NFL 2012 Season Week 3 Picks

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/20/2012 @ 12:41:53 PM
Don't forget to make your Thursday picks people!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2012 @ 10:05:58 AM
For what it's worth, I'm not sure I trust any assessment coming from Skip Bayless, particular when it comes to what it takes to be a good leader, and who is or isn't a good leader. I also don't see any sort of turmoil coming out of the Packers locker room, as Skip forecasts will happen. Everyone that covers the Packers talk about how tight their locker room is. It doesn't seem to be in Rodgers' character to make a big stink out of this, and the locker room itself seems too close-knit to have this be an issue. Although, I'm not sure why I'm even justifying this with a comment. I'd guess that Bayless has never set foot in the Packers locker room at any time. And this isn't New York. Green Bay just doesn't have the same media scrutiny that the Jets or Giants or Patriots or Philly or Chicago would have, for the simple reason that the local media doesn't care and the National Media doesn't spend a whole lot of time in Nowheresville, Wisconsin. That being said, I don't think ulimately I care one way or another if Rodgers is a good leader. If he wins games and wins Super Bowl(s), that's all I ultimately care about. That is all.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/21/2012 10:12:04 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/24/2012 @ 10:51:27 PM
Roger Goodell is disgracing the game of football if this is what he thinks is a good product. Even when these refs review plays that can't get calls right.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/24/2012 10:52:04 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/24/2012 @ 11:11:10 PM
To be fair they can't review it. Or at least not the part that matters.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/24/2012 @ 11:23:16 PM
That's probably true. This is just exhausting. The reffing was pathetic for both teams all night, no doubt. I'm not saying it was biased. But the seattle receiver never ever ever ever had possession of the ball and the Packers defender had possession the entire time. One ref saw that correctly, the other guy apparently saw the seattle receiver holding the ball in the back of the endzone with no one around him for an undisputed touchdown, a call that literally decided the game. Oh, and not to mention, Tate shoved Sam Shields to the ground before the pile developed and before the non touchdown. [Click to Enlarge]		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/24/2012 11:24:08 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/24/2012 @ 11:30:40 PM
Apparently, Rodgers complained that they put in the Kicking ball for the 2 point conversion as well. joke upon joke upon joke. And not the funny ha ha kind.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/24/2012 11:35:13 pm

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/24/2012 @ 11:55:00 PM
I don't know if never ever ever is entirely accurate, he had an arm in there and the two guys fell chest to chest so it was as close to Tate as the db, and if that's the call than the play is over at that point. The roll away with more ball is somewhat irrelevant, and it's not entirely clear if the dual possession rules have any kind of "more ball" clause. The Packers got screwed, but I don't think it's quite as egregious as the funeral that busted out in the booth warranted. They got one split second shot at the call, and it was a tough one. It just never should have come to that. You would think theyd get better, but theyre getting worse at what they call, what they miss and the time wasted. This is exactly why they want the defense to not try for the pick.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 09/24/2012 11:56:13 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:04:59 AM
Well, Tate's left arm was pinned to the ground when they fell. He never had the ability to have more than one arm free to attempt to gain control of the ball. So there was no "dual possession". Tate could not have had control of the ball. The call on the field shouldn't have been close. All you have to see is a receiver with only 1 arm and a defender with both arms around the ball. I really do think the "funeral in the booth" is somewhat appropriate. This isn't just a bad call. It is an incompetent call that actually decided the game. I'm not sure if the NFL has had a play like this in a long long time. Poor officiating has now directly changed the outcome of a game (the only one that comes to mind is the Vikings-Cardinals game circa 2003, but that was a rule that was subsequently changed). And almost no one is talking about how Tate shoved Sam Shields. That last play was a tragedy of errors (in the playwright sense, not "dog hit by car" type of tragic) that decided the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:08:30 AM
Put it this way, if the call goes the Packers way, then the Seahawks would probably have a pretty good case that they got screwed on the call. Simultaneous possession goes to the wide receiver, and the packer never actually took the ball away. It was probably the wrong call, if not by rule then by spirit, but sometimes if you put yourself in position to lose on a coin flip, you lose on a coin flip. You don't need two arms to control a ball.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/25/2012 @ 12:10:47 AM
But it wasn't simultaneous possession. They read the rule several times on ESPN. This was not simultaneous possession. The Packers player had the ball first.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:11:38 AM
You don't need two arms, but my two arms and my chest trump your one arm.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:35:01 AM
Do they? Not to mention it was just as against Tates chest the split second it mattered as it ever was against Jennings http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1427793/replay.gif I would be mad too, but I don't think anyone can seriously look at that mess of arms and declare they know the nano second it went from falling and into one persons control. Knock it down like you're supposed to and no one is taking about it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/25/2012 12:35:46 am

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/25/2012 @ 12:39:18 AM
Well, one of the refs did come to the correct decision.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:41:47 AM
Or he guessed tails.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:56:56 AM
I posted this on twitter to scott, but I'm honestly wondering when control is determined. Does it matter that by the time Jennings had even one foot on the ground, Tate had both his hands around the ball as much as Jennings did? Also, Tate did have his arm inbetween Jennings' arms when the ball arrived to both of them, so it's not quite the johnny-come-lately effort people seem to be making it out to be. And thirdly, how strange is it that at this crucial time, Mike Pereira is in the Sierras with no signal available to tweet his thoughts?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this at 09/25/2012 8:27:41 pm

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/25/2012 @ 12:57:01 AM
I can see we'll be beating this horse for a while, but just to add another little note: it stands to reason that rules such as this are in place exactly for these types of plays. Obviously slow enough replays will always prove one way or another who was first in all these "tie goes to the runner" type rules. Almost by necessity they're "if the naked eye can't tell, give it to the offense" rules put in place exactly for total clusterfucks of bodies and limbs like this. Someone is always, in reality, first. There would be no need for the rule if they didn't intend on split-second tolerances. So, in that sense, it's unfortunate that they turned out to be wrong, if indeed they did, but it's still not all that clear they were wrong to apply it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/25/2012 12:59:18 am

	Jon - 3443 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 01:10:15 AM
Also, in a joking, but also truthful comment, I'm a little disappointed that this is now overshadowing the awesome Vikings win.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 01:15:55 AM
That said, just in case it hasn't been clear, I'm mearly arguing that a) I don't think it's quite the "there was no Seahawks within 18 yards until the Packer was running to the sidelines with their trophy, before Tate ran over and put a finger on the ball and confused the refs" that the internet explosion seems to be making of it. b) I think you can make a letter of the law case that the call was acceptable, or at the very least, that it isn't impossible to see how they arrived there. When the players landed, which is all that matters in an endzone call where the ball never comes out, it was Jennings' chest, Tate's arm, ball, Jenning's arm(s), Tate's chest and Tate had his other arm involved. All the pictures such as the one above are after the point that matters. The ref isn't ruling "what I'm looking at right this second is a td", he's saying "what I saw was a td". I do think in the spirit of the game that was an interception.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/25/2012 1:45:58 am

	Jon - 3443 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 01:29:05 AM
http://live.advancednflstats.com/weekly.php?gameid2=55551&week=3		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 09/25/2012 @ 11:09:31 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 01:29:05 AM http://live.advancednflstats.com/weekly.php?gameid2=55551&week=3 I'm assuming the line went to the top either when Tate pushed off or the end line official signaled game over, then drops to the bottom when the ref who was handing the game to the Seahawks came in and signaled TD.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 11:45:37 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/46855/full-nfl-statement-on-packers-seahawks The entirety of the play was indeed reviewable, according to the NFL's official statement. And even the "real" official that reviewed the play hosed it up. So to some extent the blame is off the replacement officials. 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. The play also brings in the "in the act of going to the ground" rule, which also should have favored Jennings, since it's obvious that at some point Tate lost control (assuming he ever actually had control, which he didn't) while being pinned to the ground by the guy who actually had control. So even with the benefit of replay they failed to reverse something that is so insanely obvious. The league is completely messed up right now. Goodell, the owners, and the refs have completely lost control; and clearly they are in damage control. With this statement, the NFL clearly has no interest in calling out a decision that was clearly wrong. You can't change the outcome of the game, necessarily, but with the NFL officially saying "the call on the field was correct and the review was correct", they are telling the fans, players, and coaches "we don't care".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 09/25/2012 11:53:28 am

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/25/2012 @ 12:06:39 PM
more on the "player going to the ground" aspect. Since both players were going to the ground during the process of making the catch, control has to be established once on the ground. So in that sense it doesn't matter at all what happened while they were falling, because once they hit the ground, Tate's left arm was pinned to the ground and Jenning had both arms around the ball pinned to his chest. All signs point to Packers ball.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:06:51 PM
Emotional Appeal to Whoever is listening. There's a certain extent where I don't even want to watch football anymore. Even before that last play, the game was so exasperating to watch, it was just exhausting. Players getting flagged for everything and nothing at the same time. Sam Shields getting called for PI when Sidney Rice pulled him down from behind, Then Sheilds again getting shoved on what was probalby the most impressive offensive PI shove ever and not getting called. Rulings taking forever, penalties being marched off from the wrong spots of the field (defensive holding is not a spot foul, it is from the line of scrimmage, and the Seahawks were awarded extra yards when a packers defensive holding call was marched off from teh spot of the foul), extra time outs being given to teams in replay situations, it goes on and on and on. Plain and simple, this is not football. I have a son coming any day now, and I feel like I can find a lot better things to do with my time than follow a league that has no interest in putting a quality product on the field. I gave up on the NBA in high school for the same reason, and at least through the first three weeks of this season it feels like the NFL will sacrifice a quality product to save a few bucks in the pockets of the owners. This is probably just emotion talking, and it might have been different had the game turned out different (although I posted "this is exhausting" on facebook long before the final play), and I'll probably end up in front of the TV next sunday for the Packer game, but a certain part of me knows that if it's ratings that drive the NFL and the owners to keep holding out, the only real way to affect change is to not watch. We'll see. Right now, football is not fun.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 12:13:48 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:06:39 PM more on the "player going to the ground" aspect. Since both players were going to the ground during the process of making the catch, control has to be established once on the ground. So in that sense it doesn't matter at all what happened while they were falling, because once they hit the ground, Tate's left arm was pinned to the ground and Jenning had both arms around the ball pinned to his chest. All signs point to Packers ball. Control can't be lost once on the ground. It doesn't have to be established there. Also, that is not even what happened once they hit the ground. Tate has and arm and a hand on the ball. After they hit the ground Jennings rolls away, but the pertinent part of the play was over either when Tate's feet hit, or the nano second they hit the ground, unless Tate loses contact with the football.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/25/2012 @ 01:07:29 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:13:48 PM Control can't be lost once on the ground. It doesn't have to be established there. Tell that to Megatron that is not how they've called the "when going to the ground" play over the last 5 years (remember Jennings-gate?) You have to maintain control through the fall. So if you hit the ground and you lose control, you then have to regain control before the ball hits the ground, and whatnot. So to your second pound, Tate has to have a lot more than simply "maintaining contact" with the ball. If he losses control, then he hasn't established possession, and therefore, the subsequent control followed by the roll away by Jennings is the point when someone finally established control once having gone to the ground. And this is all assuming that Tate had "control" of the ball prior to Jennings having control, but it isn't simultaneous possession if one player gets control and then another player does. If Tate ever had "control" of the ball, it was clearly after Jennings would have had control, and in the process of going to the ground, Tate lost control at some point before establishing clear possession. Since it flat out can't be considered simultaneous possession then, any form of "control when going to the ground" has to be applied both to Tate and to Jennings. Jennings maintained control once on the ground and Tate didn't. The league never addressed that in the statement. They only stated what the officials on the field ruled, not whether or not the call was correct. The call was wrong, plain and simple. Is it surprising that a league that cares so little about the integrity of the game to give us the replacement officials in the first place would then make a statement that doesn't correct, or at least state for the record, of an obvious blown call?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/25/2012 1:09:56 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 02:32:41 PM
Megatron lost it on the ground. Jennings lost it on the way to the ground. The ball in those plays actually touched grass. This was was not that. You don't have to regain control if you never lost it. You can debate if he ever had control, but the ball never came loose and touched the ground, so the ground rule doesn't apply. The rule is in place so that, in the case of the Megatron play, he has to demonstrate he had control after that. (Hold the ball up, get up, whatever)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 09/25/2012 2:40:13 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/25/2012 @ 05:59:06 PM
But you can't "regain" what you never had. The ground rule does apply if you are talking about two different players potentially having possession. Tate cannot claim to have had possession if he lost control when coming to the ground, especially since there was another player who did have possession, or at least control. Also, the only reason that the ball didn't hit the ground is because Jennings caught it. If the player loses control, regardless if it touches the ground, he absolutely have to regain control, especially if your non-control is interrupted by a defender having control. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. 99.99999% of the world thinks that was an interception, including numerous longtime former officials. The officials botched the call and the NFL never stated whether the call was actually correct. They simply explained how the officials came to the (terrible and wrong) decision. Besides, if the ground rule doesn't apply, why the heck the NFL include that exact rule in their official (but ultimately BS) statement?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 09/25/2012 6:01:23 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/25/2012 @ 06:05:49 PM
basically, the only time Tate could have even possibly had control/possession if he ever did would have been at a time when Jennings already had possession. Here's another reason why the ground rule would apply. Say a player makes a catch and gets hit while making the catch, goes to the ground, and upon hitting the ground the ball pops up in the air, and a defender picks it off. That is an interception, because the receiver never established possession. Best case scenario regarding Tate is that he had control for a 1/4 second, but upon hitting the ground lost it because jennings already had control and Tate had his left arm pinned behind Jennings back and his other arm simply wrapped around Jennings' arm.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2012 @ 06:55:49 PM
They included that rule because it was being cited often and they went to the ground. The rule is relevant because they went to the ground. The rule doesn't apply because the ball never hit the ground. That entire rule is about the ball hitting the ground. It doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it wasn't an interception, and no one here has ever said that. It just means that rule didn't factor in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 09/25/2012 @ 08:32:45 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:56:56 AM I posted this on twitter to scott, but I'm honestly wondering when control is determined. Does it matter that by the time Jennings had even one foot on the ground, Tate had both his hands around the ball as much as Jennings did? ... The NFL quoted the relevant rules in their release about the incident. I included parts of it below. Maybe they were just quoting the whole rules for a catch/interception and these happen to be in there, but it sort of goes to what I was talking about earlier; has Jennings actually caught the ball until he comes down, and if not, then can Tate landing with his hand(s) around the ball and jennings landing with his hand(s) around the ball count as a simultaneous catch? I'm honestly asking. 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: ... (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and ...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 07:49:09 AM
http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2012/09/25/report-official-who-called-seahawks-td-is-a-banker-with-little-experience/ The ref that signaled touchdown has virtually no experience as a ref, and was even fired from the lingerie football league for incomptetence.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 08:17:25 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:49:09 AM http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2012/09/25/report-official-who-called-seahawks-td-is-a-banker-with-little-experience/ The ref that signaled touchdown has virtually no experience as a ref, and was even fired from the lingerie football league for incomptetence. I hear one of the Scab Refs was fired from the LFL for inappropriate behavior with a video camera.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/26/2012 @ 08:46:12 AM
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 09:45:26 AM
So if a ref has no experience as a professional ref and has been fired for incompetence as a ref. I'm not saying that his decision was wrong because he has about as much experience as a ref as I do (I was a youth hockey ref for a few years growing up). I'm saying that it's not surprising that a guy who has been fired from an illegitimate sexy football league for being incompetent would come up with an insanely horrible call in a key situation. The guy who signaled "clock stop" (or basically, not a touchdown) is a Big 12 ref. How the lingerie football ref pulled rank to overrule a Big12 ref beyond me. I'm not saying "he's fat and lazy and he had a bad reffing career, so obviously, his decision is wrong." I'm saying "it's no shocker that such a buffoon would make such a call". It's more likely that I'm saying "it's inevitable that you will have games like this if these are the kinds of guys you have on the field." I reject your ad-hominem suggestion. The premise of my argument is that guys with shady officiating careers probably shouldn't be trusted to be professional officials. If someone disagrees with that premise than I hope that person isn't in charge of hiring for a business.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 3 times, last at 09/26/2012 9:48:48 am

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/26/2012 @ 10:00:49 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:55:49 PM The rule doesn't apply because the ball never hit the ground. That entire rule is about the ball hitting the ground. It doesn't apply. I think you're wrong about this. The entire rule is not about the ball hitting the ground, only half of the rule is. The rule is about when possession is established. It's not established and therefore you cannot be ruled "down by contact" the second you hit the ground if you don't have control of the football, or if you lose control through the process of going to the ground. It doesn't matter if the ball hit the ground or if it popped up in the air. The part about the ball hitting the ground, in my opinion, is simply that the ball is still live until either the ball hits the ground or the receiver (or another player) regains control. If the player loses teh ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any dobut that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. This is the preface to the "going to the ground" rule. In the rule book, the "going to the ground" rule is "item 1" under this preface. It would suggest that the point of what is to follow is simply scenarios about when the catch is actually considered a catch. 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. This is the portion of the rule that is relevant. The ball hitting the ground part doesnt' mean "this rule only applies if the ball hit's the ground". The reason I believe that is because this is the only part of the rulebook that addresses the concept of going to the ground while making the catch. If the rule only applies to scenarios when the ball hits the ground, then a player could jump, catch a ball, land on his back and immediately lose control with the ball popping up in the air, the defender catching it, and somehow ruling the play dead. The whole point of the rule is to establish possession, and if the player loses control, he can still regain control until the ball touches the ground. The rule isn't dependent on the ball actually hitting the ground. It doesn't matter that the ball didn't hit the ground. If you go to the ground and don't maintain control, you haven't made a catch yet. All this still doesn't necessarliy mean the rule is applicable, but if it isn't, it's not for the reason you stated.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 09/26/2012 10:07:45 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 10:08:22 AM
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf Here's a copy of the rule book. It's on page 39.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/26/2012 @ 10:19:09 AM
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:32:45 PM Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:56:56 AM I posted this on twitter to scott, but I'm honestly wondering when control is determined. Does it matter that by the time Jennings had even one foot on the ground, Tate had both his hands around the ball as much as Jennings did? ... The NFL quoted the relevant rules in their release about the incident. I included parts of it below. Maybe they were just quoting the whole rules for a catch/interception and these happen to be in there, but it sort of goes to what I was talking about earlier; has Jennings actually caught the ball until he comes down, and if not, then can Tate landing with his hand(s) around the ball and jennings landing with his hand(s) around the ball count as a simultaneous catch? I'm honestly asking. 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: ... (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and ... So, in other words, you're asking "If Jennings is in the air, even though he might have touched and gained control first, if he hasn't yet hit the ground, can Tate also gain control prior to touching the ball even if Jennings already has control, and it be considered simultaneous, since a "catch" isnt' established until contact is made with the ground?" This is probably a legitimate question. to that I say this: It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control According this part of the simultaneous catch rule, Jennings doesn't have to "catch" the ball (in that he doesn't have to hit the ground and it become a legal catch). He simply has to "gain control first". I would believe that he can "gain control" while being in the air even though he hasn't "made the catch" yet. So if Jennings gains control in the air, and then Tate gains control, it doesn't matter if they have hit the ground yet. It's the sequence of who gained control of the ball first. That's my opinion. And in my opinion, The ball got to Jennings first because he was up higher than Tate, and the ball physically arrived at his arms first, so it is not a simultaneous catch, and therefore an interception. I think the point of the "ground to the ground rule" (as it applies here) is that because they have to maintain control when going to the ground, if either of them (or both) lose control when hitting the ground, suddenly the entire question of "simultaneous possession" is moot, or at least the sequence starts over, because now control has to be regained.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/26/2012 10:21:14 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 11:48:22 AM
In the scenario you described above the rule wouldn't apply because the ball never hits the ground. Whether or not they award the reception to the offense might be open to interpretation of that and other rules, but it certainly wouldn't be ruled an incomplete pass, which is what that section of rules is establishing (Complete vs incomplete). It would be trivial for them to have added "or is caught by another player" to this rule, so I'm taking its absence as they didn't mean it that way. I think it's there just to say that the player can lose it, when they hit the ground, and as long as they regain it before it hits the ground, then it's a catch back where ever you caught it, even if you're on your back 5 yards out of bounds knocking it around for 5 minutes, if you got your feet it in bounds before then, then you just have to establish control again, and you get credit for the initial catch. It doesn't count as a "bobble", and securing it after that isn't a "second catch now out of bounds." (In contrast to what losing control in between getting 1 foot down and the other would imply.) It is in only this manner that the ground is any sort of special exception to the other rules of catching passes, so, based on that, I'm guessing touchdown or not on your scenario would go to other rules. (Although I wouldn't be shocked if this rule was cited, and then clarified, the next time it happens.) It should probably be clarified either way. Either way, it's moot, because Tate never did lose control, he simply has "less" control, after Jennings rolled away, but the play was over by then, and there's no such concept in the rules as "more" control mattering. The ball never separates from one of Tate's arms, and his other arm only left it for a split second. So, again, in summary, I think we can all agree that if we were allowed to make "spirit of the game" calls, this was an int. It probably also was by the letter of the law. I just think you, and many others, are grossly exaggerating how "extremely obvious" this call was. To portray what took place as any sort of "Tate shoved one arm in there halfway to the ground" is just not reality and furthermore, you're talking about something that took place in realtime in like .2 seconds. Even if you can prove with stills, and slow motion that the exact moment Jennings had control (which is a nebulous term) was before Tate had what could be called control, that in and of itself doesn't mean that "simultaneous possession" is the wrong call. The whole point of that rule is that "if it's too close to rule, go with the offense." and surely this situation suffices. As I said before, split second tolerances are implied by this even being a rule. Someone is ALWAYS first in reality, in practicality this rule stipulates what to do when you can't tell. It would just be "reception goes to the player that had it first" if they didn't intend for it to have tolerances of what the naked eye can't determine built into it. There is never, ever, ever, "simultaneous possession" if you get too hyper literal about what "one player has it first before another player comes along and adds his control" means. The ref that got it "right" was in no position to make any call. He was running from midfield, and only saw everyone's backs. The touchdown call game from the ref that had the best seat in the house for that play. So, at the very least, it's not hard to see how we arrived there, and the super-slow-mo driven backlash, is way overkill. This would have been a tough call for ANY officiating crew. It's not even obvious WITH the slow-mo, let alone in real time. Addendum: And even as far as missing the offensive PI. a) They never call that (which doesn't make it right) b) They also didn't call Clay Matthews for roughing the passer on the play, and probably should/could have.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 10 times, last at 09/26/2012 1:05:23 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/26/2012 @ 01:45:18 PM
I'm taking the absence of "or is caught by another player" as it is so obvious that it didn't need to be added. If a player loses control and someone else catches it, it's a catch by the other player, per this rule. How's this for a scenario then (it's the same thing, just slightly different): a receiver jumps up and grabs control of the ball. He is all alone, and he falls to the ground on his own but hits his head and is now unconscious. At the exact same moment he hits the ground he loses control of the ball and it pops up into the air, but the ball miraculously lands on his stomach with the receiver's arms sprawled out on the gound, not holding onto the ball. As he is laying there, the ball is rolling down his stomach to his leg. Then, without touching the receiver, a defender grabs the ball and runs the other way for a touchdown. Ok, I don't think there is another rule in the rulebook that would address this scenario if not for the "going to the ground" rule. Besides, if the ball hitting the ground was the only trigger for this rule to apply, the item would be called "ball hitting the ground", not "going to the ground". They might "never" call it, but the receiver also usually doesn't shove the defender airborne on a pushoff either. I'm not sure I've ever seen a pushoff like that, and I'm sure I've never seen one like that on a hail Mary, especially one about 2 feet from an official. I think they got the call wrong and I think the replay shows that fairly clearly that the defender laid claim to the ball first, by virtue of being about a foot higher in the air than Tate was when the ball came down. From the link of the frame by fram, by Tate5 Jennings has both hands on the ball against his chest before Tate does. Tate doesn't just have "less control", he has "subsequent control", therefore it's not simultaneous possession. Just admit that the Packers got hosed and we can move on. I'll accept your argument that Matthews could have gotten called for RTP, even without seeing a replay of it. Because even if I thought it was a bad call, I can handle a bad call that doesn't hand the game to wrong team.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 02:54:18 PM
The whole point of rule books is "stating the obvious". It's where "the obvious" comes from in the first place. The rule book details what it means to be the offense and what it means to be the defense. We can go back and forth on the exception that is the ground 200 times. It's irrelevant anyway. Jennings never takes the ball from Tate. Even if it's a fact that Jennings is the one holding it against Tate's arm/hand, it's irrelevant. Also, Jennings trying to wrestle the ball away, roll over, etc is not a continuation of the fall anyway. It's a second act. There's 3 strikes against the going to the ground rule triggering and nullifying the play, no matter how you slice it. "against the chest" is no where in the rules. There is no concept of "more", "better", "superseding", "degrees" or anything like that in the rulebook about control. I think I've said about 5 times now the Packers probably got hosed, my only objection is that everyone who thinks that this was a "ridiculously obvious" call is just simply, and matter-of-factly, not jiving with reality. Everyone is reacting to what "should be" (spirit of the game, more control, Jennings rolling away being the only thing pinning the ball to Tate, "the eyeball test", etc) and not what is. (Control is a yes/no. Simultaneous possession is NEVER the case if you go to the electron microscope. etc) You find me a photo where only Jennings has control, and then a photo where Tate gloms on to Jennings' control, where those two moments are farther apart in time than any human would be expected to discern in real time. Then we can have a discussion about how reasonable that time discrepancy is as pertains to the simultaneous catch rule, assuming of course we agree on which moments in that clusteref where "control" is/isn't-yet established. I posted an article with like 8 photos, one of which was the point of initial contact, and all of which show essentially equal control, which, again, isn't even important throughout the entire process that matters. Control is binary. I didn't cherry pick. I searched for "frame by frame green bay seahawks" or something along those lines and posted the first article that had separate stills (rather than some totally unhelpful animated gif). You just keep simply repeating "Jennings had control first", so lets see that, or let's stop talking about it. The whole thing is unfortunate. It always sucks when the game comes down to a judgement call. I just think people are exaggerating the circumstances. I think by letter of the law this was probably 55/45 in favor of the packers, and in spirit probably 70/30. Pretending this was 99/1 in the Packers favor, and that only one official and some haters could see it as any other way than that, or even entertain the notion that it might have been simultaneous possession, is just, plainly and simply, not looking at what happened. By the by, calling that roughing the passer would render the play moot on an interception, and given them an un-timed down, even if they called the offensive PI, so it's not "nothing" that they missed it either. In terms of importance, as far as crunch time calls go, it's a much bigger miss, of the 2 missed penalties. 99% of the time that ball harmlessly hits the turf anyway, so missing the call that would give the offense a free play is probably bigger in all but a handful of circumstance. Though, obviously in this case the OPI would render the catch moot. Of course a missed call that directly hands the victory out to a team is the most important of all. The only point here is that if you want to play the "the offensive PI should have, itself, ended the game" card, then it's only fair to point out that the roughing the passer call would have unended it.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 21 times, last at 09/26/2012 5:59:43 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 03:37:40 PM
I don't suppose it makes it a tiny bit better to see Russel Wilson on the receiving end of one of these types of things for once?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/26/2012 @ 06:15:18 PM
Actually, for now, let's just see if we can agree on this, or not, because nothing else, as pertains to simultaneous possession, will matter, if we don't. Do you agree with the premise that slower and slower replay would always invalidate the simultaneous catch rule, because the laws of the universe basically dictate that the probability of those two events happening at, truly, the same point in time is basically 0. (If not actually 0) Therefor, by logical necessity alone, there needs to be some degree of wiggle room (short window of time) as to what "simultaneous" means in this context? (Because otherwise there would be no rule.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/26/2012 11:21:55 pm

	Jon - 3443 Posts 09/26/2012 @ 11:35:47 PM
Little logic/analogy thought experiment for all y'all. If you say that this call "gave the game" to the Seahawks or "decided the game" or "is the reason the Packers lost" or anything like that... Then In the event that the packers miss the playoffs/1 seed/important seed/whatever by one game... Can you still say that the call also decided their playoff fate? On the surface, it seems like that would follow. But if you accept the premise that the Tate call is what decided the game, you're essentially saying that in a close game, at the time of the last play, all previous calls leading up to that moment are a "given" (or don't matter to the win/lose equation anymore or however you want to phrase it). Previous slights or gains on previous calls are no longer relevant because that call by itself now has the ability to sway the outcome either way. So if the Packers come down to a win-and-in situation in the final week of the season (or a win-equals-1 seed situation), wouldn't it follow, or at least be analogous, that all the first 15 games are at that point a "given" and no longer relevant? That game by itself (or if you prefer, the collection of calls in that game) now has the ability to sway the GB playoff picture one way or the other. So, it's what happens in that game that gives/decides/is-the-reason-for the Packers' place in or out of the playoffs. Feel free to poke holes. If you can.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 09/26/2012 11:37:26 pm

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 09/27/2012 @ 12:07:30 AM
Also, I don't know if it's out there to view on the internet, I know you can listen to it, but Dan LeBatard had what I thought was a good (if not at least just interesting) take on the referee situation. The question posed to him is: "Should we buy the league's argument that it is actually trying to improve officiating long term?" It's in the 9/26 show at this link. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=6962629 (It's a little over a minute into the show and comes just after they talk about Aaron Rodgers apologizing on behalf of the league.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 09/27/2012 12:08:40 am

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/27/2012 @ 12:16:51 AM
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:35:47 PM So if the Packers come down to a win-and-in situation in the final week of the season (or a win-equals-1 seed situation), wouldn't it follow, or at least be analogous, that all the first 15 games are at that point a "given" and no longer relevant? That game by itself (or if you prefer, the collection of calls in that game) now has the ability to sway the GB playoff picture one way or the other. So, it's what happens in that game that gives/decides/is-the-reason-for the Packers' place in or out of the playoffs. Feel free to poke holes. If you can. So you're saying there's time yet for a makeup call in week 17 if needed, against the Vikings? I'd rather have the bird in hand, but it'd be better than nothing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 08:34:30 AM
What might be equally upsetting about this whole thing is that I had a win stolen from me on the NutCan pick'em board. Some betting agencies returned bets on that game because of the controversy. I say we do that here too.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 10:01:07 AM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:16:51 AM Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:35:47 PM So if the Packers come down to a win-and-in situation in the final week of the season (or a win-equals-1 seed situation), wouldn't it follow, or at least be analogous, that all the first 15 games are at that point a "given" and no longer relevant? That game by itself (or if you prefer, the collection of calls in that game) now has the ability to sway the GB playoff picture one way or the other. So, it's what happens in that game that gives/decides/is-the-reason-for the Packers' place in or out of the playoffs. Feel free to poke holes. If you can. So you're saying there's time yet for a makeup call in week 17 if needed, against the Vikings? I'd rather have the bird in hand, but it'd be better than nothing. I think it was more a commentary on the fact that the Packers had 2 scoring drives extended on dubious penalties, and then the Seahawks had aid on the scoring drive, (though Woodson got away with a pretty obvious PI at some point.) but human beings always find a way to make the last thing more important. Even if it's actually the most benign of the mistakes they made in that game, let alone over the weekend, but at any rate every call/non-call in the game led up to that moment. To me it was just a debacle because of, yet again, how out of control they let things get in the aftermath. I don't know if anyone can say the regular refs don't make that same call.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 10:56:46 AM
2 scoring drives on penalties? I know the one you're referring to (the iffy PI call on 3rd down) Don't forget that on one of those scoring drives the refs put in a wet pig instead of a football on the 2 pt conversion, and that on another time, the refs stepped off a defensive holding penalty against the packers as a spot foul instead of a line of scrimmage foul. There were plenty of incompetent calls/decisions to go around. And a bad PI call on one team isn't necessarily the equivalent of a bad PI call on the other. Maybe it was a perfect storm, and maybe it's a good thing in the long term that it came to that, but many people have said something to the extent that they have never seen a more chaotic scene as what took place in the endzone. You might be right that there is no way of knowing if the call is called differently by a competent ref or not, but the entire lack of control of the entire game and the entire season culminated with a game being decided by a controversial call that united the sports world and beyond like nothing else in the history of sports. (sportscenter had it's highest ratings ever following the game, and TJ Lang's tweet is now the most retweeted tweet of all time). The long national nightmare is over.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 10:59:31 AM
I find it hard to believe that that TJ Lang tweet is the most retweeted tweet ever. When I read about it it was at like 76k, and supposedly 3rd. If you would have asked me before this I would have guessed that essentially every tweet Justin Beiber makes is retweeted 400,000 times, and that the top ones all time were WELL into the millions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 09/27/2012 11:05:45 am

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/27/2012 @ 11:05:03 AM
Maybe there was a timeframe associated with it then. http://www.lakeshorelaments.com/?p=14748 This might be something. People apparently don't retweet as often as you think. Beiber's top tweet, according to this, only has 89,000 retweets. and I found this, which I think referenced in my first link: http://blog.twitsprout.com/		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 09/27/2012 11:09:12 am

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/27/2012 @ 11:11:40 AM
No, I don't think [there was a timeframe]. I mean, I trust it's correct, I just would have guessed that 80,000 retweets was a pretty run of the mill tweet for a celeb like Beiber/Kardashian/Kutcher. Beiber has over 28 million, many of them obsessed, followers. 80,000 is less than .3% of them. If 1% of his followers retweeted a tweet it would be 283,129 retweets.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/27/2012 11:15:01 am

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/27/2012 @ 11:13:29 AM
Obsessed, but extremely apathetic, and they probably figure someone else will retweet it for them? Also consider that Lang didn't have all that many followers prior to the tweet. Impressive nonetheless. Although, i feel with the world of twitter, there is something everyday that has become totally different in the age of social media. I mean, if one player's tweet can end a labor dipute in the NFL, imagine what other good it can do, right?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/27/2012 11:17:31 am

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/27/2012 @ 11:17:09 AM
I wonder if these things factor in "OMG SO DREAMY RT @justinbeiber Some inane thought about how special all people are" or if they're just straight up clicking retweet.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 11:25:28 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:13:29 AM Obsessed, but extremely apathetic, and they probably figure someone else will retweet it for them? Well, I guess. It's still surprising none the less. I mean, I'm not even talking about tweets where he says something particularly retweetable. .3% is in the range where you'd think close to that number would accidentally retweet any given tweet trying to do something else, and then just leave it, let alone the people purposely retweeting it, or the percent of his followers who probably retweet everything. At any rate, I wouldn't have called that the top retweets where anywhere close to that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/27/2012 @ 11:25:40 AM
you saying that the "so dreamy RT" isn't technically a retweet, but a reply?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/27/2012 @ 11:27:00 AM
Yeah. That's how you used to have to retweet, plus people want to add something some times. Edit: It would be interesting to see what would happen if Beiber ever just straight up asked "Can you guys retweet this for me?"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/27/2012 11:28:25 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 11:29:30 AM
Ha! Back in my day, you couldn't just hit "retweet". you had to reply and add RT to the original so people knew what it was about. You kids have it so easy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/27/2012 @ 11:30:59 AM
That's how old school twitterers like Sarah go about business.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 09/27/2012 @ 02:17:38 PM
Not to stir up the whole shit storm again, but here's a new angle of the play: http://www.q13fox.com/sports/football/seahawks/kcpq-seahawks-capitalize-on-lastsecond-hail-mary-pass-beat-packers-1412-20120924,0,5401209.story You can see Jennings repeatedly try and rip the ball away, with all his might, (after the point that matters) so even the notion that Tate just maintained "contact" with a ball pinned to his arm that wasn't moving (Or lost control on the ground) is busted. He had that ball too, and it was well and truly controlled the whole time, even beyond the point that mattered, since the play was dead when his butt hits. Which, again, is all just to say that, while I'm not saying the call was definitely right, I do think that anyone who can actually look at what happened and rationally state that the call was "ridiculously, absurdly, obviously the wrong call" is kidding themselves, or seeing what they want to see. It is, at the very worst, a wrong, but understandable, call. Given that at this point the only point left to argue is that Jennings "had control first" a) I don't think anyone can know that. b) Even if you could somehow suss out what control means, and who had it when, you'd be talking about events spaced apart by the blink of an eye, so it's still unobvious that "simultaneous possession" isn't the correct call. (Seeing as it's meant to be a judgement call, made in real time, by humans.) Frankly the more and more I see though, if this wasn't an example of when the simultaneous possession rule should apply, I don't know what would be. tl;dr I don't know what happened, but neither does anyone else.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 10 times, last at 09/27/2012 2:46:49 pm