Active Users:348 Time:17/06/2025 09:40:43 AM
Re: Now I really want to see this play. Mats Gambling Buddy Send a noteboard - 25/09/2012 02:48:56 PM

However, here is a new rule for general life based on the call from the end of tonight's game: If you are holding your baby and I walk up and grab your baby, I own your baby.

Like I say, I REALLY want to see this play, because when you put it like that, that is actually true on a football field: If a player on one team takes a ball away from a player on the other before the whistle blows, forward progress is stopped; before the ball carrier is DOWN, the player who strips the ball gains possession. In the case of receivers stripping defenders that is doubly so, because when possession is contested, simultaneous possession goes to the RECEIVER (one of many football rules favoring the offense.)

So if that how it is actually went—the Packers DB did not take a knee, go out of bounds or otherwise end the play before stripped—yeah, that sounds like a TD.

The DB had possession first and then Golden Tate gained co-possession as they were coming down. The rule is that the ball goes to the passing team if they gain control simultaneously.... which they did not. Or at least, it appeared that way to me.
Makin' sweet love to CMBs since 2001.
Reply to message
/NFL: now that replacement refs have cost the packers a win, can we please get the real ones back? *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:14:58 AM 689 Views
I was gonna keep it to one thread, but hell, I'll join yours. - 25/09/2012 05:24:26 AM 759 Views
Link? Clip? - 25/09/2012 05:27:07 AM 718 Views
Let's just say that Gruden used the word "Jobbed" in the live telecast. *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:35:08 AM 443 Views
Here's a link. - 25/09/2012 05:36:56 AM 812 Views
Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:47:07 AM 634 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:52:55 AM 865 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 06:13:46 AM 819 Views
youtube link - 25/09/2012 07:00:29 AM 829 Views
Thanks; that looks like a textbook case of simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver: TD. - 25/09/2012 07:29:28 AM 718 Views
pete carroll is a cheating douchebag, you cannot take his word for what happened - 25/09/2012 10:59:33 AM 984 Views
I did not; I watched the clip: Simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver. - 26/09/2012 01:30:18 AM 1326 Views
watch a better replay if you can - 26/09/2012 02:38:17 AM 781 Views
Have now; still not convinced. - 26/09/2012 04:01:23 AM 828 Views
that's ok. you're still wrong - 26/09/2012 04:12:56 AM 841 Views
I know you are but what am I? *MN* - 26/09/2012 04:48:47 AM 781 Views
How have you not seen this play? Are you in a cave? *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:57:55 PM 384 Views
No, I am in Norway, where NFL coverage is rather limited. - 26/09/2012 01:40:07 AM 932 Views
Wait, you're not in Houston? *NM* - 26/09/2012 01:42:45 AM 401 Views
Not since the Texas Sesquicentennial, no. - 26/09/2012 01:45:29 AM 697 Views
While you can hardly blame the replacement refs because they are basically trainees... - 25/09/2012 06:05:22 AM 902 Views
Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 06:27:42 AM 896 Views
Re: Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 02:48:56 PM 805 Views
I have still only seen the YouTube clip, but it looked like they both had both hands on the ball. - 26/09/2012 01:58:27 AM 735 Views
There are good views on nfl.com. Will link. - 26/09/2012 02:16:51 AM 877 Views
Thanks; I still do not see much to change my mind. - 26/09/2012 02:32:43 AM 805 Views
The last call was a joke. - 25/09/2012 06:52:59 AM 755 Views
Tie goes to the receiver - the rule for decades. The Packers benefitted from worse calls last year - 25/09/2012 11:31:47 AM 838 Views
you probably think greedo shot first too..... - 25/09/2012 01:49:03 PM 784 Views
They can't reverse that call. - 25/09/2012 04:43:28 PM 864 Views
the only possible way was to rule it incomplete - 25/09/2012 10:42:25 PM 841 Views
Congrats Cannoli, you are the only person (thing?) in the country who thinks it's a TD *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:53:18 PM 509 Views
I'm not even the only person in this thread, moron. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:07:48 PM 417 Views
Joel hasn't even seen the play, douchebag *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:12:35 PM 382 Views
Just so you can get this information without namecalling ... - 25/09/2012 04:18:41 PM 756 Views
No I mean he hasn't seen the replay over and over on ESPN *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:21:46 PM 389 Views
Interesting. What is the rule with arguing refs? - 25/09/2012 05:18:35 PM 701 Views
That response was disturbingly like my thoughts on the play. - 26/09/2012 01:49:37 AM 797 Views
As a Seahawks fan. - 25/09/2012 02:10:58 PM 750 Views
No. Not with that attitude. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:03:32 PM 365 Views
*throws public tantrum* *NM* - 25/09/2012 10:39:22 PM 353 Views
Here's the proof Cannoli is refusing to see - 25/09/2012 05:54:07 PM 846 Views
Clearer shot, but stills do not allow us to see where Tates hands were at all times. - 26/09/2012 02:10:25 AM 650 Views
you can't claim "good ol' strip" *AND* simultaneous catch -- which is it? - 26/09/2012 02:35:41 AM 1082 Views
I do not claim both: I claim simultaneous catch but IF not, then strip. - 26/09/2012 03:51:47 AM 1082 Views
you sure you saw the right replay? - 26/09/2012 04:21:57 AM 759 Views
Think so, yeah. - 26/09/2012 04:58:15 AM 883 Views
from another angle -- pun intended - 26/09/2012 04:01:54 PM 755 Views
There are two separate issues: 1) Was it a simultaneous catch; 2) IF not, was it a strip? - 27/09/2012 08:54:52 AM 934 Views
your opinion is against pretty much everyone in the world, so..... *shrug* - 27/09/2012 03:55:33 PM 983 Views
Thanks; I did not expect you to give in so easily. - 27/09/2012 10:14:30 PM 797 Views
did you even read that article??? - 28/09/2012 12:35:39 AM 801 Views
"his control wasn’t established again...." - 28/09/2012 01:08:03 AM 1105 Views
wow, what a thorough analysis you sent me either way, you're still wrong - 28/09/2012 02:05:24 AM 885 Views
That is not an argument. - 28/09/2012 02:26:58 AM 698 Views

Reply to Message