people are outraged and think GB was robbed, they obviously did not watch the game, and 99% of those that are mad are GB fans. Its too bad ESPN didn’t do as much research and show the angles you did in this article. But then they would not have got the ratings or play the part they did in getting the NFL to push for getting the real refs back. These are the same refs that players bitched about all last year and will be bitching about again in a week or two.

      September 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm

      • I hope you’re read some of the legitimate responses to OP obviously flawed argument here. I doubt it, but I still hope it.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:12 am

  79. Bob Dole

    bottom line is, the Seahawks are hella good and deserved to win.

    September 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm

  80. ray

    Good article mate! spot on! I am a seahawks fans and I also doubt of the win. But after reading this, I’m convinced about our win!

    September 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm

  81. Alex Robertson

    You all are mistaking the definition of simultaneous possession. Both players must have simultaneously gained “control” of the ball, which is able to be established in the air and without both feet on the ground. Tate got part of his left hand on the ball early on, but not it was partial and not enough to constitute control. Jennings, on the other hand, had both hands firmly on the ball, establishing control. Id est: Jennings was the first to control the ball in the air and he maintained it throughout the landing. If you want to argue that Tate’s left hand was enough to establish control, you’d be wrong, but that is the ONLY basis for it not being an interception. The NFL has things called Approved Rulings, which basically break down the application of rules. From the NFL’s official 2011 rulebook (if they changed the rules over the off-season, this is subject to change… but I seriously doubt they changed the rules and application of ‘Simultaneous Possession’) A.R. 8.29 states “”First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also 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.” What this means is that if the defender (B3) established control before the offensive player (A2), but the offensive player established control after the defender but BEFORE landing, the play results in an interception. So you all need to stop with the “Tate’s two feet landed first” and whatever else, because it doesn’t matter, since control can be established in the air. If you want to read it for yourself, be my guest: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf

    September 27, 2012 at 12:00 am

    • 49sf

      So explain the call here.

      http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d823d47d3/Over-the-top-catch

      And your quote from the 2011 casebook is no longer in the 2012 casebook.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:04 am

      • durrrr

        There is no publicly-available 2012 casebook, nor even a 2012 rulebook for that matter. The only people that have access to that rulebook and the casebook it contains are the refs. You have no idea what’s in it. If you can’t make your point without lying, you should probably just admit you don’t have one.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:13 am

      • 49sf

        http://www.nfl.com/rulebook

        In case you are not sure witch one it is, it’s the one that says 2012.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:15 am

      • durrrr

        PS. Though the 2012 rulebook isn’t available, it’s easy to find a list of the changes that were mad between 2011 and 2012. None of them pertain to simultaneous possession, so what’s your point? Other than a weak attempt at throwing out some more smokescreen BS to shield the poor Seahawk fans from facing the truth, that is.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:15 am

      • 49sf

        Smoke screens like you BS post about it not being available?

        September 27, 2012 at 12:16 am

      • durrrr

        You’re right about the rulebook — that hadn’t been uploaded last time I checked. Now show me the casebook…? Go ahead, click on the thing that says “download 2012 rules and casebook” and show me where in that document the casebook is. You can’t, because it isn’t in there.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:19 am

      • durrrr

        Go on… I’ll wait. *Jeopardy theme*

        You won’t be responding, because there’s no casebook in there. As I said, you have no idea how the 2012 casebook addresses the simultaneous catch issue. Stop pretending.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:22 am

      • 49sf

        lol. Like you said go ahead and click the thing. Then read the first page.

        You’re just making a fool of yourself.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:23 am

      • Alex Robertson

        The way I explain that call was, if it was in fact simultaneous control, they miscalled it (it looked like it may have been), as the announcers stated. I don’t get your point. About the other part… you said “And your quote from the 2011 casebook is no longer in the 2012 casebook.”

        Dude, are you seriously still trying to defend it? The 2011 rulebook & casebook is 244 pages and the 2012 rulebook is 120 pages. It will be the casebook that has the application rules for simultaneous possession (I hope, specifically, the one from 2011 that proved my point), not the rulebook. So for you to call the 2012 rulebook the 2012 casebook was either misleading or ignorant. Either way it doesn’t work.

        And in what way is durrrr making a fool of himself? He was wrong in that it actually was posted, but after that point he only pointed out how you were wrong. How is that making a fool of himself? Seems like redemption to me.

        The rulebook link that you provided only served to strengthen my point because I found that simultaneous possession was defined the same as it has been reported on the news and everywhere else (the rulebook calls it “simultaneous catch” not “simultaneous possession” – whatever you call it, it’s the rule that should have been correctly applied).

        I have a question for you, 49sf. If the A.R. 8.29 has not been contradicted in the 2012 casebook and what I said stands and if in fact Jennings controlled the ball first, would you say that it was a botched call?

        September 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      • Alex Robertson

        By the way, 49sf, in case you’re unsure… the link is NOT the casebook. In the 2011 PDF, if says Rulebook and Casebook. If you search for “Casebook” it will eventually take you to page 132, where the Casebook portion of the PDF begins. In the 2012 PDF you provided that is titled “Official Playing Rules and Casebook of the National Football League”, there is NO Casebook section. The file ends at page 120. It is incomplete… it does not include the casebook.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm

  82. HawkTalk

    Another fun fact: According to ESPN, of the 100+ tapes their analysts watched involving last-minute hail mary passes, guess how many PIs (offensive OR defensive) were called? ZERO! Never (when more than a 1v1 situation) was any PI called against a player.

    Does that make it right (according to the rules)? No. But if you think the regular officials would’ve called it ANY differently, you’re just plain wrong. I’m glad the controversy spurred the NFL to get their act together and get the real refs back, just a bummer that Seattle (yet again) gets shafted by the sports media bias.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:05 am

  83. durrrr

    Dude, get a clue. Stop making up your own interpretations of the rules and look at the NFL Casebook. It’s included in the 2011 rulebook that’s available on NFL.com and it covers this exact scenario.

    “A.R. 8.26 SIMULTANEOUS CATCH
    First-and-10 on A20. A2 and B3 simultaneously control a pass in the air at the A40. As they land, one or both players fall down to the ground.

    Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on A40. The ball is dead.

    A.R. 8.29 NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH

    First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also 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.***”

    All this garbage about there being no control until the player lands is something you made up. Stop waving your hands and just accept that your team got lucky. You lost the game but got the win anyway, and like Carroll, Tate and the rest of that scummy-ass team you aren’t enough of a man to cop to it. That’s ok; your lack of integrity doesn’t change what really happened. Comfort yourself with your hollow victory. It won’t last. Before long the Seahawks will be back in the basement of the NFC West where they belong, Carroll will be fired, the overrated midget 2B you guys call a quarterback will be exposed for what he is, and fans of quality organizations that see a winning record more than once or twice a decade will be watching their teams in the playoffs.

    Beating Green Bay on a bogus call from a scab ref is your Super Bowl. That’s the best you’re going to see from that team this year. Savor it. It won’t last.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:09 am

    • Rational person from seattle area

      Your right, but what you just copied and pasted was modified by a blogger dude. Much like the dude that modified the rules in this blog. I went to A.R. 8.29 and its about grounding the ball in the actual rule book…haha Read the actual rules man, you’ll find what your looking for in the argument, just not in the section you just posted.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:32 am

      • durrrr

        No, it wasn’t ‘modified by a blogger dude.’ Like I said, 2011 Casebook.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:39 am

      • Rational person from seattle area

        Way to pull that completely out of your ass. A png document? Really? Im not disagreeing with your argument, im disagreeing with where you get your source material. You seem like your not very educated, a png document is a photo document which means nothing, no where for me to pull the info of where this came from therefore not valid source material. Before you look at a webpage and take it as fact, know that your source material could be written by anyone. for example, you know that half of the black history webpages that pop up first in google were written by the KKK or Nazi affiliates. Check your sources :)

        September 27, 2012 at 10:38 am

      • Rational person from seattle area

        http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/26_2011_Official_CaseBook.pdf

        This is a link you should have given me if you wanted to argue your point. Don’t pull it out of your ass buddy.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:44 am

      • Alex Robertson

        Lol… yeah go to http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf and search “A.R. 8.29″. You said you found the grounding A.R. 8.29 from your own research. That’s funny that you urge durrrr to read the actual rules when if you had in fact continued with YOUR OWN research, you would have seen the A.R. to which we’re referring. And why are you hounding him for not providing a link? You said that you had checked the A.R. 8.29 before durrr had provided a link… so I don’t understand why you have a problem with him not giving you a link to what you somehow found by yourself. Nice try to save face lol. I would have liked to see a link to your claim that A.R. 8.29 was grounding, though.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      • Rational person from seattle area

        http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_F

        September 28, 2012 at 7:18 pm

  84. Max

    Maybe I’m coming late to the party, but in the definition of control it states “hands” or “arms” plural. That fact seems pretty important. Can Tate actually establish any share of control with only one hand? There are one-handed catches, but when making those the receiver almost always draws the ball into his body to complete the catch action. Since the issue is settled prior to the ball reaching anyone’s body, wouldn’t Jennings have first control, thus avoiding any need for the simultaneous catch rule?

    September 27, 2012 at 12:13 am

    • Randy

      You would think so Max, but I’ve seen countless catches where the ball is caught with 1 hand and not brought in to the chest or body. Yet it was still a catch. And if Tate didn’t have control in his left hand the entire way down, why was Jennings, with a 2 hand grip, not able to rip it out at any point?

      September 27, 2012 at 10:19 am

      • No one can answer this one, Randy. Apparently it’s very obvious Tate doesn’t have any control whatsoever with his left hand, and yet Jennings fails to pull it away or make Tate lose the ball at any point in the catch.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:22 am

      • Randy

        Totally agree. And well done on this. The only thing that people who disagree with the call should be arguing, is what we’re arguing: Did Golden Tate have control with 1 hand from the time of the catch. Anything Jennings does is irrelevant if the answer is yes, and I believe it is.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:53 am

      • I’m right with you, Randy. I believe there’s enough evidence to support that claim.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:57 am

      • Bob

        because of gravity and the ball along with jennings lands on top of tate which makes it easier for tate to get control after they have already hit the ground

        September 27, 2012 at 12:26 pm

      • How does this prove at all that Tate has no control through the catch?

        September 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm

  85. Frostbyte

    Good job on explaining what we missed while watching the limited camera shot from ESPN.
    The back of the endzone clip clearly shows Tate with possession at thhe same time and touches the ground before Jennings. I wonder if there would of been less outrage if everyone seen all the differnet angles other than the only shown on MNF.
    I hope more camera shots from the endzone show up so we can different angles of the play.
    Once we get more information on the angle of the dangle, then we can make a stronger case one way or the other.
    I don’t blame Green Bay fans for being upset and I don’t blame Seahawks for celebrating the win.

    It was a horrible game the refs called all night except maybe, just maybe the refs got the last call right. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

    September 27, 2012 at 12:13 am

  86. JOHN

    I agree that it was a tough call for any ref and if it had been ruled an interception you couldn’t have overturned it on a live motion replay either. The thing that made this horrible is the 1st and 30 DPI that was actually OPI, then the no call OPI which generally wouldn’t be called on the Hail Mary.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:22 am

    • There were definitely several horrible calls in this game, no argument there! I was upset at the officiating long before the end and I’m sure GB fans were too.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:22 am

  87. Rational person from seattle area

    Very good debate man. However, your evidence still has been stretched a little to go in favor of the seahawks which is incorrect. Jennings has 2 hands and chest on the ball from air to ground, he never releases the ball at anytime therefore it is jennings possession. As long as Jennings didn’t lose possession in any point from when he caught the ball till he was down, it remains Jennings possession. Tate could have had possession as well but his hands did lose possession and control on the way down. Weather his foot was planted first has nothing to do with having possession first. How much of the article did you read? or did you just only read that 1 statement? The full rules go much more in depth than what you have read and where you filled in the blanks are a little off from the actual rules. Visit http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf
    Read the rest. Also look for a note that says that if it this is to close to really have a definitive answer, the play is ruled a no catch. That would mean the GB would have won.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:26 am

  88. Brian

    Your intitial contention rules you out of this discussion. No, the pass interference could not have been called after the review.

    Second, Tate was not pushing the ball into the defender’s chest. His hand was on the ball pulling it away from Jennings’ chest.

    Third, in the video posted here, Tate catches the ball with his left hand BEFORE Jennings establishes control. If you zoom in on the ESPN clip, you can clearly see Tate’s hand between Jennings’ hands. In fact, if you slow it down and watch it frame by frame, the ball goes through Jennings’ hands and would have hit his chest if Tate hadn’t caught it. It’s not until that point that MD gets both hands on the ball.

    Fourth, Jennings is jumping toward the field of play. Both Seattle WR Martin and GB safety Woodson make contact with Jennings, while he is in the air and the force of their impact begins pushing him toward the back corner of the endzone. His momentum is stopped and he starts to fall sharply. Why? Because Tate has his hand between the ball and MD’s chest and is pulling the ball down, displaying that he has the needed “control” necessary to satisfy the definition of a simultaneous catch, as well as “possession” to demonstrate a completed reception.

    Despite the media frenzy telling you how badly the call was blown, in actuality the replacement refs made the correct call. If you honestly look at it with a completely unbiased eye, the TD was a pretty spectacular play. Should the pass interference have been called first? Absolutely.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:20 am

    • Wow. You’re the first person I’ve heard try to argue that Tate actually had control BEFORE Jennings. Most of the people who believe the play properly resulted in a Touchdown have the sense to argue that the catches occurred simultaneously. I can’t think you really believe that Tate ‘caught’ the ball before Jennings by gaining control over it with that one hand for the few frames (milliseconds) where the ball appeared to only be touching Tate’s left hand. You’re rational, right? You don’t REALLY believe that, do you?

      Do you really think that people who disagree with your statement that “Tate [having] his hand between the ball and MD’s chest and . . . pulling the ball down, display[ed] that he ha[d] the needed “control” necessary to satisfy the definition of a simultaneous catch” aren’t looking at it what an ‘unbiased eye'; that your view is the only unbiased one?

      Speaking of ‘unbiased eye,’ where are you from? The Northwest maybe? If you want an unbiased opinion, get someone with no dog in the fight to let you know what they think. It seems the large consensus across the country is that the call was suspect at best.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:34 am

      • You are by far the biggest idiot who posts here. I posted a comment not realizing at the time to get your attention properly I would have to reply directly to your post. So read down below and find my comment, it’s a long drawn out rant about how much you’re a moron and to actually believe you are right is so wrong it’s not even funny, just pathetic you still refuse to admit the truth. Yes, the call was suspect but only untill you see this proof that it’s not. This is a clean cut simple touchdown. End of story. I hate both these teams equally but honestly, Golden Tate made a fair catch, maintained control to the ground, So much so jennings couldn’t even wrestle it from his hands. He touched the ball first, he landed first and maintained control of the ball the whole time. Your comments are as ignorant as they are moronic. You really should just stop thinking you know it all and learn from the facts and not just your opinions. (this is a short example of my comment at the bottom, if you want further reasons why you are WAY wrong, read below and then try and make a rational response, Even though it won’t be one. It’s a one sided response based upon your OPINION and not the real FACTS!

        September 28, 2012 at 1:02 am

  89. An NFL fan

    Yes the blogger who watches the game has a better grasp of the rules then all the pundits of ESPN and other sports site. Then the beat writers. Then the actual former officials who have commented on the game. Then the players. *end sarcasm* There’s a reason you are in the minority here dude. It’s cuz you’re wrong.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:33 am

    • According to your logic, the majority is always right? That’s a logical fallacy. Just because more people bought into the hype doesn’t mean in itself that they are correct. At the very least, it’d be nice for those that believe it was an interception to admit that it was a bang-bang play that was hard to call watching it live. I don’t feel it’s too much to ask. At the very least, it’s debatable and requires slow-motion replays to even tell, so how can we blame the refs for signalling touchdown when it looks like both guys have the ball? (again, it doesn’t matter that Jennings has MORE of the ball, all that matters is Tate has some of it)

      September 27, 2012 at 6:58 am

  90. james

    Reading the article allowed me to think about what happened in a different perspective. Thanks for that. Analysis of what took place, Tate touching the ball does not equal possession. Even when Jennings feet were not on touching the ground, It was clear that he had possession. Control can be given to him once his feet hit the ground. Tate however, does not have possession, merely holding on to the ball while in someone else’s arms is not considered control.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:43 am

  91. JB

    I’ll start by saying that I am a Packers fan but also a huge football fan in general so I’m being as unbiased as I can be but I see a pretty big flaw in this logic.

    Ok. When I first read this article I was like wow this dude is actually onto something. But when I see that rule and how it is written, the word “possession” is portrayed to mean who literally catches and controls the ball first. (I know to have a “catch” you have to have both feet on the ground). But let’s go along with how this article for the sake of argument.

    Try to keep it short as I can.. For example:

    Let’s say Calvin Johnson jumps up and extends for a ball (balls probably 9 feet off the ground). He clearly catches the ball but as he comes to the ground on one foot, Woodson gets 2 hands on it and tries wrestle the ball away (who is standing on 2 feet). According to your points, Woodson would be the first one to actually “possess” the ball even though Calvin Johnson obviously caught it, but as the writer wrote it is not an actual catch until both feet are on the ground.

    So are you saying that the play I just mentioned would go to Woodson because he completed every step of a “catch” because I have seen that exact type of play happen multiple times and have never seen them take a ball from the receiver and give it to the defense because he did not have both feet down first.

    I understand that the play I just mentioned is not a simultaneous catch, but according to your logic of catch and possession that one would go to Woodson, which doesn’t ever happen.

    I’m sorry to say that they did blow that call.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:49 am

    • james

      Exactly! holding onto the ball in someone else arms does not mean you have possession.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:05 am

      • JB

        I’m actually not even arguing about the placement of hands or anything. Fact of the matter is Jennings went up caught the ball and gained control first. By the simultaneous rule that is a pick (I’m not arguing hand placement and all that). I was trying to give an example of why the fact that Tate had 2 feet down first is irrelevant.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:10 am

    • Randy

      JB, you have the correct grasp of the “possession” aspect of this, as opposed to the “catch” aspect that is a seperate issue (that most people here don’t get). But I have to ask you, did you watch the reverse angle of the play? It’s the bottom link on the article. It shows that Tate’s left hand maintained control of the ball from both players originally conacting the ball at the same moment, to the completion of their descent. I agree that if you had a choice of which player’s control you would prefer individually for a catch, you would side with Jennings. As he has better position and both hands. But the criteria for control never specifically says you can’t gain control with 1 hand. Tony Gonzalez made a similar 1 handed catch falling out of the back of the endzone last year. He only palmed 35% of the ball, yet he had a firm grip, the ball didn’t slip, and he maintained possession to the completion of the catch. The reverse video clearly shows that Tate had such a firm grip the entire process of the play, that a 2 hand and ideal leverage from Jennings STILL couldn’t pry it away. So if Jennings wasn’t there, and Tate holds the ball in the exact same position in his hand all the way down, it would be ruled control the entire way down, and a catch. So please explain how (and you have to watch the video link on the bottom of the article to be able to speak on this), after seeing Tate’s firm 1 handed grip on the ball, the entire way down, that does not constitute control also?

      September 27, 2012 at 2:23 am

      • JB

        Took me a second to find the video.

        I don’t know that I would honestly say that he controlled the ball. I mean so he did have his left hand in there. But as Jennings brought the ball into his chest he also just trapped Tate’s hand in there. As for not being able to wrestle it away. He did have 2 people laying on his right leg and a NFL player pulling against him from the right side. All he can literally use is his left leg momentum and his abs in order to try to pull it away.

        IDK man I get what you’re saying and all but I still gotta go with Jennings.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:39 am

      • Randy

        Thanks for the well thought out response man. It’s nice having this debate with a Pack fan that is open minded (as I have tried to be as a Hawk fan on this). I will totally concede that it is not 100% certain that Tate’s 1 hand is total control, it’s also not 100% certain that it’s not.

        It seems difficult for anyone to argue that the bang-bang nature of the play in live action, would have been tough for ANY ref to call. So the ref who called TD, seeing what he saw, believed it was simutaneous possession. So it seems most of the country who disagree with the call, believe the problem was with the review.

        I still contend that with the view of the video you just watched, coupled with the explanation I gave above, makes a logical argument that Tate’s 1 hand constitutes control from the time Jennings established his control. And if a logical argument can be made, it can’t be irrefutable visual evidence to overturn the call.

        I’m not trying to say that I know without a doubt that it was an irrefutable catch. But I just ask that Pack fans admit that with the video we now have, it’s also impossible to say that it was an irrefutable pick.

        Can we agree on that?

        September 27, 2012 at 11:08 am

      • Totally agreeing with Randy once again. Not asking anyone to say “This was 100% a touchdown, no debate”. But I presented the best argument for why it could be ruled that way, and just ask that people consider it and concede that it was a tough call either way. The most important part is that those who are upset have the benefit of the repeated slow-mo shots to form their opinion, whereas the refs had just a live viewing and immediately had to call on it. It’s completely understandable why they called it this way.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:15 am

      • JB

        I see what you’re saying and I can understand it to an extent. I mean there’s an argument either way because with the control factor of it it can go either way. Jennings clearly catches it with 2 hands while Tate does get a hand on it in a bang-bang play. Would you say that it is simultaneous possession? MAYBE. I just can’t see one person having the ball to the chest and one having one hand on it being 50/50 control. But I’d have to say that it is a judgement call by the refs.

        My question to you 2 is if you think it was ruled a INT on the field that it also would have stood?? Do you think it was just the initial call and after that it was too close to overturn?? Also what do you think if Jennings would have been able to rip the ball away a second or 2 after they hit the ground?

        Just curious what your opinions are.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm

      • -It doesn’t need 50/50 control. That’s what many are missing. If Tate has partial control at all, it counts. My argument is Tate has SOME control over the ball, although Jennings has more.

        -I believe it wouldn’t be overturned either way due to how close it is and how hard it is to tell where the hands and ball are during a lot of the play

        -Jennings would have had to rip it away before they both fell down. Once they were both down the play is over, so what happens after is inconsequential (which is why the famous picture of Tate from behind Jennings is invalid- it’s after the play is dead)

        September 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm

  92. JB

    Also, a reply to my previous comment would be nice just to know I’m not crazy lol.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:53 am

    • james

      JB: I’m actually not even arguing about the placement of hands or anything. Fact of the matter is Jennings went up caught the ball and gained control first. By the simultaneous rule that is a pick (I’m not arguing hand placement and all that). I was trying to give an example of why the fact that Tate had 2 feet down first is irrelevant.

      Your example of WR jumping and catching without feet on the ground and DB gets two hands on with both feet already on the ground is the point that I want to make. In that scenario, The right call is a TD. But using the logic of the argument from the article, it would be an INT. Just because you have your hands around the ball does not constitute possession.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:36 am

      • JB

        O ok, so then we agree here lol

        September 27, 2012 at 2:42 am

      • Cjs

        Actually, in the logic of this article that scenario would be a touchdown either way. Simultaneous catch always goes to the offense… might want to work on a better example.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm

  93. Cody

    Also, Look at the Seattle reciever on the very last picture. If that idnt DPI, I dont know what is. Two Pass Interference calls cancel each other

    September 27, 2012 at 1:54 am

  94. Golden Tate Bridge

    Rational person from seattle area cannot read:

    Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
    pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
    (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
    (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
    (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.).

    FURTHER MORE:

    Item 3: End Zone Catches. If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

    Don’t tell me possession has nothing to with feet.

    AND FINALLY:

    The refs job is to interpret what has happened. There has to be enough evidence to prove that it wasn’t A TOUCHDOWN, not that it wasn’t an interception. In that context, there was not enough evidence to over turn.

    September 27, 2012 at 2:14 am

    • JB

      Rule 8 – Section 3 – Article 1 – Item 5:

      Simultaneous Catch.

      If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

      In this entire rule it says catch and control multiple times but nothing about getting feet down..

      I’ll match it up for both rules:

      As we all saw in the replay, Jennings CAUGHT the ball first.

      Then Tate got a hand or whatever on it establishing join control.

      He did touch the ground with both feet at some point (Tate’s feet touching first is irrelevant)

      And he maintained control with the ball on his chest for about 15 seconds.

      I just don’t see how the refs couldn’t overturn it.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:27 am

  95. Golden Tate Bridge

    So say, hypothetically, if M.D. catches that with no contest by himself in the endzone, falls to the ground and loses possession, that is considered incomplete correct? YES! The play is not over in the air. Feet are signaling a complete pass in this instance! If any this else had happened in the air, IE ball is ripped, knocked out, it’s incomplete. Simultaneous catch its determined at the point that a catch has actually happened.

    Tate plants with 50/50 possession, signaling A CATCH, tie going to offense. M.D. hits the ground rips it away. Not enough to overturn

    September 27, 2012 at 2:42 am

    • JB

      @Bridge:

      I kinda get what you’re saying. Obviously yes if he was alone he’d have to get both feet down and maintain possession.

      You say simultaneous catch is determined when the catch actually happens (in your argument when the feet hit the ground). So if that is the case and it’s all about the feet then why do they throw that little segment in saying “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control”? Your argument is when it comes back down to the ground and that statement says when control is initially gained (i.e. Jennings.)

      September 27, 2012 at 2:48 am

      • Golden Tate Bridge

        My point is that there is no catch to speak of until Tate plants. In the literal sense, in the air, Jennings puts to hands on the ball. That is not a catch. Ill refer to this rule again:

        Item 3: End Zone Catches. If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete

        A COMPLETE catch is two feet planted. What is irrelevant is everything BEFORE Tate plants. The plant signals an NFL catch. At that point there is simultaneous possession. Moreover, the fact that this can be argued so closely down to minute detail is proof that there is not enough evidence to overturn.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:03 am

    • JB

      Bridge:
      Also, as far as your “catch” theory goes for coming down to the feet I’ll use my example again..

      Let’s say Calvin Johnson jumps up and extends for a ball (balls probably 9 feet off the ground). He clearly catches the ball but as he comes down he lands on just one foot. Meanwhile, Woodson gets 2 hands on it while standing on the ground with 2 feet. You’re saying that in that example it would be an interception because Woodson has “completed all the phases” of a catch when Johnson obviously caught the ball?

      Just spit-ballin here.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:59 am

      • Golden Tate Bridge

        And then he hops into the end zone? And if that happened in the end zone, one foot would be an incomplete pass.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:07 am

      • JB

        I was using that example as in he hasn’t touched the 2nd foot down and yes in the endzone.

        You’re trying to take a rule that is meant for one individual and trying to string it onto a situation where there is already a rule for it. I do understand what you are saying. The possession/catch itself cannot be determined until someone has their 2 feet on the ground because it’s not technically a catch yet. So if that is the case then WHY did the NFL put the person who gains control first? Because according to your theory, it’s literally gonna be a simultaneous catch everytime going to the offense because you have to wait until someones feet touch thus making it a simultaneous catch. The NFL put that in there because it is judged when the ball is caught in someone’s hand/hands, not when the feet touch the ground.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:19 am

      • No, they would still have to grab the ball at the same time, but I believe that happens here. Jennings gets way more of the ball, but Tate has partial control, meaning as long as he maintains that through the catch it’s simultaneous. I showed he never loses control. Touchdown.

        September 27, 2012 at 6:49 am

  96. Tonto

    Possesion of the football does not come in vayring degrees. You either have possession or you don’t …kind of like being pregnant. You don’t have to have two hands on the ball or pull it to your chest….
    Take Tate out of he equation, did Jennings have possesion, yes! Take Jennings out of the equation, did Tate have possession, yes! They both had possession. Jon Grudens attempt, as anyone else’s, at explaing the situation by saying Jennings showed more control is waaaay off base.

    September 27, 2012 at 2:54 am

    • JB

      @Tonto

      They both ended up having control. But who caught the ball first and controlled it is a whole different thing.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:03 am

    • Exactly, great comment. If Tate isn’t there Jennings still has the ball. If Jennings isn’t there Tate still has the ball. If someone analyzes it objectively they will see Tate has at least partial control from the moment it hits his left hand. It doesn’t matter how little control that is, he never loses the ball. Gripping with his right hand later just gave him MORE control. But he had partial control from the beginning.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:46 am

  97. james

    Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5: “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

    Refs stated that both Tate and Jennings had possession. (QUESTIONABLE) However, control is completely different. Rules state it clearly! Jennings established control first, then Tate. INT!!!!!

    September 27, 2012 at 3:22 am

    • I’m not really interested in arguing over our different definitions of control. We can argue the slow motion replay all day. But you don’t think, at the very minimum, that watching it live it appears to be at the same time, close enough to not be sure? You can’t admit that much? I believe to any ref they would have given the benefit to the offensive player as it appeared to be simultaneous. He would see 2 guys go up, come down with it and fight over it. How can you say it was obvious Jennings had it and Tate had zero control?

      September 27, 2012 at 8:26 am

  98. buddha bump

    You contradict yourself in your article and therefore I have to throw out all subsequent arguments you present… Here’s the rule as you quoted

    “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player GAINS CONTROL first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

    Notice the lack of the phrase “completes the reception” or “lands in bounds” or anything related to actually having possession of the ball. Gaining control is expected first, followed by the completion of the act of reception a.k.a. possession. You then go on to state

    “It is clear from the above angle that Tate actually gets his left hand on the ball cleanly right as Jennings grabs it.”

    When what you should have said is is “It is clear from the above angle that Jennings HAS CONTROL of the ball at the time when Tate gets his left hand on it”…. In other words, Tate does NOT have control at a simultaneous point as Jennings. Based on this, you are wrong. Control of the ball does not imply possession, it’s simply a starting point for determining who actually has possession once the play has ended. The NFL and all relate parties are just trying to CYA on this one.

    September 27, 2012 at 4:30 am

    • Where we disagree is that I contend Tate had at minimum partial control of the ball at all times, from the very moment they both grabbed it. I showed how Tate had at least one solid hand cradling the ball at all times, which is why Jennings can’t get it away from him. The back angle clearly shows Jennings holding the ball against Tate’s hand, NOT his chest. Coupled with Tate getting two feet down and not losing the ball = touchdown. It’s a point of contention for you because you don’t feel Tate has any control over the ball. I would have to disagree after watching this many times and analyzing the different angles.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:44 am

  99. Packers fans are the worst losers in the history of the game and they aren’t about to give up their crown. It was a TD, whichever way you look at it, because the refs were right and awarded it…or the refs got it wrong and awarded it. The result stands, suck it up…as you’ve advised Hawks fans to do down the years since their Superbowl defeat. Personally I think they got it right and there are just a lot of people who see what they want to, hear what they want to and read what they want to, without actually reading and learning why they are wrong.

    September 27, 2012 at 4:57 am

    • Katherine

      Why are Packer fans the worst losers in the history of the game? If you post a blog arguing one way, you certainly have to expect debate. It is a ‘controversial’ call afterall. So you’re saying if it had been the flip side you wouldn’t voice your opinion? I’m not whining about it. I’m not saying the result should be changed. I’m hoping we win on Sunday. Whatever the case, don’t ever generalize like that.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:30 am

  100. PetertheGreat

    Notice how the rule says “Control” and then the author magically turns that term into “possession.” You don’t need to have feet down to control the ball. Jennings controlled it first, in the air. Whether or not his feet touched first is immaterial.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:12 am

    • Where we disagree is that I contend Tate had at minimum partial control of the ball at all times, from the very moment they both grabbed it. I showed how Tate had at least one solid hand cradling the ball at all times, which is why Jennings can’t get it away from him. The back angle clearly shows Jennings holding the ball against Tate’s hand, NOT his chest. Coupled with Tate getting two feet down and not losing the ball = touchdown.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:37 am

    • Try reading the rules instead of making them up to suit your scenario.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:06 am

  101. Gorn the Gorn

    I love it when GB fans say that Seattle didn’t deserve the win, the flogged the Pack for the entire first half and then had some dubious calls and non calls in the second half that allowed them to score.

    At first I did not feel good over the decision but upon further review it looks better when breaking it down. There is even another angle from the end-zone where you can see that they CLEARLY both have possession of the ball.

    Sorry GB – Seattle won that game and deserved it!

    September 27, 2012 at 6:31 am

  102. Great analysis using logic and facts and leaving emotion at the door. Thank you for your insight.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:40 am

  103. Dave

    It is a fact that, any player who gains control of the ball BEFORE HE HITS THE GROUND is considered to have possesssion….they both gained control before either of them hit the ground…. good analysis…..

    September 27, 2012 at 6:48 am

    • Dave

      It Can be argued, though, that the Packers player gained control FIRST……. the fact is the call could have gone either way even with pro refs….

      September 27, 2012 at 7:03 am

      • Absolutely, it depends on whether you see them both get control, or just Jennings. It’s so close, and so bang bang, that I don’t see how more people can’t admit it’s a close judgment call that could go either way. Claiming it’s an obvious bad call is wrong in my opinion, and considering how fast it happened live it’s no wonder the ref saw it as simultaneous catch and a TD.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:10 am

  104. Love the analysis, keep it up. The amount of vitriol from football fans is amazing, though!

    September 27, 2012 at 6:57 am

  105. Very well displayed, before I watched this video and read this guy’s analysis I was just a tiny bit skeptical but after watching this it’s clear to me that it’s a touchdown no if, and’s. or but’s about it!!!! Go HAWKS AND SKREW THE SPORTS NATION FOR BEING TO IGNORANT TO SEE IT…..AND FOR ALL THE OTHER GAMES THAT THEY SCREWED THE HAWKS OUT OF WITH SUPERBOWL 40 BEING THE BIGGEST!!!!!!

    September 27, 2012 at 7:07 am

    • Katherine

      Love it. So Packer fans should quit ‘whining’ about this game but ‘Hawks fans can keep complaining about Superbowl 40? Not saying you weren’t robbed then, just seeing the irony in it.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:23 am

      • I think it’s a little ridiculous for anyone to imply that, screw job or not, a regular season week 3 game is equal to a superbowl. I’d also argue that while the MNF game had bad calls go both ways, the Superbowl was pretty one-sided when it came to questionable calls.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:55 am

  106. alexcunning

    Tate has his right hand on Jennings right arm, not the ball, at the start of the catch. Jennings has both hands on it and brings it to his chest along with Tate’s left hand. The only reason Tate’s left hand was able to maintain contact with the ball was because Jennings grabbed both the ball and Tate’s hand. Tate’s right hand doesn’t touch the ball until just before he hits the ground. Jennings had both hands on the ball and the ball in his chest before Tate’s right hand ever touches the ball. This is not simultaneous, regardless of who had their feet on the ground at any given time.

    September 27, 2012 at 7:09 am

    • As I said in the article, I don’t expect to convince everyone but regardless my point is it’s very close and virtually impossible to tell when watching it live for the first time. My ultimate goal was to show that it was closer than most people think and to show how it was understandable to make that determination of simultaneous possession on the field. It’s far from the travesty of a call that the media is reporting. That’s all I ask to consider in the end.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:17 am

  107. Pingback: NFL Discussion week 3

  108. casual fan

    want to win a game? do it in the first 59:59 — if you have to have a miracle hail-mary to win the game, your victory by any stretch has to be chalked up to pure luck — Green Bay got their butt kicked all night — not by Tate, not by the replacement refs — but just by not playing well enough — ask Rodgers about why he spent half the night getting knocked down — G.B. had a bad night, so what — move on and act like your whole life isn’t centered on the Packers — how pitiful is that?!?

    September 27, 2012 at 7:24 am

    • TexFan014

      This is a stupid argument. Green Bay didn’t get their butts kicked “all night”. Seattle controlled the first half. Green Bay made adjustments and controlled the second half.

      The referees randomly would exert their control with terrible officiating (against both teams).

      September 27, 2012 at 8:06 am

  109. Rick

    Too bad none of this matters as Tate should have been called for offensive passing interference.

    September 27, 2012 at 7:57 am

    • I believe this has been covered thoroughly by not only me but the NFL in their official statement. Yes, it was definitely PI, but we’ve also pointed out that offensive PI is absolutely never called in that situation, so my other main point is that the regular refs would have called it exactly the same.

      September 27, 2012 at 8:07 am

      • Rick

        The NFL said in their official statement, “While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.” So when you say something like “offensive PI is absolutely never called in that situation” that is in and of itself an unsubstantiated claim and you need to back it up with facts. All the matters is that the NFL said it should have been called, but it wasn’t. And even if you could prove that it’s never ever called, you can bet that it will be correctly called from here on out.

        September 27, 2012 at 8:52 am

      • Once they review it, of course it SHOULD have been called. But does it ever get called? No. The NFL is saying it was a penalty, which is true. If the NFL was forced to review all the other hail mary plays they could find many instances of this happening.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:00 am

      • Regardless, my article was not about that, as it was not called and couldn’t be reviewed after. My article was to:

        -Show how the play could be ruled a touchdown

        and

        -Assert that the regular officials would have also ignored the PI and called it the same way.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:01 am

      • Nate

        NEVER CALLED? how can you be so sure? It’s one thing to push and shove in the air while GOING FOR THE BALL, it’s another to completely SHOVE a guy before the ball gets there. You’d have to admit that much.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:49 am

      • Others have linked to an article showing it hasn’t been called in hundreds of other examples.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:04 am

      • Nate

        Right…but my point was the opposite. It HAS been called, so it should have been there. It’s so obvious to be hilarious. Oh, and the Packers got screwed on WAY more calls overall that game that the Hawks, so to contend there was even screwing between the teams is way off base. That’s why most fans are really upset. The last call was just the culmination of 10 other horrible ones.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:41 am

      • Anyone who watched the whole game objectively would know that both teams were given bad calls. The Packers don’t score 10 of their points without these calls, so to claim the Seahawks got the majority benefit is…ahem, dubious.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:50 am

      • Nate

        Haha…that’s laughable man and you know it.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:54 am

  110. R

    People who say “you are fucking idiot” as their riposte, sound so uneducated they barely should be entitled to an opinion. If you want to argue, how about you think of something intelligent to say.

    September 27, 2012 at 8:19 am

  111. James

    Some of you need to shut your “potty mouths” up. Those who say that “Greenbay got robbed” & “It was clearly an interception” are just Seattle Haters and Greenbay lovers! I could care less about either team (Go Miami)—but it is clear to this “objective” fan that it was indeed a touchdown. Way to go Tate!! What a stud!

    September 27, 2012 at 8:49 am

    • Thanks for reading, glad to her there’s some outside of Seattle considering that it could have been ruled either way.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:08 am

  112. T-

    interesting this picture was left out http://i.imgur.com/hOrH7.jpg

    September 27, 2012 at 8:56 am

    • Gee, I didn’t know that what happened 5 seconds after the play was blown dead mattered. Funny how you cropped out the officials standing next to them in the middle of the end zone by that point. If that is your argument something tells me you know you don’t have much of a case. Thanks for commenting.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:30 am

      • T-

        doesn’t really matter Durr already killed this entire articles argument by pointing out 2011 rule and case book http://i.imgur.com/aq9Rz.png

        September 27, 2012 at 9:34 am

      • You have no proof that Jennings controlled the ball before Tate did. I showed that they both grab it at the same time. We’ve been over this repeatedly. Having “more” of the ball doesn’t trump simultaneous control.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:00 am

  113. I understand your argument, it was the same argument I made after I saw the catch before I read up on the rules. However, it has a couple flaws. The main one is the common confusion that control ≠ possession. Simultaneous catch ≠ simultaneous possession. This was not a simultaneous catch, therefore Tate never had the opportunity to gain possession.
    1. This is all about the catch: Jennings has control of the ball before Tate does and THEN Tate asserts control. While one can have control of a football with one hand, Jennings is in full control of the ball before Tate has any control. Jennings catches it, and then pins the football against his chest with Tate’s hand in between. This rules out simultaneous catch and so unless Jennings loses control, it is either an interception or an incompletion.
    2. The argument about Tate establishing possession before Jennings does is a moot point because did not establish control first.
    3. Anything that happens on the ground or after Jennings’ initial catch is meaningless, according to the rules, UNLESS Jennings loses control of the football before he establishes possession (aka going to the ground and maintaining control). So the point you make about Jennings not being able to wrestle it away from Tate is because Tate asserted his control on the ball after the initial catch by Jennings. Jennings went to the ground maintaining his control of the football.

    In real time, I can understand if someone makes a mistake and calls it a touchdown. While it was clear to me and people who do not regularly watch football that Jennings caught the ball before Tate did therefore making it an interception, I can see someone saying the opposite as bad calls happen all the time. The problem with this is that it was REVIEWABLE and through slow mo and video evidence, they did not overturn it. That is the real travesty here.

    Sidenote: Miles Austin’s catch was simultaneous. Both by naked eye and by replay. The catch in question here is not simultaneous.

    Also, if you can’t tell by my name. I’m from the 206. Seattle. And I sure as hell celebrated that TD, even though it should’ve been an interception. The whole game was poorly officiated and no matter what happened on this last play, or even the last Seattle drive (PI and roughing the passer calls), the game was already impacted significantly by the referees.

    ~TL

    PS: Congrats on getting so many people to view your blog. A nice way to get viewership is to take an unpopular opinion. Probably not your intention, but definitely a consequence of taking this stance.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:01 am

    • Thanks for the comment, I actually never update this blog, but decided to due to my opinion on this play.

      We disagree on the contention that Jennings has control first. I believe I have shown that Tate has partial control from the beginning, he just has less control. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have at minimum partial control, which is all that he needs for the TD.

      As I said in the article, I don’t expect to convince everyone but regardless my point is it’s very close and virtually impossible to tell when watching it live for the first time. My ultimate goal was to show that it was closer than most people think and to show how it was understandable to make that determination of simultaneous possession on the field. It’s far from the travesty of a call that the media is reporting. That’s all I ask to consider in the end.

      Thanks again, and go Hawks.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:34 am

      • I honestly don’t think 2 players can have joint control of the football at any one time unless it is really 50-50 (in which neither player has control of the football). Control, to me, means that you ultimately determine where the ball goes. Ball in the air? No control. Ball pinned to your opponent’s back? Your control. Ball pinned to your opponent’s hand? Still your control in my opinion. That’s my definition of control, and I think that’s the issue that needs to be addressed to make your argument valid.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      • A fair opinion. I’m just not sure where the rules specify that. Perhaps it should be changed/clarified!

        September 27, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    • Chip

      They removed the bad AR that references the simultaneous catch in the 2012 rulebook, because they realized they made a mistake. The whole Austin Miles and Cromartie incident in week 1 of last year. That clause was in there because even though they are talking about control, they meant control at the point of determing possession. The reason why they can’t say possession in the rule is because it would sound stupid.

      It is not a simultaneous catch if one player gains possession first and an opponent subsequently gains joint possession. No kidding… that’s pretty obvious isn’t it?

      The key words are CATCH and CONTROL. If you have partial control at the point of determining possession then it’s a simultaneous catch.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:22 am

  114. jjj

    You are dead wrong…just like the refs were.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:11 am

  115. Earl Hines

    I am a huge Seahawks fan. I think you can argue the fact that it was a touchdown, but by the second part of the rule of the simultaneous catch there is no doubt the defensive player had possession before Tate so it was an interception. But I love the analysis and love the fact it was called a touchdown.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:37 am

    • I’d say that’s very much disputable, but that’s fine to have a differing opinion. I believe Tate had some of the ball the entire time, constituting simultaneous catch Thanks for commenting.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:01 am

  116. The Big M

    Tate at no time had control until after they were on the ground. We’ve seen a million examples of a receiver make a catch (uncontested) near a sideline, has two hands on the ball, had two feet in bounds established before going out of bounds, and still isn’t awarded a catch because he never establishes control. If the ball adjusts ever so slightly in his two hands, he hasn’t established control. To assume Tate established control with one had in the midst of that scrum of bodies is generous. The link to the pic above clearly shows Jennings on the ground, with both arms on the ball gripped to his chest, and Tate is barely in contact with the ball at all.

    thanks for writing an article that wasted my time and proved nothing

    September 27, 2012 at 9:46 am

    • Sounds like you didn’t read the article or visit the evidence. It helps to give an objective view to it. Linking to a picture 5 seconds after the play is dead, with the officials already on the field having stopped the play earlier, is disingenuous and invalid. Watch the video of the reverse angle and you will see exactly when that picture is taken Tate STILL has a firm grip with his left hand, with the ball not on Jennings chest but actually on Tate’s hand.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:03 am

  117. Jon

    The whole article is moot because the assertion that no actual NFL refs would have called PI on Tate because it’s the last play of the game is downright uninformed and wrong. Tate committed one of the worst offensive pass interference’s I’ve ever seen in hundreds and hundreds of games. If it was a maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t type of PI then I agree it probably wouldn’t be called, but there is absolutely no doubt that Tate committed an offense, and the author states as much. Any ref worth his salt would have called that and game over. Period. End of story. Any further analysis is unnecessary and worthless.

    September 27, 2012 at 10:07 am

    • I agree it should have been called. It wasn’t, and couldn’t be reviewed. In real-time, it’s easy to see why they missed it watching the ball. This article was about the actual ruling of Touchdown over Interception.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:10 am

  118. Jon

    Oh, and one more thing, the definition of a catch is not just possession with two feet in bounds on the ground. The definition is that you have to have possession, have two feet down, and make a “football move”, and Tate clearly did not make a “football move”. So even if some knucklehead ref wouldn’t have called PI, by definition, the play is an interception. And this is coming from a Giants fan who loves the fact that the Packers ended up with a loss, but that doesn’t make it any less of an error on the ref’s and review official’s parts.

    September 27, 2012 at 10:18 am

    • The “football move” was…falling down….I’m not sure where your analysis comes in to this. How did Jennings make a football move but Tate didn’t? They are wrestling over the ball the entire catch.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:21 am

      • Jon

        beat me to it on Jennings

        September 27, 2012 at 10:23 am

    • Jon

      Although I’m not sure Jennings made a “football move” either.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:22 am

      • Falling down with the ball is all that is required for either player. Whichever player was the offense would get credit for this catch since they both have a piece of the ball.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:23 am

      • Jon

        The more I think about it the more ambiguous it seems. It just doesn’t feel right. I don’t know the rule book by heart, but it seems that there’s no absolute answer and that it’s completely dependent on one’s interpretation of certain aspects of the rules.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:37 am

      • Absolutely! Which is why everyone got so upset. When you first see the replay it seems like Jennings deserves it because he has better position and more of the ball. I completely agree. Based on the rules, though, I would argue they both get credit for the ball, therefore offense wins. The rule might be at fault, and either way it’s subjective since it’s so close. My goal was mostly to show people how close it is, because my main contention is this was not a horrible call. It could have gone either way and I think any ref would go on the safe side and award it to the offense.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:42 am

      • Jon

        LIR – I am shocked at how well Irvin has worked out for you guys. I thought he’d rush well, but get destroyed on running plays being an undersized DE, but he’s done a great job.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:42 am

      • This seemed to be his “coming out party”. He played great after not doing much the first two games. Hopefully he can build on it from here!

        September 27, 2012 at 10:53 am

  119. brndnwlsn

    Really interesting, I do agree that there is an argument to be made for Golden Tate making a catch…but kind of a weak one. Having your feet on the ground is nice, but if another player controls the ball (which after reading this still seems highly likely that Jennings did) then you can’t have possession yet. But I think you are wise to at least point to the “close” nature of this call.

    But I like the idea that you need incontrovertible evidence to overturn a call, I think that makes sense. As a Packer fan it’s hard not to “feel robbed” – and I think that’s reasonable. I wish they hadn’t made players talk about it right afterwards, it was hard watching anyone act that confident about the result of the game. All this said, of course this will be one of the most controversial calls of all time, despite not happening in a game with the highest of stakes – the dominant narrative in the media (more than just ESPN, who I agree as too much control over sports coverage) is that there has almost never been a game that was “decided by the referees” to this degree. Finally, how awesome would a rematch in the playoffs be!?!?!?

    September 27, 2012 at 10:42 am

    • I wish the Packers luck and would love seeing the teams meet again in the playoffs! Thanks for your comment.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:52 am

  120. Michael

    The thing that most people seem to be ignoring is that it doesn’t matter who touched the ball first or how much of the ball they were touching, just that Tate had his hand in Jennings bread basket and was touching some part of the ball which is automatically gonna be ruled a simultaneous catch because that is the NFL’s definition of a simultaneous catch – nothing else but that fact matters.

    September 27, 2012 at 10:43 am

  121. In less than a week this clip has been slow-mo’ed and analyzed more than the Zapruder film, and still there is all this argument about it…

    Just shows how difficult this call was to make, no matter how experienced the officials. Either way the call went, it would have been controversial – especially since it determined the winner.

    September 27, 2012 at 11:07 am

  122. DJ

    The fact that there’s argument about something doesn’t mean that the fact that there’s argument about it is legitimate. People may argue against the claim that I exist, but that doesn’t make their argument legitimate.
    Also, the video you link to showing “the exact same thing” in the Cowboys-Jets game is, in fact, completely different. Here the offensive player ends up with ultimate possession after coming to the ground (1 difference) and it’s not a last-second, game deciding play (2 differences).

    September 27, 2012 at 11:28 am

    • When the play occurs has no bearing on how it is called. It’s either a TD or it isn’t. Or are you claiming if this happened in the 2nd quarter, it’d be ok to call it a TD?

      September 27, 2012 at 11:39 am

  123. Thanks for taking the time to put this in writing. I have been saying exactly this since the play happened, and you have interpreted the play correctly. Had they called this as an interception it would have been overturned. The media has been horrible in reporting this and it’s obvious that most of the talking heads formed an opinion before looking at the play from all angles and understanding the rules. The replacement refs have made plenty of bad calls, but it would be interesting to know how many questionable calls occur in the first three games of any season with the union refs. I’ve seen the regular refs make plenty of game deciding bad calls, but those calls are usually in favor of the team the is “supposed” to win. If Seattle was playing the Browns nobody would care which way the call went except the fans of those teams.

    Aaron Rodgers said this the other day: “The product on the field is not being complemented by an appropriate set of officials. The games are getting out of control.” I interpret this as “The replacement refs are not complimenting the superstar quarterbacks and the teams that are supposed to go to the Superbowl like the regular refs always have in the past. We lost a game on a bad call, that’s only supposed to happen to the other team.”

    The games were getting out of control because the players, the coaches and the media have been doing everything they can to undermine the authority of the replacement refs and it worked. The NFL doesn’t mind because it places the blame on the refs and not on the rules, which are geared towards allowing the refs to determine the outcome of games (i.e. no challenges in the last two minutes.) I do not believe that the union refs are objective – I have seen too many bad calls in favor of the team that’s “supposed” to win to believe otherwise. I remember watching a Green Bay game last year where the opposing team (I forget which team they were playing) was called for pass interference repeatedly, while Green Bay got away with multiple PI offenses – and the commentators even brought it up. In the Lions/Saints playoffs last year there was a Drew Brees fumble that was whistled down incorrectly and a Titus Young touchdown that was incorrectly called incomplete and was unchallengable for a number of reasons. Both calls affected the outcome of that game, in my opinion.

    The first three weeks of this season may have been poorly officiated, but they were objectively poorly officiated.

    I am really surprised that more fines haven’t been issued with all the bellyaching that we’re hearing from players and coaches. In seasons past, players and might say they didn’t like a call but also say that it’s part of the game and not an excuse for losing.

    September 27, 2012 at 11:30 am

    • Thanks for the comment. I would disagree that an interception would be overturned. I think it was so close that whichever way it was called on the field would be held up. That’s what people need to understand when they complain about the replays. It was so close live that it’s understandable why it was called a TD. I have also made a good argument towards why it SHOULD have been called a TD. People can disagree, but you’d think they’d have to admit it’s a much closer call that the “worst call in NFL history”, as I’ve heard over and over.

      Outside of that you make some excellent points. I also think the NFL didn’t fine the Packers players as a way to avoid more publicity on it than they already had.

      September 27, 2012 at 11:44 am

      • You are probably right, they wouldn’t overturn the ruling on the field, which is why it was a touchdown in the first place. I still go back and forth on the call, but in the end it was right to uphold the ruling on the field because it was a close call. Players and coaches from many teams, not just GB, have been very vocal about the replacement refs and I think their lack of respect for the refs is showing on the field. I have always been suspicious of pro-sports refs, especially after the NBA “incident.” What I liked about the replacement refs is that they have been calling a lot of holding, which has become a lot like travelling in the NBA – it only seems to get called when it helps the team that’s supposed to win or to affect the point spread, but it happens all the time..

        September 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      • Part of the problem is even when the replacements got it right, people were upset with the time deciding on it and what not. And some of the mistakes have been real bone-headed, like counting a penalty off from the wrong side of the field. This was a close call that would have been hard for anyone to call. Ridiculous that it’s blamed on the replacements as if there’s no debate on it whatsoever.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    • Jon

      Completely disagree that if it was ruled an interception that it would’ve been overturned. There’s just as little indisputable evidence to overturn the play from interception to TD as there is from TD to interception.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      • I agree with this. Whatever the call on the field was, there isn’t enough evidence to overturn it. It’s so close, and you can’t see the ball for too much of it anyway.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm

  124. RTH

    anyone who says that Green Bay is “from the East” (see point number 1 near the end) obviously is not very bright. Last I checked, it was about as “mid west” as they come….

    September 27, 2012 at 11:34 am

    • Clearly you know how Seattle is treated by the national media.

      September 27, 2012 at 11:52 am

  125. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/

    I think this will clear up your confusion. Sorry you wrote this whole post for nothing.

    September 27, 2012 at 11:54 am

    • We’ve covered why we disagree with that article elsewhere. It seems to assert that having “more” of the ball means that Tate didn’t have any control over it. Which I find to be completely false. You can have partial control with one hand on the ball, and Tate had that beginning to end, with 2 feet down in the endzone. Touchdown.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    • Chip

      Um, that AR whatever doesn’t exist anymore. It was proved incorrectly last year in Week 1.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:03 pm

  126. Bill

    Why is this even relevant? Blatant offensive pass interference on the play => game over => Green Bay wins.

    September 27, 2012 at 11:59 am

    • It helps to actually read the article. Just a friendly tip!

      September 27, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    • Even blatant PI is never called at the end of game in a huge scrum on a hail mary pass – Ask Drew Pearson….or better yet, ask the 1975 Minnesota Vikings who lost and didn’t advance in the playoffs as a direct result.

      Who knows though, perhaps this play changes that sentiment among refs and players.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:21 pm

  127. Sarah

    wow. You don’t want us to take any credit away from tate, but what do you expect. He knew that was PI and then after the game acted like he was all great. Do you wanna win because you deserved to win with Integrity and dignity or do you wanna win because you cheated. theres no honor in that. I would be pissed to win like that.
    FYI: im not a fan of either team, so no bias here. i saw what i saw.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    • Did you watch the rest of the game? Did you noticed the other 8 or so bad calls/non-calls?

      September 27, 2012 at 12:35 pm

  128. Jimmy

    Dannng Golden Tate must have strong fingers.

    But anyway,
    so I’m just wondering, say a CB makes a clean pick, but is in midair. The WR could essentially grab hold of the ball before he comes down, and as long as he has two feet on the ground, he would get the reception? Regardless if the CB maintains possession through the whole play?

    If that is the rules, then that is the rules, even if it is a bit silly in my opinion.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    • No, they would still have to grab it at the same time, or the CB would have to lose control temporarily. The simultaneous catch rule is clear if one player gets it first it’s theirs. Our argument is that there is no evidence that Tate doesn’t have some control of the ball at all times. This play is also a bit different since it took place in the end zone. Once Tate established possession in the end zone it is a touchdown and the play is over.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm

  129. Riley

    Thank you to “life in rewind” for posting this. Sorry. But the Hawks won that game. Yes, Golden Tate pushed off. Not going to deny that. And yes, in the post game interview, he could have spoken to it, rather then saying “i don’t know what your talking about”. But that dude FOUGHT for that ball. He had 4 packers around him, and still managed to make a play where there was even ROOM for a dispute. Give the man his due.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    • Also, no one mentions how Martin of the Seahawks gets crushed by numerous Packers way before the ball comes in, or how roughing the passer takes place on the hit Matthews puts on Wilson. As far as I’m concerned a number of penalties could have been called on the last play, which is why they are irrelevant for this discussion!

      September 27, 2012 at 12:48 pm

  130. Jim Brown

    ESPN (particularly Tirico and Gruden) were not lambasting the officials for that interception/simultaneous catch ruling, but for the phantom pass interference on Shields and the ridiculous roughing the passer on Erik Walden that lead to an interception which would have sealed the game. ESPN did their job. And they did it so well that it forced Goodell to bring back the real refs.

    Tate never had control of the ball. He had to reposition his hands twice in order to have any part of the ball. Jennings never lost control of it the whole way.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    • Jim Brown

      I should say “not only” criticizing the officials for the last call, but for the other missed calls as well.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    • TheTruthHurts

      The fact that you mention the PI on Shields and the roughing the passer calls without mentioning the far more critical phantom PI call on Kam Chancellor shows how biased you are.

      First, the roughing the passer call was technically correct. The Brady Rule disallowed players to hit QBs below the knees. The PI call on Shields was pointless as the drive was eventually stopped anyway. The PI call on Kam Chancellor was WAY more critical of an error because it was on 3rd down and it extended the GB drive to their only touchdown.

      And Tate repositioned his 1 Hand because his other hand was already between the ball and Jennings’s chest. All you brainless sheep are buying into ESPN’s blatant bias. I thought it was an interception too until I looked at all the pics and slow motion videos for myself. It was not an interception.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:13 am

  131. Adam

    Okay picture this. Refs make no call at first on the field (as they should have done). The refs huddle together and each ref who made different calls explains what they saw (as they should have done). Ultimately, the call is an interception. Green Bay wins. Seahawks fans are going nuts at the stadium.

    Do you (author of this article criticizing ESPN and the media) think ESPN, all media outlets, all former officials, and all football fans would be as outraged over an interception call? Essentially, any call that is made would be criticized as severe? I doubt that would be the case. In fact, they all would probably stand up for the officials for going through the correct process and having guts to make the call.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    • Chip

      What if Seattle won the game, except they were playing the Browns. Would anyone even care?

      September 27, 2012 at 1:06 pm

      • Katherine

        Look, argue the call all you want, but please don’t mention feet. Feet have NOTHING to do with simultaneous catch. Feet have to do with a completed catch, as in if Golden Tate was wide open in the end zone, jumped in the air to catch the ball his feet would need to come down in bounds. The fact that the ref that made this call used feet in explaining that he ‘made the correct call’ shows that he’s unaware of the rule. Tate’s feet were on the ground first because he didn’t jump as high, (so I would argue that he didn’t catch the ball at a higher point :), thus he landed first. But him landing first is pointless. For example, IF he never jumped in the air to catch the ball but Jennings did and caught the ball, and then Tate got his hands on it of course Tate’s feet would be on the ground first. But that scenario would fall under the second part of the rule where you can’t subsequently gain joint possession. Argue that Tate had his hands on it from the beginning, but if you mention feet in your argument, you’re pretty much cancel out anything you said. The rule in question isn’t whether it was a catch….CLEARLY the ball never hit the ground so the only subjective part is whether it was simultaneous. That’s it. Was it at the same time or did one of the players have the ball first?

        September 27, 2012 at 7:51 pm

      • Katherine

        yes. I would care. I don’t want anyone to lose a game they shouldn’t (Not even Seattle!)

        September 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm

  132. Dakota

    you sir, expressed every one of my thoughts that i was just to lazy to write. Thank You!!

    September 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm

  133. sfb

    I see two significant problems with your analysis, as thorough as it is:

    1) While possession is not technically established until a player *retains* control of the ball after coming down to the ground, initial control of the ball can be determined while still in the air. In that sense, it doesn’t matter whose feet touch first. It only matters if one or both players lose control of the ball at that point. Which doesn’t occur. The fact that Tate touches first is irrelevant (as it would be if Jennings touched first).

    2) Less clear, but fairly certain is that Tate’s initial “possession” of the ball with one hand, while possible (we’ve seen it many times), cannot be assumed given that Jennings has two hands on the ball. Yes, Tate has a hand on the ball. Does he have control of it? There is no way to be sure, UNLIKE Jennings, who clearly has control of the ball.

    I doubt that any of this is going to change anyone’s mind. But I will remind people that following the game, Marshawn Lynch, family and friends were at dinner in a private room where the replay was shown on a large-screen TV. The entire party went silent and Lynch’s jaw reportedly dropped. One of the people at the table said “We didn’t win that game.” Not a single person in the room disagreed.

    Argue all you want, but know that the truest judges of all, children and players, know the truth.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    • Haha, that reminds me of a story someone told me about how “even my wife who doesn’t watch football came in and could tell me that Jennings caught it!”

      -If someone doesn’t know the rules, how is their opinion valid? Let’s go ahead and ignore anyone that isn’t keeping the rulebook in mind when analyzing the play.

      -We can’t prove Tate did or didn’t have control, absolutely right! It’s a judgment call, case closed. I presented evidence for how it could be interpreted that he did. Some find it convincing, some don’t.

      -Tate having his feet down first isn’t what gives him the TD, it’s that I feel he has some control over the ball from the beginning until after he touches down. Him touching down with control is a touchdown.

      It sounds like we can agree the play is very close to call, even with replay. So I’m sure we can agree this was an incredibly tough call live for the referees. Thanks for the comment.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:45 pm

  134. Pingback: So was it a TD or a pick? - Page 7

  135. Tim

    For all that writing, this is very simple.

    The rule you quote says:
    “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

    At the beginning of your argument you say:
    “It is clear from the above angle that Tate actually gets his left hand on the ball cleanly right as Jennings grabs it.”

    If you “grab” the ball, you “take control of” the ball, no? If we made that substitution, you would be saying:

    It is clear from the above angle that Tate actually gets his left hand on the ball cleanly right as Jennings gains control of it.

    It’s clear from the rest of your argument that you don’t think that Tate has control at this point. You argue that that happens later, after he repositions his right hand. So it sure seems like you admit that Jennings has control before Tate. Hence, everything you say after the second sentence I quote is totally irrelevant.

    Not convinced? Watch the slow motion video. Tate completely repositions his right hand while he’s falling. The reason he’s able to do this is that Jennings is stabilizing the ball. So at that moment, who has control of the ball? Does Tate? Clearly not. If he had control of the ball he would not be repositioning his hand. So Tate gains control after that, if at all. So Jennings has control before Tate and it is an interception, Q.E.D.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    • Tim

      Glancing over the comments, it seems that you do argue that Tate has “partial control” of the ball from the beginning. There is no such thing as “partial control”. There’s just control. If two players have control of the ball, then they have joint control. That’s what the rule says anyway. So here’s my question for you. If Tate has control of the ball from the very beginning when he only has one hand on it, why does he reposition his right hand? Because the only reason I can think of for why you would move your hand the way he does is if you were losing control of the ball or trying to gain it. (Really, why else does a football player ever make that type of move with his hand? It’s either because he doesn’t have control yet or because he’s losing control of it.)

      It seems to me then that you would have to argue that he had control of it and was losing it. But that requires us to believe that he had much more “control” over the ball that split second before he repositions his hand. That’s a really, really weak argument. Maybe you can do better.

      (I suppose you could say that it’s to get “better control”. But the only time we might say that is when a player is anticipating contact with another player and doesn’t want to fumble

      So why does Tate reposition his hand on the way down? You can’t admit that he doesn’t have control at that point else your argument crumbles. Is he losing control? Is there another option I’m not seeing?

      Here’s a positive argument for why Tate does not have control at the very beginning when he only has a hand on it. Imagine the play as it happened up to the point where Jennings has control, indisputably, and Tate has just that hand on it. Now imagine all the other players vanish. Could Tate have caught the ball without using his other hand or trapping it against his body? Obviously not. There’s no way he could have one hand caught that. He’s falling down himself. He doesn’t even have control over his own momentum at that point. Unless he was palming the ball at that point, which he was not, the best he could have hoped for without using another part of his body to stabilize the ball would be to stop the ball’s movement by trapping it against the ground. That’s because he only has physical contact with the ball, which is not sufficient to have control of it.

      What’s clear to me is that you argue that Tate retains physical contact with the ball throughout. I don’t dispute that, but the reason your argument seems at all plausible is you use sophistical phrases like “partial control” when in reality, Jennings is stabilizing the ball (has control) while Tate retains physical contact with the ball throughout and later gains control of the ball (which you point out when you ask why Jennings couldn’t just instantly rip the ball away from Tate on the ground). But if physical contact with the ball equaled control then they would count it when you trapped the ball against the ground.

      So another question if you persist. If Tate has “control” initially simply by having a hand on it, why does the NFL not count as receptions cases where players have two-handed “control” of the ball and then trap it against the ground? What is the difference? Why does physical contact count as control in Tate’s case but not in the others?

      September 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm

      • Your argument boils down to “Golden Tate moves his off hand around to get better control over the ball, so this proves he has no control to begin with”. This is flawed from the start.

        He repositioned his right hand to gain better control so that Jennings couldn’t rip it completely away. Gaining more control doesn’t mean you suddenly lacked any control to begin with. That’s an invalid argument. You have in no way shown that his left hand at any point loses complete control of the ball. All it shows is that he went to get more control and succeeded.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:36 pm

      • cop

        If Tate only “has physical contact” with the ball, then why can’t Jennings seize complete control? Would it not be quite easy for him to do so if Tate was simply touching the ball? From the time BOTH players make contact with the football, NEITHER is able to get total control. This continues all the way until the play ends with either Tate’s 2 feet in the end zone or Jennings ruled down. Seems to me this is an excellent example of partial control by BOTH players (=Touchdown).

        September 28, 2012 at 3:48 am

      • Exactly.

        September 28, 2012 at 11:57 am

    • Tim

      I left incomplete a parenthetical remark above. I meant to say

      (I suppose you could say that it’s to get “better control” (where this doesn’t imply that he was losing control). But the only time we might say that is when a player is anticipating contact with another player and doesn’t want to fumble (so he stops carrying it in one hand or tucks it, etc.). But that would only apply after, not during, a reception, as if he had the ball, saw Jennings coming, and didn’t want to fumble. To say that here would be grasping at straws.)

      September 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    • jd

      “Tate completely repositions his right hand while he’s falling. The reason he’s able to do this is that Jennings is stabilizing the ball. So at that moment, who has control of the ball? Does Tate? Clearly not. If he had control of the ball he would not be repositioning his hand.”

      This is bad logic, especially the last sentence. The premise of that sentence is that “If a player has control, whether partial or complete, then he will not reposition a hand.” Considered by itself that premise is obviously wrong.

      If control precedes possession, then every time a player makes a one-handed catch they established control with one hand.

      Tate positioned his right hand to get a better grip with that hand, but that does not mean that his left hand does not share control. Tate has an extremely strong grip with his left hand, so much so that Jennings is never able to take the ball away.

      The real question is timing of control – When did Tate establish control? Tate obviously had some control when they were on the ground, and it was with his left hand. I think it is reasonable to say that Tate established some control (ie, ability to affect the football) when his left hand first touched the ball, and he maintained that control(ie, ability to affect the football) throughout the entire catch.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      • Boom, exactly JD.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      • Tim

        Life in Rewind, so you’re going with the “he’s trying to gain better control” argument. Basically, I was saying that the way he grasps at it with his right hand is like what guys do when they are in the process of catching it but don’t have it yet. They are trying to gain control over it because right then they only have maybe one hand on it. It seems implausible to me to say that he had control but was trying to gain better control. Of course he was trying to gain control over the ball from everyone else that was jumping up for it, Jennings included. The question is, did he have control already and was trying to gain better control, as you assert?

        Likewise, jd. I wasn’t using “bad logic”. You can’t saddle me with a universal generalization just because I give you a particular instance. Just because I say “that car is red” doesn’t mean I’m saying “all cars are red”. Likewise, “if Tate moved his hand like that…” doesn’t imply “if any player in any circumstance moved his hand like that…”. Sounds like you’ve maybe had enough philosophy and/or logic to know what I’m saying here. Also, “Tate has an extremely strong grip with his left hand, so much so that Jennings is never able to take the ball away.” Such an extremely strong grip that he had to get his other hand on it so that it didn’t get ripped away, right?

        I’ll respond more below to try to consolidate the discussion.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm

      • jd

        Tim – You said ” If [Tate] had control of the ball [then] he would not be repositioning his hand.”

        This is the bad logic I was pointing out. The above statement assumes that having control of the ball precludes repositioning. That assumption is false. It is perfectly reasonable for a player to try to get a more secure grip with their 2nd hand while their 1st hand maintains control.

        October 15, 2012 at 1:18 pm

  136. Tyler

    So did anyone realize that the game is over, and there is nothing anyone can do about it?

    September 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm

  137. Tim

    great job, life in rewind. youve written out what ive been trying to explain to people all week.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

  138. Colin

    You are making an argument against Jennings’ possession of the ball. Read the rule you posted. You need control of the ball first, not possession. You do not need possession (two feet down) to have control.

    September 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm

  139. TEDEBE

    I think it’s talking more about “control” than it is “possession” as the rules state. You first gotta determine who has control then you can decide whether its simultaneous possession or a INT, the feet are regardless in this instance… imo. That being said it needs to be more clear whether a couple fingers determines control or at least joint control of the ball while in mid air. If it does than Golden had at least partial control the entire time with one hand and thus a simultaneous catch, if it doesn’t than MD had control at first and Golden subsequently gained joint control as he reached the ground by wrapping is second arm around the ball across MD’s chest. People make one handed catches all the time tho. so hmmmm.

    So really the question is do a couple fingers constitute control?

    September 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    • Tim

      Right… I don’t know if you’re responding to my post or not, but either way, see my own “response” to my first post. If having a hand on the ball were sufficient for control then there would be no rule against trapping the ball on the ground. (Why should we care if they have control?) And almost always in a “one-handed catch” the player reels it in with one hand before stabilizing it with other parts of the body (because if they only used the one hand throughout they would end up dropping it). I think “stabilizing the ball” means about the same as “control” of the ball in this context. The reason players making one handed catches still need to stabilize the ball with the other hand is that they don’t have control of it yet. Moving the ball with your hand does not equal controlling the ball in the required sense. Defensive players bat the ball down all the time, but no one would say that they have “control” in the sense that the term is used in the rule above.

      September 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      • The reason a player can’t pin it on the ground is because the ground makes it incomplete, obviously. What a silly argument!

        September 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm

      • Tim

        Ok, why does the ground make it incomplete? Is it an arbitrary rule or is there some reason for it?

        September 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

      • TEDEBE

        @Life In Rewind – your obviously not getting the point of “Tim’s” argument. He is simply showing you that how YOUR logic placed into a different context used fairly, in turn makes your own argument look silly… He doesn’t really think that pinning it against the ground makes it a reception…

        September 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm

      • The ground makes the ball incomplete. It can’t touch the ground. Simple as that. So that has no place in this discussion.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm

      • And you’re comparing two guys holding a ball steady from tip of catch to the ground to a defender batting down a pass?

        September 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      • TEDEBE

        Just the fact that Golden had about as much “control” of the ball as a DB does when he bats down a pass, that is until he wraps his second arm around which is regardless because at that point MD had already gained initial control making Golden get subsequent possession. And therefore it isn’t simultaneous possession.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      • Tim

        So you’re saying the rule against trapping the ball is TOTALLY arbitrary? It has nothing to do with what it intuitively means to control the ball? They just picked it at random against other potential rules like “the fifth pass of the game will be considered incomplete if Steelers defeated the Browns two weeks prior” or “the pass will be considered incomplete if the receiver hits the ground while holding the ball at a 35 degree angle to the nearest sideline”? Is that what you’re saying or did they have a reason for picking that rule rather than those other two?

        And the reason I’m talking about batting down passes is to show that merely affecting the direction that the ball travels does not count as control. So having a hand on the ball and pushing it this way or that does not mean you have control.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm

  140. ScannerAnonymous

    It could’ve went either way.

    September 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm

  141. TEDEBE

    Yeah Tim you make a great point. This thread is going around everywhere on FB and it seems clear that although it is closer than people had originally thought, it still should have been an INT…

    September 27, 2012 at 2:57 pm

  142. KT

    watch the video of Miles Austin doing the same thing. till they are on the ground the ball is up for grabs. once on the ground they both had the ball. WTF is wrong with people have you not been watching football for more than a year? this is basic stuff when you look at it properly. ESPN just wants to sell AD space so are not covering it correctly.

    September 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    • TEDEBE

      I’ve watched that play, I’m assuming its the Austin/Cro catch? It’s pretty obvious to me that those two catches are not in the the slightest similar. I agree with the ruling that it was a simultaneous catch in the Miles/Cro case. But these two need to be analyzed in their own. Why bring up a catch that in all reality has nothing to do with this one? (Probably because you thought that the catches are similar… Am I right? Well sorry to break it to you but your obviously seeing these plays through the lens of a wishful thinking Hawks fan.)

      September 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm

  143. Johnny

    He is right. Every thing he is saying is correct. Say one thing that proves he is wrong.

    September 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

  144. jd

    I would define “control” as the ability to affect the football, and Tate does appear to have that at the same time that Jennings did, albeit with only one hand. That appearance is confirmed when Jennings cannot take the ball away from Tate.

    The fact that Jennings had two hands on the ball & Tate only had one is irrelevant, because the degree of control is irrelevant. Any control at all is enough to establish control (possession must be retained afterwards for it to be a complete catch of course.)

    September 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    • TEDEBE

      So if Richard Sherman bats down a ball ala (has the ability to affect it) he has control? I wouldn’t think so…

      September 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      • jd

        Good example, and sure, I’ll say that Richard Sherman has control when he bats a ball down. He controls where the ball goes. It isn’t a catch of course, that requires far different things than “control”.

        Remember, “control” is by definition partial in a simultaneous catch. I think your example is a good one because Sherman wouldn’t have 100% “control”, just like Tate didn’t. You could say that both Tate and Sherman had 10% control in the scenarios (although I think it is misleading to assign percentages, too inexact.)

        September 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    • Thank you. This is exactly correct.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    • sfb

      “I would define “control” as the ability to affect the football”

      You can’t be serious. Have you heard of the distinction between “Sphere of influence” and “Sphere of control”?

      The point is that there many things that we can neither influence nor control. Some that we can influence but not control. And a precious few that we actually control.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:21 pm

      • jd

        “The point is that there many things that we can neither influence nor control. Some that we can influence but not control. And a precious few that we actually control.”

        If you consider the definition of “sphere of control” for a second, then you should realize that it cannot be applied to simultaneous catch. In a simultaneous catch the other player must be influencing the ball, and therefore neither player can (fully) control the ball.

        NFL rules allow for the existence of a simultaneous catch, and therefore the NFL rules must not be using the definition of a sphere of control.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      • Tim is just being ridiculous and arguing semantics.

        If a player makes a one handed catch, and then brings the ball in and grabs it with the other hand, is Tim saying control doesn’t begin until that second hand has a hold of it?

        We’re clearly not going to convince each other. What I want from YOU, Tim, is to agree with me that this was a close play that was very hard to spot when viewing live. If you can admit it wasn’t this horrendously obvious call, but a rather hard one that could have been called either way live, I am totally happy accepting that we disagree on the “control” aspect of the catch.

        And once again, this footage is so close, and so inconclusive, that whatever was called on the field would probably hold up upon review. I just so happen to think there’s enough evidence to award Tate possession along with Jennings.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm

      • TEDEBE

        @Life In Rewind – That is fair but the way you are presenting it in this article makes it seem as if the Refs got the call right and there is very little room for interpretation. I think most people see your title which states, “why-the-seahawks-packers-finish-was-not-an-interception-and-why-it-would-have-been-called-the-same-by-any-referee-crew” not “why the catch was ruled a TD and how it could have gone either way”

        September 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      • Tim

        Actually, I see really clearly that this can get into vague semantical issues. I’ve been trying to avoid that as much as possible. My issue with your (Life in Rewind) argument above is that it rests on Tate having control from the very beginning. It’s hairy, but what exactly it means to have control matters in this case. That’s why I’ve used various other examples–to try to show when some proposed condition obviously does not meet the necessary or sufficient conditions to count as control *in the sense required* in this case.

        So… having physical contact with the football? That can’t be it because of the rule against trapping the football. It ain’t sufficient for control, otherwise the rule against trapping the ball would make no sense.

        Affecting the football? By this, I take it that you mean being able to physically influence the direction of the ball. This is where I gave the example of batting the ball. Also, merely having one hand on the ball is one way of affecting the football, so this is no better than the first suggestion.) You guys have resisted this. This strikes me as grasping at straws. Is that REALLY the sense of “control” at work in the rulebook?

        Let’s think about this. The NFL does not define “control”. It’s sort of intuitive what they mean. I don’t know if you can define it, but I think would have to include the idea that if no other player were to interfere, you could, without gaining further “control”, stop your momentum (either by stopping running or hitting the ground) without dropping the ball. Hence, stabilizing the ball is the key, not just affecting its movement any old way. Having control for a moment does not mean you have a reception. There are other requirements for that (e.g. you have to maintain control despite getting hit by other players), but I would think it would include *at least* what I outline above. Is that reasonable?

        Now, most of what I have been arguing stems from this idea: Tate, when he had just the one hand on the ball (i.e. before grasping it with his other hand), did not have control of it. If the other players were not there, he still would have had to stabilize the ball with his other hand. (When TEDEBE brought up one-handed catches, I pointed out that usually the player still has to stabilize it with more than the one hand. Tate only had the one hand.) That’s why I believe the NFL says you can’t trap the ball–you require the ground to stabilize it.

        So, “If a player makes a one handed catch, and then brings the ball in and grabs it with the other hand, is Tim saying control doesn’t begin until that second hand has a hold of it?”

        Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I hope it’s clear now why I think that’s reasonable. The guy making the one-hander does not have control (usually) when he has just one hand on it just like he doesn’t have control the milisecond it touches one of his fingers. That’s why he brings it in to his body or puts the other hand on it. The momentum of the ball is such that unless he does more to stabilize the ball, it will hit the ground.

        (One side note, I see a clear sense here in which you could have simultaneous possession. If both players go up for a pass and both have a good enough grip on it that, if the other player weren’t there, they would be able to not drop the ball, then they both have control.)

        If you guys think I’m just say off, that the NFL doesn’t have anything like what I outline above as the intuitive sense of “control” and that affecting it in any way is good enough, then we can disagree there. But my guess is that you would be disagreeing just to not lose the argument. I apologize for being sarcastic. It’s out of my system now.

        I’ve looked at it so many times now that I don’t know if it’s obvious or not in real time. On replay, I think it looks obvious that it’s not a catch, but you do a very good job of arguing that that appearance is deceiving. When I first read your blog post, it took me a bit to figure out why I disagreed. So I think it’s less obvious upon a close replay than I initially thought. Actually, Tate’s hand is what breaks the downward momentum of the ball, mostly, and Jennings wouldn’t have caught it if it hadn’t hit Tate’s hand. I didn’t notice that until about the 100th time. But that makes no more difference to my argument here than if it had hit Tate on the helmet and Jennings first got control.

        So I’ll admit that it’s not nearly as horrendous a call as I initially thought :) but still not the right call and a terrible one to lose a game on, especially given instant replay.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      • Thanks again for the comments, Tim. Even though we don’t entirely agree on the whole “control” aspect of it, I appreciate the discussion. You’re comment about Tate breaking the flight of the ball is an interesting one that kind of ties in to how I feel his left hand is important to his control over the ball. Either way, no hard feelings.

        September 28, 2012 at 6:03 am

    • Tim

      Control is not simply affecting the football. Two examples. Swatting the ball down is affecting the football, changing the momentum even, but it is not control. Secondly, if affecting the football were control–say, by merely having a hand or two on the ball and changing its natural pattern of falling to the ground–you could trap the football against the ground. After all, that would be “controlling” the ball until, presumably, you’ve got two feet, an elbow, or a butt on the ground.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      • jd

        “Control is not simply affecting the football.”

        Sure it is. It is not complete control, but it is some control. Complete control is usually required for a catch (evidenced by meeting all the requirements for a catch), but complete control is not required in a simultaneous catch.

        “Secondly, if affecting the football were control–say, by merely having a hand or two on the ball and changing its natural pattern of falling to the ground–you could trap the football against the ground.”

        You’re right, that would evidence at least some control. But it would not be a catch by the end of the play, because catching a ball has lots of other requirements, and one restriction that specifically invalidates trapped catches.

        I think you are conflating “control” variously with “100% control” and “possession”.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:37 pm

      • TEDEBE

        “Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.” -As stated in this Article and the NFL rules

        I’m sorry but where does it say anything about “some control” in the NFL rules…? It is either control or no control. Find where a player can have “some control” and I’ll be impressed. (I’m assuming you will point to simultaneous possession, however that is granted when both players have control not “some control” as stated by the rules.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      • jd

        The term in the rules “…player gains control…” is not defined. What do you think it means for both players to “control” a ball? Keep in mind a one-handed catch must include control.

        Every other time a player controls a ball and then makes a catch, the rules make the receiver “prove” they have control by maintaining that control until they touch down with both feet in bounds. That is exactly what the simultaneous catch rule requires, and Tate met that requirement by maintaining control until all bodies were down.

        The rules use the “proof” of touching down with both feet in bounds because that is the best way to determine control; it is too indefinable otherwise.

        If you don’t like the term “some control”, then I don’t think you will like thinking about the term “simultaneous catch” either.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm

      • cop

        What about the numerous times a TD has been granted as a player stretches across the goal line with one hand holding the ball? Assuming that 2 hands are required for “control,” this an impossibility as you cannot score a TD without “control” of the ball.

        As far as the % of “control” required in this case, if two players have joint control of the ball, then neither can have 100% control. Each has some fraction of control, period. Despite how unfair it may feel that possession goes to the offense, even if that player has less “control” of the ball, that is the rule. I believe the call was correct, but also believe that whatever call made on the field would have stood after instant replay. It is WAY to close to be definitive. Touchdown Seahawks. Game over.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:30 am

  145. sfb

    Life in Rewind said: “We’re clearly not going to convince each other. What I want from YOU, Tim, is to agree with me that this was a close play that was very hard to spot when viewing live. If you can admit it wasn’t this horrendously obvious call, but a rather hard one that could have been called either way live, I am totally happy accepting that we disagree on the “control” aspect of the catch.”

    I don’t think you’re going to get this admission from most viewers. By every poll I’ve seen, 85% or more of those who saw the play did NOT see it as a close play that was hard to spot or could have been called either way. Rather, they saw it as a clear interception. Yes, Tate had a hand on the ball. But Jennings clearly had control of the ball first. That is what happened and that is what just about everyone saw (save for a portion of Seattle fans determined to rationalize an undeserved victory).

    I don’t want anything from YOU. I don’t expect you to change your mind. You have a lot of time and energy invested in defending the call that was made. I applaud all of that and your support for your team.

    September 27, 2012 at 3:56 pm

  146. BBIB

    The fact that all the overwhelming evidence that was presented here is ignored is why we are in so much trouble as a nation.

    People will not believe that 2 + 2 is 4 unless they get confirmation from the media.

    CLEARLY Golden Tate had a hand on the football and CLEARLY the Green Bay defender didn’t have possession until his feet TOUCHED THE GROUND. Anyone who knows anything about football knows your feet have to hit the ground to have possession.

    But people through all their common sense out the window because of the reaction from the media

    People are sheep that are led by the media

    September 27, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    • sfb

      CLEARLY you don’t understand the rule that is applicable in this play. The issue is whether or not the ball was caught simultaneously by the two players. It was not. Jennings caught the ball. Maybe Tate had a hand on the ball, maybe not. Even if he had a hand on the ball, the odds that he “caught” it are extraordinarily small – his only ability to control the ball at that point almost certainly derived from the fact that Jennings was holding it.

      September 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      • BBIB

        CLEARLY you don’t understand the point. It WAS simultaneous possession because possession is not established until THE GROUND. There can’t be ANY possession established until the ground.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm

      • sfb

        I’ll try to make it simpler. Here’ s the rule, verbatim:

        “Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

        September 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    • TEDEBE

      The reason we are in so much trouble as a nation is because people will not explore all the evidence and gather information from multiple sources, they trust in what is convenient for them to believe in and what they want to see, this often leads to them voicing their opinion without realizing that their main argument has already been diffused and holds no merit, for example not knowing the difference between possession and control…

      September 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm

      • BBIB

        You can use all the semantics you want, you don’t have control or possession of a football in mid air. And that rule applies in pretty much every sport. The only sports where the play is over when someone is in mid air is soccer when someone scores a goal

        September 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      • DJ

        Alright, people. There is a definition of “catch.” And it’s the point on which this discussion hinges. Forget the “simultaneous catch” rule. It’s irrelevant. For there to be a simultaneous catch, two players have to fulfill the requirements for a “catch” at exactly the same time. So this is how it will work. I’ll paste the requirements for a catch below (taken from ESPN blogger Mike Sando’s article). Then you tell me who fulfilled ALL THREE of the critera first. Here is the copy-paste:
        _______
        The NFL’s statement on the play notes that “a player (or players) jumping in the air has not legally gained possession of the ball until he satisfies the elements of a catch.”

        Those elements are satisfied when a player:

        “Secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground.” Note the plural. Hands or arms. Not hand or arm. Is that a meaningful distinction, or semantics?

        “Touches the ground inbounds with both feet or any body part other than his hands.” [my note: Tate does this first. Obviously. But does he do it in addition to doing the next requirement…]

        “Maintains control of the ball long enough 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.).”
        —————-
        Tate never fulfills the final requirement for a catch. He may have partial possession by having a hand on the ball, but he certainly cannot be thought to ever have enough possession to do any of the example “acts common to the game” listed here. In fact, the last “act” – “avoid or ward off an opponent” – is exactly what he DOESN’T do, as Jennings ultimately ends up with the ball.

        September 27, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      • jd

        “Alright, people. There is a definition of “catch.” And it’s the point on which this discussion hinges. Forget the “simultaneous catch” rule. It’s irrelevant. For there to be a simultaneous catch, two players have to fulfill the requirements for a “catch” at exactly the same time.”

        You are wrong from your first paragraph. A simultaneous catch occurs when a defensive & offensive player gain control over the football at the same time, and subsequently complete the catch without losing control, regardless of who completes the catch first. This is what prevents the receiver from not jumping, putting a hand on an intercepted ball before the defender hits the ground, and getting credited for the catch.

        “Tate never fulfills the final requirement for a catch. He may have partial possession by having a hand on the ball, but he certainly cannot be thought to ever have enough possession to do any of the example “acts common to the game” listed here. In fact, the last “act” – “avoid or ward off an opponent” – is exactly what he DOESN’T do, as Jennings ultimately ends up with the ball.”

        Jennings does not end up with the ball by himself. When the ref came over Tate still had a piece of the ball, the same piece he had when he initially stopped the downward motion of the ball. I am confident that if Jennings had been able to take the ball away by the time the ref was standing over the two players, then it would have been ruled an interception.

        Also, the rules allow for the possibility of a simultaneous catch in the endzone. In that hypothetical instance, the ONLY possible “act common to the game” is going to the ground. That is all that Tate & Jennings could have done, and that is exactly what they both did. (In a simultaneous catch, by definition neither player “wards off the opponent”.)

        October 4, 2012 at 7:49 am

  147. BBIB

    Golden Tate had at least one hand of the football from the very beginning. Since when can you not make a one handed catch? And he clearly had TWO hands on the football by the time his feet hit the ground.

    Those are the facts that are at odds with this media propaganda.

    September 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    • DJ

      Even though his hands were on the football, I’m asking if you can actually claim that he had enough possession to do any of the example “acts common to the game” listed there. That claim seems impossible for anyone to make. If you do, so be it. But it seems impossible, especially since “ward off an opponent” is one of them and Jennings clearly ends up with the ball!

      September 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      • cop

        Sure…here is an “act common to the game”… In fact, here are 2:

        1. While having control (in this case partial control) Tate prevents an opposing player from gaining sole possession of the football. This is important as they both established control at the same time, resulting in the play falling under the simultaneous catch rule.

        2. In addition, he places 2 feet in the endzone while “in possession” of the ball for a game winning touchdown.

        Do those qualify as football moves?

        September 28, 2012 at 4:07 am

      • Yep!

        September 28, 2012 at 11:57 am

  148. Travis

    This is a horrible article. The rule also states, if a player appears to have possession before another player then it is not a simultaneous catch. Jennings clearly has possession before Tate touches the ball. What you are defending is atrocious. You are claiming that as long as a receiver puts his hands on the ball any time during the catch, then it is a ‘simultaneous catch.’

    September 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    • BBIB

      Actually what’s horrible is how gullible the public is for buying the media narrative.

      The one player having possession before another clearly means if that other players feet TOUCH THE GROUND.

      It’s no wonder we are in trouble as a nation. Not only do we believe everything the media says but we don’t even know how to read rules or laws properly.

      September 27, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    • I am not claiming that “as long as a receiver puts his hands on the ball any time during the catch, then it is a ‘simultaneous catch.” This is why I’ve demonstrated that Tate has some control over the ball from the moment his left hand stops the flight of the ball all the way until he still has a firm grip of it at the end of the catch. If Jennings can’t get the ball away from Tate, it’s illogical to assume Tate has no control. There’s also no evidence to show he doesn’t have any control.

      Also, the reason I pointed out the feet is to show how Tate fulfilled the requirements of a completed catch. To make matters worse for Jennings, this happened before Jennings could have possibly completed an interception. Tate has shared control over the ball from the moment it hits his left hand, brings it down and has 2 feet down while Jennings is still in the air. It’s a touchdown as soon as Tate lands because he is the offensive player.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:39 pm

  149. Dude Love

    Excellent work.

    September 27, 2012 at 4:50 pm

  150. kclafh

    You are absolutely correct in your assessment from start to finish. The people arguing here are claiming truths that have been clearly refuted by the evidence. ESPN and the national media made this a big deal because it was easy to do and benefitted them for the reasons you stated. You are also correct that a less than popular team beat a very popular one (just like they did the previous week) and that just isn’t palatable to a lot of people. “The worst call in history?” What melodrama. The sun still rose in Wisconsin this week, folks.

    September 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm

  151. drew

    @ JRS You sir, are a fucking moron

    September 27, 2012 at 5:34 pm

  152. Cristin

    Also there should of been a flag for pushing #37 Shields! So again no touchdown!

    September 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    • We’ve covered this in the article, and there is also a wealth of evidence online for why this call is almost unheard of in this situation. It should be called, but it never is. Sad fact.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm

  153. Hobbes09

    It doesn’t matter whose feet touched down first. That is nowhere within the rule dealing with simultaneous catch, only in making a normal catch. If a defensive player ran up and grabbed the ball in the hands of an airborne offensive player with one hand it would not be an interception. The simultaneous catch rule states that it is not a simultaneous catch when one player gains control first, that the person who gains control first is rewarded with the catch. Not partial control, not fingertips on the ball, control, flat out. If the player then retains control through the process of the catch the ball is then theirs. By rule, this was an interception as Jennings established control first, securing the ball with two hands and pulling it to his chest. Tate’s hand happening to be on the ball is not control.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    • “Tate’s hand happening to be on the ball is not control.”

      This is where many of the people who feel it’s an INT are flawed. Tate’s hand actually stops the flight of the ball first, and he never releases it throughout the catch. There’s no evidence that Tate loses total control of the ball throughout the catch. Jennings can’t get it away from Tate, and that’s more than enough evidence that Tate has some control over it. Your example is also flawed because the defender in your case not be awarded an INT if both players have a hold of it. Lastly, the reason the feet were important is to show that Tate fulfilled the requirements of a completed catch fully, and to make matters worse for Jennings this happened before Jennings could have possibly completed an interception. It’s a touchdown as soon as Tate lands.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm

  154. hondadavidson

    reat article. One thing that it did not mention was that the defensive lineman that mowed down Russell Wilson as he was throwing the pass. That would normally be called “ruffing the passer” in the same way as “offensive pass interference” wasn’t called. But neither of them weren’t called because it was the last play of the game and the ref’s are usally not as strict on these type of rules on a final play of the game. So, if anyone tries to say that “offensive pass interference” should’ve been called they can just suck on it! ;)

    September 27, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    • Exactly, they should have called PI on Tate, but they could have easily called Roughing the Passer, or even defensive PI on the 2 defenders that mauled Martin of the Seahawks before the pass came in (notice how he has no chance to even jump after it). Arguing about the penalties will get us nowhere because we can’t change it and they are very rarely called in that instance.

      September 28, 2012 at 6:05 am

  155. Jim

    The analysis is incorrect because Tate DOES NOT initially have his right hand on the ball and subsequently remove it to readjust his grip. The looped video CLEARLY shows that Tate’s right hand is in possession of Jenning’s right forearm and then removes it to reach around Jenning’s helmet to possibly gain possession of the ball with that right hand.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    • We’ve actually covered thoroughly in the article why Tate readjusting his right hand doesn’t have bearing on his left hand, or mean that he loses all control of the ball. You’re failing to acknowledge that his left hand does not move or lose the football at all from the moment he touches it first to when they both have the ball on the ground. Piecing together the front angle with the back we can conclude Tate had a good grip on it with his left hand throughout the catch. The right hand just helped with leverage.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:29 pm

  156. THG

    I am a Seahawks fan. Love them hawks. We were robbed in the Superbowl and it disgusts me that fans would abandon any sense of fair play or sportsmanship for this “hay a win is a win!!111!” attitude. I thought we were better than that.

    September 27, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    • I initially thought “I have no clue, looks like they both have it, I hope they call a TD!” when it happened. Then after watching the replays and being swayed by the announcers, I conceded that it was probably an INT. But something bugged me. I felt like I must be admitting it was an INT because I was trying to show how objective and non-homer I could be. Then I actually dug into the play and the details, and after seeing all these photos I became convinced it was the right call. When I kept seeing all the outcry over how horrible the call was, and how people thought Seattle should forfeit the game, I’d had enough and decided to write this all up in one place.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:25 pm

  157. andy culp

    Wow there r some very misinformed idiots replying 2 this. I keep hearing jennings had the ball clutched 2 his chest. If u believe that u r a complete moron.it is physically impossible 2 b clutching a football 2 your chest when somebodys hand is between the footbal and your chest as tates was. 2nd possession does not begin in the air remember 2 yrs ago when calvin johnson lost a td because he caught a ball had it in the air and used the ball 2 brace himself when he came down. Possession begins when both feet hit the ground. When tates feet hit ground he had 2 hands on the football as he did when jennings feet hit the ground thus both players had possession. By rule it goes 2 the offense td and the proper call was made. If u r still whining that the pack got screwed u r an even bigger moron. Let’s go back a few min earlier 2 the gb td. There was a pass interference penalty called on seattle that wasn’t pi that kept that drive alive not 2 mention at least half a dzn holding penalties on gb that weren’t called. Had they been called correctly gb doesn’t score and there is no hail mary. In other words seattle almost got screwed. Lastly every expert has said the same thing they never call offensive or defensive pass interference on hail mary. In other words the regular refs woulda made the same call and the only team that truly got screwed out of a win this week is the patriots

    September 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm

  158. I am NOT a Seahawks fan, nor am I a Packers fan…I actually am one of the few people who can’t stand Aaron Rodgers. Initially when I first watched this live -and for the last few days- I’ve been so upset by this horrible call, I hate games being decided by refs and the replacement refs have made some really REALLY bad calls. However, being a Charger fan, I took the time to reflect on how Ed Hochuli totally screwed us against the Broncos and had to admit that even the real refs get it wrong sometimes. So I went back and reviewed this play/call again and I must admit – it isn’t totally clear. I could see why this ref called it a TD, I might not agree, but I can see why. I’ve seen Tate make one handed catches before, many receivers do, had Jennings not come up behind Tate and put both hands on the ball Tate would have had that ball himself and had a TD, but that didn’t happen. Personally, I think it should have been called an int but I have to say that I don’t think it’s as clear cut as I initially thought.

    September 27, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    • That’s all I really ask, is that people consider how close it is either way. Thanks for the comment!

      September 28, 2012 at 12:06 pm

  159. Reese

    In your first video, Tate clearly gets the top of the tips of his fingers on the ball not his hand and clearly not enough to control it. It is clearly in control of Jennings 2 hands. Jennings struggle to roll away from Jennings is because Tate’s right hand which came in late to wrap around Jennings arms and hands that have the actual ball is struggling to hold Jennings in place long enough to try and wrest it away. He never had possession of the ball only possession of Jennings. Nice try. You lose.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    • Your argument is “clearly” not correct.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:05 pm

  160. Bob J

    that major pass interference would have never flown with Ed Hochuli(or other pro refs) in there… it was just too major. It wasn’t incidental pass interference or even “slightly intentional”.. there would be NO WAY those pro refs could have let that go, because the result would mean they were cheating for Seattle(same as Tate did.. cause that wasn’t righteous football there that was little girl cat fight stuff). (and then on live TV he goes, “no, I didn’t push off”)

    put a slow-mo analysis on that part of the play! -there’s no slight nuance with all this complex detail to that!

    But anyway, forgetting about the ass-rape shove-in-the-back cheat, we would be able to see the point here if that Seattle-fan ref had clarified the situation and explained it to us, explaining his call about the “catch”.. but he didn’t.. because he wasn’t thinking that! he was thinking about his bookie! lol

    anyway, the proper call was pass interference with a personal foul(because it was that bad). game over. the pro refs wouldn’t have added the personal foul because it wouldn’t matter, but I would’ve.

    we don’t reward pro athletes for playing(cheating?) like that.. or even additionally making such a lame so-called “catch”. THAT part was incidental!

    September 27, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    • Ah yes, it’s a conspiracy. The ref just really wanted Seattle to win. Great argument. Good show ol’ chap.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm

  161. Kyle

    I totally respect your argument, beliefs, and evidence that you put forth. However, your bias has left you missing a significantly strong portion favoring Green Bay.

    Golden Tate’s left hand that you beg to argue had “strong possesion” appears to initially be a fingernail/pincer type of grasp while Jennings sustained the true absorption of the football. Furthermore, his right hand never even contributes to the initial catch. It’s on Jennings’ wrist the entire time until he repositions. At that point, Jennings has already established a two-handed full position. The only thing missing was his two feet touching, which was the lesser concern, especially in consideration that four people were essentially underneath him. As long as the feet made it down in bounds eventually, it’s pretty evident that he was the first one with true possession, and landed in bounce.

    I’m even a Vikings fan, but it’s pretty evident that Jennings got hosed on this one. As much as I hate them, I feel they were robbed.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    • “appears to initially be a fingernail/pincer type of grasp while Jennings sustained the true absorption of the football. ”

      The ball completely stopped in the air, stopped rotating and stopped moving, when it hit Tate’s hand. This covers 3 or so frames before Jennings even touches the ball. Quite a bit more than fingernail grasp. Your argument is very subjective.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:03 pm

  162. Mike

    While this is a good explanation of what the writer thinks happens, if you just look when Tate’s feet are on the ground, he has not established possession of the ball. If you look at the immediately previous video, Tate does not move his right arm until AFTER his feet have touched the ground and he is falling. Therefore he cannot have had possession of the ball. His left arm was trapped by Jenning’s body, that’s the only reason why he was still involved.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    • “His left arm was trapped by Jenning’s body, that’s the only reason why he was still involved.”

      That’s severely pushing it considering that Tate is shown to have a grip on the ball with his left hand at the beginning and at the end. You don’t have any definitive proof Jennings had his hands and control over the ball anytime after the very beginning either, but you’re fine assuming that to be true. So essentially, according to you we should just assume Jennings has total control at all times and Tate must not, for no reason other than you think that’s how it happened.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

  163. leonthelurker

    Back of the end zone cam.

    http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91052&sitesection=kcpq_landing&VID=23823733

    September 27, 2012 at 9:59 pm

  164. Excellent analysis. As the saying goes, those convinced against their will are still of the same opinion. Hawks won at the end of the day, love it or hate it, case closed.

    September 27, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    • '57TestaRossa

      Wish we were talking about the 9 sacks & first half shutout instead.
      Regardless of anything else, that was an impressive defensive accomplishment.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:25 am

    • Exactly, thanks for reading!

      September 28, 2012 at 11:59 am

  165. @ Garcia- You have stated over and over about how Jennings has the ball to his chest. Do you not see that Tate had his hand on the ball first, his feet were down first and also Jennings never had the ball on his chest. He had tate’s hand on his chest with tate’s hand wrapped firmly around the ball. I dislike both teams equally but my point remains. This is obviously a touchdown due to the evidence above. You can read the rules and nothing I have read from any of your replies makes even a legit arguement that it’s not a touchdown. You are avoiding the evidence above and you keep saying things that are of your own opinion vs. facts. Facts are as follow- Tate had his hand on the ball first, Tate had two feet on the ground first, Tate maintained control of the ball throughout the entire thing, to the ground and all, Not to mention the replacement ref’s actually called it that way. People wouldn’t say seattle got robbed if it was the other way around, and that’s a sad fact. Take everything into consideration here, If anything TATE was robbed of the credit of how well he did in the situation. Jennings tried his hardest to make it look like he had control of the ball and caught the ball first. But NO! TATE had a hand on the ball and two feet down before Jennings ever even had any sort of control over the ball. Everything you’ve stated doesn’t work with the facts. They didn’t catch the ball at the same time, and didn’t control the ball at the same time. Just because you have arms and pulled close to your chest. Means absolutly nothing if someone else already caught the ball, 2 feet down and follows all that to the ground without losing control over the ball. This is an amazing non-biased article that proves all you idiots who think GB got robbed wrong. And you moron’s don’t like it so you back it up with your opinions. The facts are all that matters, and for a split second call. Like others have said, Even if it was a mistake to get it right (replacement ref’s didn’t make one good call, I agree they were horrible) But ironically the only call that everyone is talking about is 100% correct. You can’t argue with evidence. Tate OBVIOUSLY got the touchdown and for some reason you people don’t want to admit it. This is a hard call in real time but over debate, No matter what you people think. It’s controversal because there are so many saying both sides of thinking are correct. Which means only one thing- the evidence is really hard to determine with the rules being the way they are. But who to do this best??? Maybe the ref’s on the field??? Also, Why is this such a big deal??? They blew so many calls. It’s a big deal because a popular team lost to a not so popular team??? That’s biased to begin with. This whole thing should of been broken down like this article and then there wouldn’t be much to say about it. Just shruged shoulders saying to themselfs their own opinion. But they blew this way out of proportion because the ref’s sucked and wanted the old greedy ones back. Seattle deserved to win this game. Tate did an awesome job and Jennings didn’t follow the rules he learned as a kid. He wanted a interception to go on his stats. That is clearly obviously. With tate’s hand on the ball jennings could of just batted the ball out and it’s a incomplete pass. But no, He TRIED to catch the ball and bring tate’s hand in close to him which gave tate all the leverage he needed to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground. Jennings is the one who won the game for seattle by holding tate’s hand close to his chest and making sure tate didn’t lose control of the ball all the way to the ground. Take jennings out of the equasion- tate reaches up, catches the ball with one hand and falls down due to everyone else trying to catch it. What happens??? Tate loses control before he hits the ground and incomplete pass. Jennings is the only reason why seattle actually did WIN the game. If you people want someone to blame, blame the person who caused it all to happen. Tate got robbed of credit. He did great in there and he got the touchdown by getting his hand on it first. Seattle won the game fair and square. Why there is so much discussion over the one call they got right that night, is beyond me. You people just don’t want a lesser team to win so you argue the opinions you have. Green bay actually lost to that team, get over yourselfs and see the truth as it stares you in the face and stop being in denial. Jesus F****** Crist. All this over a good call? It’s amazing you people actually are argueing this after reading this arguement. That’s just how your minds work, Nothing could prove you wrong if someone on tv agree’s with a bad call, Bad call being from ESPN’s reporters that GB got robbed. That’s the worst call in ESPN for damn near a decade.

    September 27, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    • '57TestaRossa

      Kudos !

      September 28, 2012 at 2:18 am

    • cop

      Truth.

      September 28, 2012 at 4:13 am

    • Thanks for the Response; given your response, however, I seriously doubt whether you’ve actually read most of what I’ve written.

      You don’t like either team . . . I think both teams are great! I don’t think I’m biased either way toward either team coming into this argument. You can come to your own conclusions about me if you want though.

      By the way, I haven’t been rude to anybody except people who have told me I’m full of shit, otherwise I’ve tried to reply fairly and reasonably. Even though you’ve told me I’m essentially full of shit I’ll try to reply to you fairly as well.

      All I’ve ever talked about are the facts: what the rule says and what we can see and infer from the video evidence. Whenever I’ve expressed my opinion, by saying that I think Jennings had control first, I hedged it by also saying that if you think otherwise that fine, but to please explain why you think otherwise by using FACTS and the RULES. I haven’t told anybody they’re wrong for thinking that Tate made the catch, I’ve only been unpersuaded by their arguments that he did. Most people who argue that he made the catch are (I think) overstating the strength of ONE PARTICULAR FACT: that one of Tate’s hands wedged into the play established control over the ball. That’s it. I think you overstate that fact as well. You even say that it’s OBVIOUS that Tate scored a touchdown. I don’t think it’s obvious either way; I think its an incredibly close call but one that I’d be willing to make in Jennings’ favor after having the chance to see the replay (if I were the replay official and if i had the authority to make that call). Am I really being moronic and biased by making that statement?

      The FACT is you don’t know that Tate’s hand was on the ball the whole way to the ground unless you’ve been able to get your hands on some x-ray footage. I’ve never denied that the ball initially lands in Tate’s hand: I think it’s an incredible display of athleticism that he was able to get his hand up there and perfectly positioned. However, initial TOUCHING doesn’t matter because there’s nothing in the SIMULTANEOUS CATCH rule about initial touching. It’s initial CONTROL that matters. If you think Tate’s INITIAL TOUCHING was enough to establish either INITIAL CONTROL or SIMULTANEOUS CONTROL then that’s fine; I think that’s streeeeeetching the definition of CONTROL a bit thin, but that’s just my assessment. BUT, you need to be willing to accept that Tate initially touching the ball established control then it’s just YOUR ASSESSMENT, that it’s not fact, and that it’s not obvious, and that its okay for people to feel different than you do, especially when the vast majority of other people also think that it is stretching the meaning of control. Are you willing to admit that? I doubt it. Why is it just YOUR ASSESSMENT? Because we HAVE NO DEFINITION OF CONTROL! We don’t know what it means or when it occurs or how you establish it. All we can do is form our own assessment based on our experience with the ‘control’ in our everyday lives and go from there. I admit that what I think control means is my opinion; you don’t. Your arguments can’t be taken seriously until you’re willing to admit that my friend.

      I’ve also tried to dispel the false notion (propagated originally by OP) that the timing of the players feet hitting the ground had any relevance to whether the catch was simultaneous or not. My efforts have obviously been unsuccessful because people like you (people who claim to have read (and understand?) what I wrote) still seem to think that the timing of their feet touching the ground matters. It doesn’t. Both players satisfied all that is required to make a ‘catch.’ That’s not the issue. The only issue is the timing of control.

      The FACT is that whether you think Jennings gained control first or Tate gained control first its your OPINION. The difference between you and me is that I admit that my view that Jennings gained control first is my Opinion based on all the relevant facts and rules. You say that its OBVIOUS that Tate gained control first and that its a FACT that Tate scored a touchdown based on your flawed interpretation of the relevant facts which was informed by OP’s flawed analysis of the facts and rules, both relevant and irrelevant (for example, OP’s insistence that Tate’s feet matter).

      I’m fine with either team winning the game. All I’ve tried to do here is point out why people’s arguments might be flawed and to clarify what facts actually matter. It’s not my OPINION that certain facts matter and certain facts don’t matter. Only the facts relevant to the RULE in question matter. The only rule in question is the SIMULTANEOUS CATCH Rule. The only facts relevant to that rule are facts that establish who had control over the ball and when. That’s it. It really is unassailable. That you attack that position tells me you don’t really understand the crux of the argument here.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm

  166. '57TestaRossa

    NFL.com states what constitutes possession, and YOU DON’T HAVE POSSESSION IN THE AIR!
    [ http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown ]
    Yes, Jennings looks like he caught it, but you have to have control when you land to make a catch.
    Plus, look at the the other photos!! You can see Tate did grab it simultaneously, anyway!

    Most of these commenters didn’t even see the rest of the game, or they are simply uniformed. Dickens said those who don’t read the newspaper are uniformed, those who do are misinformed. Everyone’s bothered by the push off by Tate (which is never called in that situation), but no one’s bothered by the roughing the passer not called either (which almost always is,) which would have given the Seahawks another down.
    I only heard one intelligent comment on ANY news broadcast: “We coach DBs in that situation, to do what? Knock the ball down!” End of problem for Jennings. Probably had his fantasy stats in mind, or he saw that Titans play where the attempted knock-down was caught, still, coaches are the coach for a reason, not 100% a sure thing, but in the vast majority of cases the best plan: KNOCK THE BALL DOWN, defense, in that situation!
    The last play was probably the best of the disputable calls in the game, and much better than most of SuperBowl XL, so don’t expect Seattleites to return a gift even if it was one. Which it wasn’t. I mean come on, when in the history of professional sports, any sport, has a team or individual run over to a referee and said, “Sorry, you were wrong, I decline to accept that unfair call in my favor. We/I forfeit.” Get real folks, you think the Seahawks players and fans were supposed to engage in a hushed, sad silence, knowing they didn’t deserve the win?!? Please!! !! Of course they’d take it, so would any other team in that situation, including the Packers if the sit. were reversed.

    That’s okay, Seattle fans are used to not getting any respect, whether it’s S.Bowl XL, the Supersonics move to Okey-in violation of multiple contracts, WNBA, etc, etc.

    As in politics & most of life these days, about the MNF game, people simply argue how they feel personally about the given situation with no regard for laws or rules. Also, when you have nothing rational to say, all you can think of is to throw in a lot of swearing & name-calling, you do nothing but reveal your preschool level of intelligence, only with big-kid words.

    Never mind that if not for the imbecilic pass interference call on the Packers only TD drive, where Chancellor timed his swat as perfectly as anything you’ve ever seen by ANYBODY in the NFL—–[http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=320924026&period=4] @3rd and 2 at SEA 47 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to J.Finley. PENALTY on SEA-K.Chancellor, Defensive Pass Interference, 8 yards, enforced at SEA 47 – No Play.—–Packers would have punted on 4th & 2 from the Hawks 47, sorry, I don’t think a 62 yrd. field goal is plausible. So, the score would have still been 7-6 Seahawks, & that last pass wouldn’t have ever been thrown, the Hawks would have been falling on the ball to run out the clock long before that.
    Later in that same drive, another really terrible call kept the drive going, without which the Pack would have attempted a field goal, making the score 9-7 assuming they made it, so the Hawks would have been kicking a field goal from the 28, and in all likelihood ended with a 10-9 victory, and we’d all be talking about the 9 sacks instead. Don’t you think the Seattle team and fans would prefer that? Do you think the replacement refs shutout the Packers for the first half and created the 8 sacks?

    Read the stinking rule, there’s NOTHING THERE about who has a better grip on the ball, as stated, clearly if he had the ball by a finger, it would have been ripped away by long before they landed. A catch is not a catch until you have BOTH FEET DOWN, inbounds, or a knee, elbow, etc. See: [http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066164/article/nfl-supports-decision-to-not-overturn-seahawks-touchdown]
    The rule says nothing about who has the first grab, only if a complete catch is made first, another player cannot gain joint possession. As pretty as it looked catching it midair, and Jennings made a fine leap, Tate actually had the advantage staying lower, because a catch is not a catch in the air. Actually, Jennings NEVER HAD possession at all, bcz. Tate’s feet were on the ground first–TD & play over, at that point.
    Everyone’s caught up in who grabbed the football first, but it’s completely irrelevant, even though the other angles clearly show Tate did grab the ball as soon as it got there anyway. Sure it didn’t hit him dead in the chest, again, irrelevant, it just makes him look less athletic, but so what!!

    NFL.com states what constitutes possession, and YOU DON’T HAVE POSSESSION IN THE AIR!

    Stop arguing your personal feelings, and look at the photos. You Packers-lovers probably believe Obama that our ambassador in Libya was killed by disorganized protesters mad about a non-existant video. Come on: “Can you say gullible? Sure, I knew you could.”

    ** **GO HUSKIES-Qwest field is now luckier than skedoo. (whatever that means.)** **
    Cheers -57TR-

    September 28, 2012 at 2:09 am

    • '57TestaRossa

      re Dickens: That’s “uninformed,” not uniformed. Pretty funny gaff for a game where players wear uniforms.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:13 am

  167. cop

    Since this has been a substantial portion of this discussion, here is a comprehensive discussion of the rules regarding “control” and “possession” taken from

    http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/9/26/3412434/q13-fox-exclusive-angle-tates-catch

    Control is not a catch, even under the rule for simultaneous catch.
    You are interpreting the simultaneous catch rule incorrectly (see Article 3: item 5, pg 52 of the NFL Rule Book).
    Here is the language:
    Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

    The language “gains control first” in Item 5 is an adjunct (something attached to another in a dependent or subordinate position) to Article 3, pg 51: Completed or Intercepted Pass:
    Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
    (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
    (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
    © 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.).

    Your argument that “gains control first” in Item 5 means “gains control in the air” is incorrect. Nowhere in Item 5 does it redefine “gains control” to be anything different than the “gains control” that has already been established in Article 3 (remember, Item 5 is an adjunct to Article 3). And Article 3 clearly defines “control” as a three-part process:
    a. Securing control.
    b. Specific touching of the ground (while maintaining that control).
    c. Continuing to maintain control long enough after the specific touching of the ground to be capable of performing a common football act.
    Jennings cannot have “control for a completed catch” while in the air, it is impossible under the rules of Article 3, and it is not superseded by Item 5, which is an adjunct Item. Whether we agree with the rule or not, “control” of a forward pass in NFL football is a process and not a singular act, and there are no exceptions to that rule.

    Also note that Item 3 of Article 3: End Zone Catches actually reinforces the referee’s call as correct:
    Item 3: End Zone Catches. If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

    Article 3, including adjunct Item’s 3 and 5 all uphold the ruling on the field as correct based on the video evidence. There were many incorrect calls and missed calls in this game, which unfortunately affected the outcome for both teams, and to a degree, we will never know how this game would have finished, or which team should have won. I think that is the greatest issue at hand. Referees should not be outcome actuators, and it lessens the game when they are. But as for the last call on the field of this game…they actually got that one right.

    by scratchandsniff on Sep 26, 2012 1:04 PM PDT up reply   15 recs

    September 28, 2012 at 4:43 am

    • jd

      “Article 3 clearly defines “control” as a three-part process:
      a. Securing control.
      b. Specific touching of the ground (while maintaining that control).
      c. Continuing to maintain control long enough after the specific touching of the ground to be capable of performing a common football act.
      Jennings cannot have “control for a completed catch” while in the air, it is impossible under the rules of Article 3, and it is not superseded by Item 5, which is an adjunct Item.”

      Your argument has a fatal flaw in it. You believe that article 3 defines control in three parts, but the first (a.) and third (b.) parts use the word “control”. How can “control” be defined by using the word “control”?

      October 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm

  168. Boycott the NFL

    September 28, 2012 at 5:29 am

  169. Paul Lovhaug

    So I honestly don’t understand why you guys are till debating the catch. 1. The refs made the call that they felt was right. 2. The NFL will always back their refs no matter their call. 3. There is no point watching this crap over and over to “get the best view and angle” when the game is over and can’t change it.

    I am a hardcore Packer fan and yes I do believe the call was BS, but like I said its over and done with.

    Go pack go!

    September 28, 2012 at 6:03 am

    • cop

      Regarding point #2: the replay official (not a replacement ref) could have overturned this call. If it was a clear call for an INT then this very conversation would not be taking place. The point is that it is not clear. The Packers did not get hosed like ESPN and all the national media proclaim. It was a close call that went in favor of a much less popular team. If the Seahawks played the Packers at Lambeau Field and this call happened In favor of the Packers I don’t think anyone here can say with a straight face that there would be the same national outrage. That should tell you something,

      September 28, 2012 at 7:50 am

  170. DJ

    c. Continuing to maintain control long enough after the specific touching of the ground to be capable of performing a common football act.

    Tate never does this. Ever. He never has enough control to do something else with the ball, like pitch it (an example given in the rule of a “common football act.” Jennings does fulfill this requirement, after he goes to the ground. Thus, the Packer is the only player to have fulfilled all requirements of a catch on that play. End of story.

    September 28, 2012 at 6:05 am

    • cop

      IMO Tate fulfills this requirement just as much as Jennings when he lands with 2 feet in the endzone and partial control of the football (clearly shown to be enough to prevent Jennings from taking control). This is no less a football move than Jennings going to the ground. As soon as that hapenned the play was over and the result was a touchdown.

      September 28, 2012 at 7:42 am

  171. Msdodgrblu

    Enjoyed this article very much. Very sound analysis. This call was in no way the worst in NFL history. But at least the real refs are back now, so they can go back to making questionable or outright bad calls that cost good teams Super Bowl victories or AFC Division playoff games. :)

    September 28, 2012 at 7:28 am

  172. Someone who reads the whole rulebook

    Your analasys is just about as wrong as the call on the field, and here is why.
    You have a way to technical analasys of the rule, and you also forget there are somethings called approved rulings in football, they can be found as an addition to the NFL rulebook.
    You are correct that in order to establish possesion you need to control the ball and have two feet (or a bodypart) touch the ground inbounds.
    However, looking at control first. It’s very clear that Jennings first controls the ball with two hands in the air, then pulls it to his chest and somehow Tates arm gets caught in there somehow, that does NOT constitute control of the football by Tate.
    Then to finish this very quick, here is a APPROVED ruling from the NFL casebook, AR. 8.29 Not a simultaneous catch; “First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall to the gorund” Ruling, B’s ball first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultatneous catch as B3 gains control FIRST and retains control.

    This is pretty much excatly what happened on that play, the fact that it happened in the end zone makes no difference. The fact that Tate eventually came up with the ball after a lengthy brawl does not matter either.
    The fact is, the SJ was officiating WAY out of his league, he FAILED to communicate with the BJ (who made the right call) they then went with the WRONG call.

    September 28, 2012 at 8:07 am

    • “It’s very clear that Jennings first controls the ball with two hands in the air, then pulls it to his chest and somehow Tates arm gets caught in there somehow”

      It’s laughable that people can assert this as the explanation for what happened, to be honest. There is no evidence to suggest Tate’s arm is merely “caught in there somehow” when he has his hand clearly on the ball from the moment the ball comes down until the end of the catch. It’s impossible for the ball to be on Jennings chest because Tate’s hand is there. Look at the picture of them on the ground. Thanks.

      September 28, 2012 at 8:25 am

  173. someone who's read the whole rule book

    Your analasys is just about as wrong as the call on the field, and here is why.
    You have a way to technical analasys of the rule, and you also forget there are somethings called approved rulings in football, they can be found as an addition to the NFL rulebook. (NFL case book)
    You are correct that in order to establish possesion you need to control the ball and have two feet (or a bodypart) touch the ground inbounds.
    However, looking at control first. It’s very clear that Jennings first controls the ball with two hands in the air, then pulls it to his chest and somehow Tates arm gets caught in there somehow, that does NOT constitute control of the football by Tate.
    Then to finish this very quick, here is a APPROVED ruling from the NFL casebook, AR. 8.29 Not a simultaneous catch; “First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall to the gorund” Ruling, B’s ball first-and-10 on A40. Not a simultatneous catch as B3 gains control FIRST and retains control.

    This is pretty much excatly what happened on that play, the fact that it happened in the end zone makes no difference. The fact that Tate eventually came up with the ball after a lengthy brawl does not matter either.
    The fact is, the SJ was officiating WAY out of his league, he FAILED to communicate with the BJ (who made the right call) they then went with the WRONG call.

    September 28, 2012 at 8:10 am

  174. g blue

    I can’t believe how many morons have commented here.
    This article is the best explanation on the web and is exactly correct.
    Most of you fools can’t read and obviously can’t comprehend.

    Keep watching the video until you get it, you unbelievable ignoramuses. Pay attention at the 1:06 mark.
    The blogger has provided a picture of the moment and drawn red circles around the feet of the participants.

    “In fact, Tate actually touches ground first:

    According to the rules, this is why the call was correct. 2 Feet down, mutual possession of the ball, while Jennings is still in the air which by rule means he can’t have possession yet. Touchdown.”

    The blogger has tried to be nice to you vegtards. That was his only mistake.

    A duhhilk, I know whut I sawuh. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

    NFL fans and commentators are idiots. Read this too until you comprehend-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_promotion

    September 28, 2012 at 10:09 am

  175. someone who's read the whole rule book

    Even though Tates hand is clearly on the ball, between! Jennings chest and the ball, while Jennings has BOTH hands on the ball, that does not constitute control or possesion for Tate, two hands would trumph one hand any day, and there is no doubth that Jennings gets both hands on the ball before Tate has one hand on it. Then go back and read the APPROVED RULING!
    In this case it does not matter who touches the ground first, that would come in to effect if both players got both (or one each) hands on the ball at excactly the same time while still airborne. Jennings controls the ball first while in the air, which according to the APPROVED ruling is what matters.
    Then look at the body language of the SJ who eventually signals TD, first of all he does not communicate with the BJ, in fact he doesn’t even look at him which is as mechanically incorrect as you can be in this situation. Now the body language of the SJ has an atomic glow of uncertainty. he doesn’t know what to call, nor does he want to make a call, he then sees Jennings/Tate with control on the ground and gives a very little convincing TD signal.
    As for your comments on the analysts from ESPN… Do you know that one of the guys commenting in that situation was Gerry Austin, a former NFL Ref with 25 yrs of experience??
    That is 25 more years than any of these high-school officials who did not have a full understanding of NFL rules, and are not used to that type of pressure, they crumbled and made the wrong call.

    G blue… did you read the Approved Ruling? or are you incapable of reading your self?

    September 28, 2012 at 10:44 am

    • The problem is your opinion is flawed right from the get go due to your comment about how “two hands trumps one hand”. There is nowhere in the rules that specifies that if both players grab the ball at the same time the one with “more” of the ball gets credit for possession. Also your comments on the other referee are pretty inaccurate and not very objective. Unconvincing TD signal? Pure subjective statements as if you could read his mind. You don’t seem to be very willing to explore this because your mind was clearly made up before you arrived. Thanks for the comment anyways!

      September 28, 2012 at 10:57 am

      • someone who's read the whole rule book

        :-) Yes, my interpretation of SJ’s body language is subjective, but I do have experience judging that, I’ve officiated football for 11 yrs now, I study games for 15+ hrs every week, I also supervise other officials, reading body language is a big part of that. A good official has clear and confident signals. This SJ did not have confindence in his call, he’s also not mechanically sound, in that type of situation it is absoloutly 100% neccessary to have a conference with your fellow official (in this case BJ)

        Your problem is what I first stated, you are WAY to technical on the excact words of the rule, you seem to have no clue about officiating philosophies.
        The other problem is not that you can’t read the rule, but you clearly can’t interprete it correctly.
        That is why all football rule books also have a case book with different scenarioes and how they should be interpreted correctly.

        September 28, 2012 at 11:28 am

      • I demonstrated that Tate has a left hand on the ball from start to end, that the left hand actually has a firm grip on the ball to the point that Jennings can’t even rip it away with all his strength, and that Tate fulfilled the requirements of a catch perfectly while Jennings hadn’t. It’s a touchdown. The case book about one player gaining control first dowsn’t apply here, as Tate has it the whole time. Re-read my post and be sure to watch the videos.

        September 28, 2012 at 11:37 am

      • someone who's read the whole rule book

        I’ve read your post quite a few times, and even after further review, I confrim my first statement, you are to technical.
        First of all you do not see a clear view of Tates left hand, you see his forearm, but not the hand, there is certainly no evidence of a firm grip by Tates left hand at the point where you clearly see Jennigs with two hands on the ball.
        The “two hands trumhps one” is not in the text of the rule, that is correct, but it’s an applied philosohpie.
        Yes the approved ruling does apply, that is the whole idea behind them.
        Also go back and listen to Gerry Austins comments, he says INT.
        I don’t know why you’re trying to justify you original post, other than maybe because you obviously put some time into it.
        I see no reason why you’re trying to defend a bad call by replacement officials, other than you being either a Seahawks fan or an extreme Packer hater. In these 3 first weeks of 2012 there have been more bad/controversial calls than in 3-4 normal seasons, and then we haven’t even started talking about crews who’ve made terrible administrational errors like giveing teams 4 time-outs in a half or marching of 11 yds for a def. holding (which is a 5 yd penalty) Fact is these replacements are way out of their league in the NFL, they are bad for football and a hazard to player safety. There’s a very obvious reason the CBA for the regular officials got done so fast after this game, even though the official statement says otherwise, everybody in the NFL front office know the crew blew this call.
        Another indication of that (yes, purely subjective) is that none of the Packers players who ripped these officials got fined. In other games, fines have been issued “as usual”.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm

      • What some analyst says does not interest me if he’s making that statement off of bad info. Check out the updated post with a link at the end to the new ESPN article defending the call. He does an even better job than I of demonstrating and also using past plays to show how it was correct.

        And once again, control can be shared. 2 hands over 1 does not mean the 2 hands have 100% control and the 1 has 0%. That is illogical and incorrect.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:13 pm

  176. Douches

    Bottom Line: SEAHAWKS WIN. Argue all you want, won’t change anything, both teams still have to win more to make the playoffs. Not sure why ire is directed at the Seahawks, its not their fault, they’re trying to win, so are the Packers. This arguement is useless.

    September 28, 2012 at 11:14 am

  177. DOCDK

    What blows me away is the fact that people are now looking at other aspects of the play…ie, the pushing off. If you want to go that far, let’s look at all the blown calls that kept GBs touchdown drive alive that should have been snuffed by the defense three times. Not to mention all the holding and chokings the GB offensive line did in the second half that weren’t called, yet the Seahawk offensive linemen brushes the neck of their pass rusher and it was holding. Get over it GB you lost!

    September 28, 2012 at 11:15 am

    • The ESPN article I linked to in the updated part of the blog at the end is perfect for this. For people upset about the PI non-call especially.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:39 am

    • someone who's read the whole rule book

      agree with that, the other aspects of the play are irrelevant to this discussion. However it would have been nice if the OPI had been called on this. PI a calls are very rare on hail-mary plays, officiating philosophie is that you normaly need “murder&mayhem” to call PIs on hail-marys, however in this play it is such an obvious push where Tate creats such an obiouse advantage and space for him self to compet e for the ball that this would have been a good place to call it.
      As for your comments on “all” the holding&choking by GB offensive linemen…. you’re probably not a Packer fan, yes there probably was, but there was just as much by Seattles offensive line. Still, there is a lot that fans see as holding that “technically” is holding, that never will or should be called, as it has no real effect on the play. Try to look at the feet of the blocker vs the feet of the defender, if blocker has good posision there should be no flag. There are nobody wathcing neither in the stadiums or on tv who want to watch the R annoucne penatlies all thay long.
      The major problem with these replacements have been inconsitency, especially holdings and PI calls, what’s been called or not has been like a Vegas craps-table.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:42 am

      • Totally agree on most of this. And I’m not going to harp on non-holds or the other calls any more, I just wanted to cover the last play and how I felt it was called fairly.

        September 28, 2012 at 11:48 am

  178. g blue

    lmao “someone who’s” is talking about how he never learned to spell and the price of turnips in Wisconsin and sinarioos and cheerios and lmao and how he’s subjective and how he was an umpire vampire for twenty years and how he got hit in the head “to” much.

    “you are WAY to technical on the excact words of the rule, you seem to have no clue about officiating philosophies.”

    Says it all.

    Life in Rewind crushes everything you tried to say in a diplomatic fashion… again lmao. I guess some people are nicer than others.

    Someone who’s? You are wrong, totally wrong in every way. Just apologize for being an ignoramus and for wasting our time. Oh, sure, you won’t do that.. you’ll come back with how we actually read the rules and understand them, the price of the cheese in your head, and blah blah blah. I’d try to change the subject too, you tutu wearing fool.

    September 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    • someone who's read the whole rule book

      :-) yeah, I clearly see my typing/spelling errors, no problem admitting to that.
      The thing I’m trying to get you guys to see with the “to technical” statement is that just reading the rule is not the same as understanding it or interpreting it correctly. There is a reason why there are approved rulings, it is clearify how a rule shall be interpreted so that you have consistancy in officiating.

      Btw, thank you for your very diplomatic reply ;-) you have so many sophisticated, adult ways of expressing your self, it clearly proves your superior knowledge. ;)

      September 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm

      • -'57TR-

        Nice try, although likely to be ineffective, sounds like you have experience with pre-schoolers?

        September 29, 2012 at 2:28 am

    • Except for the fact that there was holding and that offensive pass interference was blatant, which means whether it was technically a catch or not, the packers should of won on one of the two blatant penalties, a
      lthough I know this article isn’t about the penalties.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:45 pm

      • Did you have a problem with the bad calls that the Packers got in favor of them, or just the ones that went against them?

        September 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

  179. I hate both teams

    Bollocks and poppycock. Tate got nothing. This was 100% pure bullsnake. There was nothing close to simultaneous possession. By that logic DBs or WRs that got picked should simply grab the ball out of the hands of whomever has it on every play and let the refs sort it out. And there is ZERO chance that drooling tard of a ref that signaled the TD saw, processed, and concluded a TD from a bunch of still pics that really show nothing. For a split second Tate may have tongued Jennings ear hole too, its not a Seattle TD. Jennings had it first, and last, what Tate did in the mean time other than show the ref or back judge sole possession of the ball with both feet down and inbounds doesnt matter. He touched it, he caressed it, he never caught it or had possession. If that was the case there would be 25 more INTs each week because DBs get that much ball on a pass play a few times a game. No simultaneous anything, but they get more of the ball than Tate and many times end up with the ball at the whistle. Bogus win for Seattle and most of the world is not going to buy anything else. Is what it is, bad call, bad win, even Tate knows it.

    September 28, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    • Mature and convincing comment indeed. Except for all the parts where you assert incorrect info that was refuted clearly in the article. Might help to re-read, and make sure to watch the videos. Cheers!

      September 28, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    • -'57TR-

      RE: I hate both teams –
      “…..DBs or WRs that got picked should simply grab the ball out of the hands of whomever has it on every play…..” ?!?!?
      Are you seriously unaware that it’s perfectly legit. to grab a ball away from another player any time you can, and that this is attempted on virtually every play from Pee-wee on up? You may never see it flat stolen right out of someone’s hands in the NFL-although it HAS happened-but we’ve all seen hundreds of fumbles caused by simply ripping the ball out of someone’s grasp.
      No offense, but are you new to American football?

      September 29, 2012 at 1:50 am

      • -'57TR-

        btw-Was going to say: DBs & CBs try to be the “pickers,” but do not “get picked,” but decided to say so would be too picky.
        [Sorry, that’s the funniest I’m capable of @2am…..up since 5am yesterday-I’ll try harder next time.]
        So, are we done flogging this horse, is it finally dead?!?

        September 29, 2012 at 2:12 am

      • -'57TR-

        So, are we done flogging this horse yet, is it finally dead?!?

        -’57TR- permalink
        Technically, the QB’s are the only ones “being picked” off-the WR, TE or sometimes RB if involved may or may not be at fault in any given interception, but is not actually “being picked” off. You probably know all that already & just misspoke, but now at least you know at least some1–if not some1s–actually read your post. Cheers.

        September 29, 2012 at 2:25 am

  180. cheyne hannegan

    So, I guess being yanked to the ground by a bigger player who’s arm is trapped by your possession isnt a football move whatsoever which would have thus given jennings possession before his feet even hit the ground. If the old refs hadnt came back the lions could’ve turned things around and just lobbed the ball into the endzone letting megatron wrestle smaller db’s with his feet on the ground holding them in the air undertaker style. Its all good if he has one hand on the ball right? With rules and stipulations its very questionable but any actual fan has to feel for jennings. With Jennings at a questionable 6 ft 187 and Golden tate standing 510 202 its no wonder jennings had to wrestle around with him and another seahawks defender after possessing the ball in the air. This column blows and all the angles are skewed for the pictures. You must be a seahawks fan. Its nice being handed a win at the end of a game after completely blowing one against the cardinals. No dignity even during interviews. Not to mention the fact that the league benefits from a Seattle resurgence much more than a team intrenched in history in one of the smallest markets for a team in the US. Who benefits more from the call then a team whos year may be “this year” in one of typically the weakest divisions and the league making a bogus call forcing the officials and everyone to be even more invested orrrr the packers who have many superbowl wins a built in audience and still a chance to win their division because theyre that good. God forbid seattle loses another sports team, then they’d be left with the shitty mariners and the sounders.

    September 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    • Is this “argument” even worthy of reply? I’m thinking no. Thanks for reading.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      • --> '57TR

        Tell him(?) to locate the comma & apostrophe keys & check back after he learns how to spell entrenched.
        As for GB being a “small market” team, of the 32 NFL teams, Seattle ranked in the bottom half at 17th in total home attendance in 2011, while Green Bay was WELL AHEAD at 11th: http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2011/sort/allTotal
        Just another lame, unsubstantiated theory–well actually just flat wrong.

        September 30, 2012 at 11:01 pm

  181. In that animated image, you can see that it deflects or touches Tates hand then Jennings took full possession of the ball bringing it to his chest. Having a better position on the ball is possession of the ball and eventually his feet did land. The rule is if it is simultaneous than offensive players has possession, unless the defensive player maintains possession through out the catch. Having possession is not touching the ball, yes he grabbed onto it, but that doesn’t mean partial possession, when the other player has full possession.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    • jd

      I don’t see any deflection off Tate’s left hand in the animated image; it stays in contact throughout. Initial contact is made by Tate’s left hand and Jennings’ right hand (hence a simultaneous catch). If Tate’s left hand wasn’t there, the ball would have gotten much closer to or hit Jennings’ chest.

      “The rule is if it is simultaneous than offensive players has possession, unless the defensive player maintains possession through out the catch.”

      Nah, if that was the rule then simultaneous catches would go to the defensive player.

      Instead, if both players maintain control (not possession, that is the wrong word to use) then the offensive player gets credited with the catch.

      “Having possession is not touching the ball, yes he grabbed onto it, but that doesn’t mean partial possession, when the other player has full possession.”

      Possession is the final result, so it is the wrong word to use. Possession does not occur until after the ball is controlled long enough for the player’s feet to touch down in bounds. Control and possession are used interchangeably in regular catches, but in simultaneous catches the distinction becomes important.

      The real keyword is control, and it is a judgement call that is usually proven by the receiver when the appearance of control lasts through a step in-bounds with each foot. That proof becomes much less distinct in a simultaneous catch, because the control is never exactly 50%/50%.

      The rule could just as easily say something like “Simultaneous catches are awarded to the player who appears to have a greater degree of control over the ball.”

      But it doesn’t. It awards simultaneous catches to the offensive player. As long as Tate had some reasonable amount of control (judgement call), then it goes to him.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm

      • You absolutely nailed it, JD.

        If people hate the rule, so be it, the NFL can look at changing it. I personally believe the rule is fine, how often does this happen, for starters, and does the offensive player really deserve no credit for having some control of the ball just because the defender seems to have “most” of it? That’s such a subjective call and I don’t think that would improve the situation at all. There will never be true 50/50 control. If the defender doesn’t want it to be a catch, they need to knock it away, clearly maintain control first, or have sole possession of it.

        September 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    • “Having a better position on the ball is possession of the ball”

      Not really, Travis. We’ve been going over this repeatedly with those that argue for an INT, because their arguments typically rely on some version of “Jennings has more of the ball and better position, therefore he gets awarded possession”. Having “more” control over the ball is not required for an offensive player to be a part of a simultaneous catch. I covered this a lot in the article.

      My example was if this was flyers up, Jennings would get the ball because the players are considered to have equal right to it. In the NFL, the offensive player has the right to it in the event of simultaneous shared control.

      We also covered how the ball is not actually in Jennings’ chest, it’s on Tate’s hand and arm. Take a look at the reverse view video and picture for clear evidence.

      Lastly, “bringing the ball into the chest” is not required for the catch, players just typically do that because it secures the ball in the most efficient way. Jennings’ having the ball “closer” to his chest does not mean it’s his ball over Tate.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

  182. It doesn’t matter whether it gets called a lot or not, regardless it still could have been called and should have been called because it would be considering cheating to get away with that. Also if you look at the film in the offensive line one of the Seahawk’s players blocked in the back, which means there were two missed calls in that play. You cannot assume whether or not regular referees would have made the same call or not because they might have called it an interception, or called at least one of the two potential penalties. I understand that you are just trying to get the point across that the referees would possibly have made the same call, irregardless Green Bay got screwed.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    • I am doubting your ability to be objective here, honestly. You picked the play apart and managed to find a block in the back by Seattle, but no mention of roughing the passer on Matthews, or defensive PI on the other Packers who clobber Martin way before the pass gets there? Any of these penalties could have been called, but the fact is they weren’t about to extend or end the game on a penalty with all the scruteny they were under. And if regular refs had called this play, I highly doubt there would have been nearly the controversy. (It would have also helped if the announcers had retained any integrity, and said even a word along the lines of “it was hard to tell live, so we can’t blame the officials too much, but we believe the replays show an interception”.) The announcers, ESPN, and the fact that it was replacement refs is why everyone was convinced so easily.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      • I am being objective, that would definitely not be a roughing the passer he hit him within two seconds of passing the ball, also the pass interference by Sam shields was clearly Tates pass interference, and the roughing the passer call on Erik Walden was clearly not roughing the passer. Pass interference? They were all going for the ball and the collided while trying to get it, while Tate clearly pushed off.

        September 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm

  183. Whether or not it was the wrong wording, it touched Tates hand, but the defensive player had control first and taking his hand off the ball to readjust is losing control. At the end of the play he hand a better position on it and more control.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    • jd

      “Whether or not it was the wrong wording, it touched Tates hand, but the defensive player had control first and taking his hand off the ball to readjust is losing control.”

      Tate took his right hand off, but not his left. One hand is sufficient for control.

      “At the end of the play he hand a better position on it and more control.”

      “Better” and “more” are irrelevant. Any substantial control is sufficient for the offensive player to get the call if he maintained substantial control throughout. At the end of the play Tate still had enough control with his left hand that Jennings was never able to wrestle the ball away.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      • So your saying touching the ball is control?

        September 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    • jd

      heh, not by itself, the player also has to substantially affect the ball throughout the catch. In this instance Tate touches the ball at the same time as Jennings, Tate (not Jennings) stops the downward movement of the ball, Tate keeps his left hand on the ball throughout the entire catch, and Jennings is never able to wrestle the ball away from Tate. He tries pretty hard too.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm

  184. at the end of the play the ball should have tucked under Tates arm if he would have had any possession, but he didn’t. Jennings arms were tucked under the balled and in reality Tate had Jennings arm tucked, not the ball.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    • Being tucked under an arm has nothing to do with possession. You keep arguing that because you think Jennings had better position, he should be awarded the ball. This is not the rule.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm

  185. When he touched the ball first one of his hands is on the ball and before readjusting he had his other hand on Jennings arm, you need clear evidence that he had control of it and not just touching the ball.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    • jd

      The clear evidence of control is the fact that Tate, not Jennings, stops the initial downward movement of the ball.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm

      • Exactly, it’s not like the ball bounces off his hand, or even starts to change direction. Tate completely stops the ball, allowing Jennings to grab it as well.

        September 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm

  186. He isn’t controlling it if the ball is rolling of his finger tips slightly for a brief moment, therefore you could say Jennings had control of it, and while they were going down and neither of the players feet were down, Tate could have had his left hand on Jennings arm while readjusting, therefore not having control all the way through.

    September 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm

  187. He had his hand on it but, Jennings had it tucked into his chest with his forearm with his hand partially on it, and the other hand was on Tates arm, but partially on the ball as well and Tate had his arm tucked in not the ball.

    September 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    • Really? It’s in Jennings’ chest?

      September 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm

      • Either way if its rolling off his finger tips, even for a brief moment, which isn’t control and Jennings gets control first its Jennings ball.

        September 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm

      • I’m waiting for you to prove that Golden Tate lost complete control of the ball at any point. I’ll keep waiting forever, though.

        September 28, 2012 at 3:13 pm

      • If you look at it closely you really can’t tell if it is as well.

        September 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    • cop

      This is simply not what the video evidence shows, and this point has been rehashed ad nauseum on this blog. TATE stopped the ball and established control. TATE maintained control throughout the process until he had 2 feet down (actually all the way until the play ended and both players were down). TATE was the offensive player which means this was a touchdown.

      Also see:

      http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

      And:

      http://fullimpactfootball.com/2012/09/27/are-you-sure-it-wasnt-a-td/

      And:

      http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/76194/thoughts-as-nfl-announces-officials-return-2

      September 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm

      • Thanks for the comment, excellent work.

        September 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      • cop

        Oh, and this:

        http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/9/25/3410146/golden-tates-golden-catch

        September 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm

      • cop

        Thanks LIR…I have to say that I can’t believe how easily the wrong narrative has become the truth for so many people. Then folks assume that since so many people agree with them, then that must be correct. I think that it is only the people seeking out the facts are discovering how close this call really was (but the more I look at it the clearer it seems to be a TD as Tate seems to get contact first as the ball slips through Jenning’s fingers). I could be wrong about that, but there isn’t really any doubt this was a bang bang play = simultaneous catch = touchdown offense.

        September 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm

  188. I don’t see in the rule book where it states that joint possession means partial possession, it doesn’t specify how much is needed, Whether its 50+% or 10% it doesn’t specify. So wouldn’t that mean you can’t assume that he only needs control or possession partially.

    September 28, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    • There needs to be clear control not partial control and that slight rolling off the fingers means he had no control in the first place, it is considered a deflection.

      September 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm

  189. Josue

    If you look at the gif Tate actually adjusts both hands obviously trying to get a better grip. This does seem to happen they touch the ground. It just looks like Jennings catches it and Tate grabs on to part of the ball and Jennings arms to try and pull the ball free. Jennings cathces the ball at its highest point and maintains control of the football throughout the process of the catch. Interception.

    September 28, 2012 at 7:17 pm

  190. Shit

    You want to know what I think? Its week 4 and the old refs are back. It’s in the past and will go down as one of the worst calls in NFL history, however, it is history. I don’t think my team is making the playoffs but, GO STEELERS!!!!!

    P.S. They all beasts.

    September 28, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    • Howard

      It should actually go down as one of the most amazing touchdown receptions in NFL history. One-handed, maintaining control of the ball throughout the play while fighting for the ball with a defender who also has control. Wow!

      September 28, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      • Shit

        As much as you would like that to happen, it’s going down as the worst call weather or not its a touchdown or an interception. The fact that in the end, no one has control of the entire game and that its a massive fiasco speaks for itself. But hey, what a thursday night game. Hope Sunday is just as good.

        September 29, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      • --> '57TR

        …..weather or not…… now THAT’s funny ! }:-D)

        September 30, 2012 at 11:16 pm

  191. No, you guys obviously don’t see that it rolled of his fingers briefly which means no control and control belonged to Jennings which means it was Jennings ball, how many times do I have to say this.

    September 28, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    • pillowpants

      even after someone who is obviously somewhat educated sits down and takes the time to explain evidence backed up by actual facts barney style so even an inbred hillbilly could understand people still deny blatant truth. pretty sure these same idiots couldn’t get passed the first paragraph. are people really that ignorant? stop making excuses. get the fuck over it and grow the fuck up.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:15 pm

  192. Pingback: Statute of Limitations on a Seahawk Victory | Male Pattern Madness

  193. -'57TR-

    RE: I hate both teams –
    “…..DBs or WRs that got picked should simply grab the ball out of the hands of whomever has it on every play…..” ?!?!?
    Are you seriously unaware that it’s perfectly legit. to grab a ball away from another player any time you can, and that this is attempted on virtually every play from Pee-wee on up? You may never see it flat stolen right out of someone’s hands in the NFL-although it HAS happened-but we’ve all seen hundreds of fumbles caused by simply ripping the ball out of someone’s grasp.
    No offense, but are you new to American football?

    September 29, 2012 at 2:01 am

    • -'57TR-

      btw-Was going to say: DBs & CBs try to be the “pickers,” but do not “get picked,” but decided to say so would be too picky.
      [Sorry, that’s the funniest I’m capable of @2am…..up since 5am yesterday-I’ll try harder next time.]

      September 29, 2012 at 2:10 am

      • -'57TR-

        So, are we done flogging this horse yet, is it finally dead?!?

        September 29, 2012 at 2:14 am

      • -'57TR-

        Technically, the QB’s are the only ones “being picked” off-the WR, TE or sometimes RB if involved may or may not be at fault in any given interception, but is not actually “being picked” off. You probably know all that already & just misspoke, but now at least you know at least some1–if not some1s–actually read your post. Cheers.

        September 29, 2012 at 2:23 am

  194. hendeeze

    stop trying to justify this shit. Golden Taint cheated then lied about it to the national audience. You can tell yourselves a million times what you want to hear, but the seahawks were gifted a win they did not remotely deserve. Not only was the whole drive an absolute clusterfuck of a officiating job, but even on the final play there is 2 blatent offense PI’s that should have negated the play before it started.

    September 29, 2012 at 5:18 am

  195. sfb

    Next week’s column: The Moon Landing Was Faked – I Show You How It Was Done!

    September 29, 2012 at 6:01 am

    • --> '57TR

      Sadly, pple. do believe that – despite the fact that numerous major nations on earth were well able to track our entire trips start to finish at the time, not to mention you can see the tracks and the stuff we left up there from any major observatory in the world even today.
      But I love the comparison. Cheers.

      September 30, 2012 at 11:24 pm

  196. Kevin Seifert over at ESPN just disproved your entire argument with an excerpt from the official NFL rulebook:

    “Throughout the NFL rule book are examples that help flesh out the real-life implications of obtuse rules. One in particular appeared in the 2011 rule book, and has since moved to the 2012 casebook of supplemental explanations, and seems applicable in this case. Here is how A.R. 8.29, which is entitled “NOT A SIMULTANEOUS CATCH,” reads:

    First-and-10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then also 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.

    In this example, Jennings is “B3″ and Tate is “A2.” If you watch the replay, or view the photograph in this post, you see that Jennings was the first to get his hands on the ball. After that point, Tate secures his left hand on the ball as well and touches both feet on the ground before Jennings gets either foot down. He then wraps his right arm into the mix as well.

    The argument for Tate having simultaneous possession rests in part on the fact that Jennings couldn’t have achieved legal possession until both of his feet hit the ground. By that time, Tate had at least his left hand firmly on the ball.

    We all associate possession with having two feet on the ground. But A.R. 8.29 seems to indicate that Jennings’ ability to control the ball first, even if he was in the air, takes precedence. Eventually Tate lays claim as well, but as NFL rules state: “It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

    Game, set, match. There can be no remote question that Jennings gained control of the ball first – not contact, not “a piece of it”, but CONTROL of the ball, as in a firm possession. Tate can stick his hands in afterwards even if Jennings hadn’t touched the ground yet, but so long as the initial player to gain control never loses it, it’s his catch.

    September 29, 2012 at 8:29 am

    • cop

      Did you not read all the conversations above? I encourage you to, because this very point has been discussed several times. As has been explained here (and elsewhere) this argument and case study is not applicable to this case because TATE made contact and established control at the same time as Jennings (in fact, in the frame-by-frame analysis done at several of the links I posted above it appears that TATE gets control just before Jennings).

      ESPN has NOT been objective in their “analysis” of this play ever since the post-came conversations. Go to the other sources posted above and then come back and tell me this wasn’t a simultaneous catch (or at the very least too close to call).

      September 29, 2012 at 11:13 am

      • Exactly. If you start with a faulty premise you’re almost always going to come to a faulty conclusion.

        “Disproving” my argument relies on the contetion that Jennings gains control first. Obviously I disagree and I feel I’ve done more than enough to show that this is very debatable if not flat out wrong. It is indisputable that Tate gets his hand on the ball first, so it comes down to either you think Tate has some control of the ball from then on or you think he has zero control over it.

        I find it hard to look at the evidence and conclude that Tate has no control over it. You can see that not only does he stop the flight of the ball with his left hand, but the hand never moves or loses the ball (that we can see) and still has a firm hand and forearm grip on it to complete the play.

        To completely ignore this evidence and continue with the story of “Jennings looks like he has more of the ball at the beginning, therefore he has full control and Tate has none” is pretty ignorant at this point due to the evidence presented.

        September 29, 2012 at 11:28 am

    • --> '57TR

      That’s a completely meaningless example anyway, bcz. in the ex. they award the offensive player the ball, which is the same result as if it was ruled a simultaneous catch anyway. So no one would care if it was or not. So if it really is in the rule book any decent technical writer would have edited it out.
      Aside from that, has anyone noticed that no official close to the play could have been in front of the players, regular officials or not? So none of the camera angles we see now were available to eyeballs at full speed, and the replay officials decided at the time that the catch was simultaneous in their professional opinion. Reports are that there was a 20+ year regular official overseeing the temporary official in the replay booth and he decided it was simultaneous.
      Did anyone notice the rule for a catch say hands or arms, not hand(s) or arm(s)? According to the exact wording of the rule then, you couldn’t even allow a one-handed catch, yet it happens all the time & is clearly allowed. So obviously the officials have latitude in their judgment. Even if that examples supposedly from the rulebook applies, the whole argument is about whether Jennings had control first, and the example leaves that up to the officials to decide. Which they did. Confirmed by all the best multi-million dollar digital video equipment the NFL possesses.
      For anyone with a modicum of objectivity, I.E. those that think the management of the league that wrote the rulebook know more than they do, if you haven’t read the official statement, nfl.com says in part: “…..The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
      Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.
      The result of the game is final…..”
      I know, cynics think that’s all political. I think they know more than the commentators who it could be argued, have just as great an incentive to fuel controversy, as THE NFL has to try & quell it, but I guess 3 1/2 year of Obama’s underhanded off-the-book tactics has made cynics of us all.

      October 1, 2012 at 12:41 am

      • …you were doing so well until you felt the need to being actual political crap into it.

        October 1, 2012 at 7:17 am

      • -> '57TR

        Sorry, just did that to win a bet–a friend said that if I made fun of Pres.BHO I’d elicit more cussing from Packers’ fans. I said not, but mostly bcz. they quit listening to us.

        October 5, 2012 at 12:57 am

  197. Additionally, here’s my entire blog-post on why your article is incorrect:

    http://the-thought-that-counts.blogspot.com/2012/09/response-to-claim-that-final-play-of.html?showComment=1348932218582#c2627823477169147105

    September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am

    • cop

      Just read your blog…my thoughts:

      “The author confuses “contact with the ball” as “control of the ball”. Tate never had anything to release with his left hand, because his left hand was merely resting underneath the ball wedged between Jennings’ forearm and torso. That is not control, and it is not possession. Tate’s hand (but not arm) got stuck in between the ball and Jennings’ chest, and he was able to use that leverage to pull Jennings towards his torso.”

      If Tate’s hand was “merely resting underneath the ball” as you claim, then why was Jennings not able to simply seize total control from the instant he made contact? He couldn’t, because Tate shared control as he has a firm grip on the ball with one hand. That my friend is the very definition of shared control.

      “It’s almost impossible for someone to have control of the ball with one hand on a reception. It’s very difficult for most people to palm a football even when they’re just picking it up off the ground; how much more difficult is it to palm the ball with one hand after a contested reception when it’s wedged against an opposing players chest?”

      One handed catches are made in Football ALL THE TIME. In fact, this past weekend I saw a Viking make a great 1 handed catch in the endzone for a TD. And these aren’t “most people,” these are NFL players, large strong men with large hands and skills for these very plays. Was it a difficult play? Certainly! But in no way shape or form does it make it “almost impossible.”.

      “Once both butts are on the ground, Jennings wrestles his torso and takes the entire ball with him, exposing who clearly has control of the ball itself.”

      EVERYTHING that happens after both players butts hits the ground is moot because the play is over at that point…period.

      One thing I would agree with you on is how unbelievably close this play was…which just so happens to be the very point made in this post. The Packers simply did not get hosed on a blatantly bad call by scab refs as is the popular narrative being spoon fed to everyone. It was a close play. Tie goes to the offense. If it was more clear Jennings had complete (and not shared) control first, this call would have been overturned at instant replay.

      September 29, 2012 at 11:37 am