Active Users:809 Time:29/10/2026 07:39:35 AM
Fair enough then; the NFLs official position is that offensive PI should have been called. Joel Send a noteboard - 26/09/2012 04:45:58 AM
tate says he did not push off. we see how much *his* word is worth as well :rolleyes:

Shields lost his footing and went down, which makes it look worse than it was, but the contact only occurred because Shields moved into Tate as the latter prepared to catch the ball. No one who moves into another player who is looking for the ball will get a PI call in their favor, whether they go fall or not.

shields lost his footing because tate pushed him. even the NFL head office acknowledges that much...

Not disputing, just asking.

"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."

I disagree, but it is a judgement call, and the Leagues judgement, not mine, is that applicable. Yet I also note the League statement cites this rule near the end:

"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."

I submit that had Jennings maintained control throughout the process of contacting the ground Tate would not have had the ball at the end of the play. In particular, it is not clear from the replay WHEN Jennings contacted the ground with anything other than his feet (and thus when he should have been considered down if, in fact, he were ruled to have intercepted the pass.) Even IF the catch were intercepted (which is obviously debatable because it is still debated,) a legal strip would REMAIN possible unless/until Jennings were ruled down.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 26/09/2012 at 04:47:46 AM
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 772 Views
I was gonna keep it to one thread, but hell, I'll join yours. - 25/09/2012 05:24:26 AM 944 Views
Link? Clip? - 25/09/2012 05:27:07 AM 922 Views
Let's just say that Gruden used the word "Jobbed" in the live telecast. *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:35:08 AM 559 Views
Here's a link. - 25/09/2012 05:36:56 AM 993 Views
Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:47:07 AM 811 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 05:52:55 AM 1047 Views
Re: Yes and no; that is the link I referenced in my post. - 25/09/2012 06:13:46 AM 998 Views
youtube link - 25/09/2012 07:00:29 AM 1044 Views
Thanks; that looks like a textbook case of simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver: TD. - 25/09/2012 07:29:28 AM 891 Views
pete carroll is a cheating douchebag, you cannot take his word for what happened - 25/09/2012 10:59:33 AM 1172 Views
I did not; I watched the clip: Simultaneous possession, which goes to the receiver. - 26/09/2012 01:30:18 AM 1494 Views
watch a better replay if you can - 26/09/2012 02:38:17 AM 950 Views
Have now; still not convinced. - 26/09/2012 04:01:23 AM 1012 Views
that's ok. you're still wrong - 26/09/2012 04:12:56 AM 1009 Views
I know you are but what am I? *MN* - 26/09/2012 04:48:47 AM 961 Views
also, the pass interference on tate that wasn't called is clear at 0:56 in that clip - 25/09/2012 11:27:36 AM 986 Views
Tate was looking for the ball, and raised his hands to catch it, not push off Sam Shields. - 26/09/2012 01:33:46 AM 919 Views
watch a better replay and get back to me on this one. - 26/09/2012 02:36:43 AM 972 Views
Where did the NFL head office acknowledge that? - 26/09/2012 03:52:36 AM 1069 Views
in their official response to the whole incident....? - 26/09/2012 04:14:52 AM 1191 Views
Fair enough then; the NFLs official position is that offensive PI should have been called. - 26/09/2012 04:45:58 AM 982 Views
How have you not seen this play? Are you in a cave? *NM* - 25/09/2012 03:57:55 PM 458 Views
No, I am in Norway, where NFL coverage is rather limited. - 26/09/2012 01:40:07 AM 1103 Views
Wait, you're not in Houston? *NM* - 26/09/2012 01:42:45 AM 476 Views
Not since the Texas Sesquicentennial, no. - 26/09/2012 01:45:29 AM 870 Views
While you can hardly blame the replacement refs because they are basically trainees... - 25/09/2012 06:05:22 AM 1088 Views
Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 06:27:42 AM 1097 Views
Re: Now I really want to see this play. - 25/09/2012 02:48:56 PM 1004 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 928 Views
There are good views on nfl.com. Will link. - 26/09/2012 02:16:51 AM 1100 Views
Thanks; I still do not see much to change my mind. - 26/09/2012 02:32:43 AM 1000 Views
The last call was a joke. - 25/09/2012 06:52:59 AM 956 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 1003 Views
you probably think greedo shot first too..... - 25/09/2012 01:49:03 PM 961 Views
They can't reverse that call. - 25/09/2012 04:43:28 PM 1038 Views
the only possible way was to rule it incomplete - 25/09/2012 10:42:25 PM 1034 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 582 Views
I'm not even the only person in this thread, moron. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:07:48 PM 498 Views
Joel hasn't even seen the play, douchebag *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:12:35 PM 477 Views
Just so you can get this information without namecalling ... - 25/09/2012 04:18:41 PM 914 Views
No I mean he hasn't seen the replay over and over on ESPN *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:21:46 PM 474 Views
Interesting. What is the rule with arguing refs? - 25/09/2012 05:18:35 PM 889 Views
That response was disturbingly like my thoughts on the play. - 26/09/2012 01:49:37 AM 967 Views
As a Seahawks fan. - 25/09/2012 02:10:58 PM 915 Views
No. Not with that attitude. *NM* - 25/09/2012 04:03:32 PM 450 Views
*throws public tantrum* *NM* - 25/09/2012 10:39:22 PM 432 Views
Here's the proof Cannoli is refusing to see - 25/09/2012 05:54:07 PM 1032 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 833 Views
you can't claim "good ol' strip" *AND* simultaneous catch -- which is it? - 26/09/2012 02:35:41 AM 1262 Views
I do not claim both: I claim simultaneous catch but IF not, then strip. - 26/09/2012 03:51:47 AM 1271 Views
you sure you saw the right replay? - 26/09/2012 04:21:57 AM 960 Views
Think so, yeah. - 26/09/2012 04:58:15 AM 1091 Views
from another angle -- pun intended - 26/09/2012 04:01:54 PM 927 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 1126 Views
your opinion is against pretty much everyone in the world, so..... *shrug* - 27/09/2012 03:55:33 PM 1155 Views
Thanks; I did not expect you to give in so easily. - 27/09/2012 10:14:30 PM 959 Views
did you even read that article??? - 28/09/2012 12:35:39 AM 984 Views
"his control wasn’t established again...." - 28/09/2012 01:08:03 AM 1510 Views
wow, what a thorough analysis you sent me either way, you're still wrong - 28/09/2012 02:05:24 AM 1076 Views
That is not an argument. - 28/09/2012 02:26:58 AM 880 Views

Reply to Message