See the end of the Seachickens and Packers game?...

[AzStillers1989]

WOW..... talk about a BULLSH*T call .....

[skyhawk]

And I have seahwaks fan friends here still bringing up 2005 SB and that they deserve this.

[SDSteel1]

Was it really a bad call? Or was it a judgement call? They reviewed it, with replay officials that aren't replacements.

So was it a bad call?

To answer that question, officials referred to the NFL Rulebook, specifically rule 8, section 1, article 3, item 5 (there are a lot of rules in that book; it's about 10 times as long as the United States Constitution):

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.

In less-Hochulian terms: You know the "tie goes to the runner" rule in baseball? Simultaneous catch is the football equivalent. If two guys come down with the ball, somebody has to be credited with a catch and it might as well be the team that already has possession. It's a rule of convenience and common sense.

[RuthlessBurgher]

They reviewed it, with replay officials that aren't replacements.

All the non-replacement replay official up in the box does is review every touchdown and turnover. If it is in any way questionable, he buzzes down to the referee on the field to take another look at it under the hood. The ultimate call is on the shoulder of the on-field referee (a replacement ref), not the non-replacement replay official up in the box.

[lloydroid]

Was it really a bad call? Or was it a judgement call? They reviewed it, with replay officials that aren't replacements.

So was it a bad call?

To answer that question, officials referred to the NFL Rulebook, specifically rule 8, section 1, article 3, item 5 (there are a lot of rules in that book; it's about 10 times as long as the United States Constitution):

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.

In less-Hochulian terms: You know the "tie goes to the runner" rule in baseball? Simultaneous catch is the football equivalent. If two guys come down with the ball, somebody has to be credited with a catch and it might as well be the team that already has possession. It's a rule of convenience and common sense.

No way was that simultaneous possession. The Packer clearly had the ball to his chest when his feet the ground and Tate was only touching his arm and just part of the ball. They F-d this up bad.

[hawaiiansteel]

No way was that simultaneous possession. The Packer clearly had the ball to his chest when his feet the ground and Tate was only touching his arm and just part of the ball. They F-d this up bad.

I can't believe the replay official didn't overturn that call, at no time during the play did Tate have two hands on the ball whereas the Packers DB was clutching the ball with both hands to his chest.

[skyhawk]

I didn't see Tate have ANY possession of the ball. He had his hand stuck in Jennings breadbasket. Is that possession?

so your second sentence is what happened. INT

[SDSteel1]

The receiver looked like he had 2 hands on the ball, and he held on to it, whether it was in Jennings bread basket or not. Maybe Jennings should have done what you are taught to do and knock the ball down.

[skyhawk]

Not to mention they missed a blatant offensive PI

[SDSteel1]

That happens on every hail mary and is never called.