Everyone has been saying "tie goes to the runner" in baseball, and it's similar in football for this simultaneous possession call. But that isn't the case in the baseball rule book, whereas it is the case for football. The baseball rule book doesn't acknowledge that a tie at any base on a force play can ever occur. It is always a judgment call as to whether the ball or runner got their first. So let's do this in football. And honestly, it should happen today. We constantly see this call get botched. The example last night, and of course the examples from a couple of years ago with us vs. Green Bay are in the forefront of my mind, but this kind of thing happens a lot, and it's never called consistently. Part of the problem is the "un-reviewable" aspect, which is by itself stupid, because the review usually makes it pretty clear who caught the ball. We saw a similar thing happen with "force-outs" on incompletions. The rule used to be that it was an un-reviewable judgment call on whether or not a receiver would have come down in the field of play with possession. They changed it so that if you are forced out, now, it's incomplete. No matter what, no matter if they caught you in the middle of the field and carried you out of bounds. Such a black and white change isn't really possible here. So here's what I suggest: Make it a REVIEWABLE call and remove the element of a tie. Give it to the ref's discretion, in the booth, as to who caught the ball, with the standard burden-of-proof system that you must have evidence to overturn a call on the field. I think precedent would probably lead towards favoring the passers in cases of absolute uncertainty, but that shouldn't be an established rule, because it has been interpreted widely and incorrectly. I think if we put it up to discretion IN THE BOOTH, where you can see it a thousand times, you can almost always make the right call. At the very least, you don't get the conflagration of the "simultaneous possession to offense" rule and the "call on the field is unreviewable" that we saw occur last night.
for the sake of honesty, it must be noted that there is a rule to counter that type of situation -- forward progress. so, no, that rule only applies to sideline plays.
I didn't even see where this rule was applicable since I don't think there was simultaneous possession. When did Tate ever have possession? Sticking a hand in after the fact doesn't constitute possession
The problem is the DB does not have a complete catch, and Tate is on the ball, hitting the ground first. Remember Calvin Johnson...it's not a complete catch.....until your done on the ground. If this call had gone for GB in the reverse scenario.....it would not be this over scrutinized....
At the time they hit the ground they both were on the ball. What's being missed here is what constitutes a complete catch. Think Calvin Johnson. The unspoken part of this, is neither guy could actually complete the catch. As was pointed out in the Jets section..lthat. All was not nearly as bad as the post catch strips ruled fumbled that GB was awarded against the Jets.in a game just as close. Challenged, lost, not replacents which allowed GB to back into a playoff spot and I RECALL THAT AFTER MUSTERING A MIGHTY 3FGs....Rodgers was bad mouthing the Jets def. Green bay....fuck them
Like I said the way I see it Jennings had the ball with two hands throughout the catch. Tate may have been touching the ball when they hit the ground but his right hand comes off the ball all the while Jennings still has two hands on it tucked against his chest. I don't see how that is simultaneous possesion.
If truly is SIMULTANEOUS possesion, should just replay the down. It doesnt happen that often where you cant honestly tell who has it.
I just saw the NFL statement ....it says "when the players hit the ground the facials determined" And while Tate had the no call opi....Jennigs went over the back which is also a no no. Which has gone largely uncalled by the replacements. But...the only guy that can see into the scrum, at that moment...is the guy looking at the ball, during the alleged completed catch. As I said Green Bay deserves, but the replay official seeing Tate's PI, could have ruled that since he did not complete the catch....its incomplete, or award the ball to GB The obvious thing to do would be to amend the completed catch rule to say, in the case of a simultaneous catch, the guy who can hand the ball to the official is awarded the catch. Fwiw in real time watching it...my first thought was....did he get both hands on the ball.... And it looked like as they hit the ground (read...if Jennings isn't there...and Tate gets one hand on up, and the other before he hits the ground...Which is what the official saw...allegedly)
there is no reason to replay the down. just because it may become a judgement call in regards to who actually caught it doesn't change the fact that one of them caught it, so why should the offense get a "do over." that's just plain dumb. just because the judgement call may be wrong, like any enforcement of a rule, doesn't mean you should start instituting "do overs" like Madden. you live with the call, right or wrong. no need for a new rule that makes no sense to begin with. "Guys, I'm not sure who caught it. let's play that down over." once you champion that idea you may as well champion playing every pass play over where the completion can't be called with absolute certainty. rather than make the wrong call, just play the down over. and why stop there. was that a fumble or not a fumble? not sure. just replay the down.
As has been pointed out ...Karma is King. Does anyone recall GB bitching after blown calls against the Jets? And those were not replacement officials. Calls get blown all the time, of this sort...this call would have got blown by regular officials as well....it's the idiot calls, like HeywardBey or the OPI on that play that the regulars catch that are screwing up the game. Boo Hoo for GB...but the real issue isn't an arguably blown call discussed by 60 million people that weren't close enough to see how the ball landed. It's the calls and non calls allowing the game to get dangerous. Maybe if GB can stop a pass rush, they actually score to not be on that point. Going after guys just trying to do a job and make the most of their opportunity is wrong. I guess we should pay Walt Coleman more. Doubt if McCarthy will bring this game up, or the Jets game in his upcoming diatribe. Funny how often it seems to go their way in crucial games...
The offense would not get a do over...they would get the catch.....the rule remember??? Why is offsetting penaltys not a loss of down? Both teams have a claim, what if one penalty was a 5 yarder and the other a 10, it still results in a replay....that happens quite often. Where as something like a truly simultaneous catch where each team has equal claim and it happens quite rarely, would not justify a redo,. Its not that insane, it is a rare scenario unlike the exaggerations you made up to try and sell your point. Its a grey area rule...like the force out was, grey area rules need to be reworked untill they are correct.
Dual possession should be ruled an incomplete pass. That's the fairest way, since it can be a good defensive play, and the receiver didn't make the full catch. Just rule it incomplete if its too close to call. In most circumstances it won't be too close to call, but it happens.
But thats the problem, both ways (awarding it to the offense as a catch, or defense as and incomplete pass) just because you cant decide...well thats the refs deciding the game because of grey area, not because of a mistake. Thats them admittidly saying" hey we cant decide so were just gonna give it to these guys..." That sucks. They should leave situations like that upto the players and the plays they make, honestly how many truly 50/50 simutaneous catches are there where you cant tell who had it? Not many. How many "simultaneous" catches are there where they are a 60/40? Theres more of them but still not that many that it would be an everygame thing. I can honestly say that on any given sunday, that i would not expect to see a dual possesion play during the game I was watching. I would say there would be a pretty good possibility of offsetting penalties though...which just results in a redo, so its fair to both sides.
I do see, though, how the incomplete would be seen as the "middle ground" i guess. not awarding the catch, or the turnover. But it would still undeniably be a positive for the defense, choice 1b if you will. Depending upon the situation would heighten the signifigance of "oh well, it was just and incomplete, back to work" or " Game/Drive over" which would really need to be avoided as well. Al im gettin at is, id rather the plays decide the game not the refs. Its one thing when they make a bad call on accident and it decides the game, thats unavoidable. These grey rule situations however, are because thats how the rule is written and is avoidable.
It's a tough call, but the way I see it, the receiver didn't actually complete the pass. He partially completed it, therefor incomplete pass would be an accurate ruling. Dual possession is always a good defensive play, so they should get the slight benefit of the call. I think that's more than fair. I agree, the less factor the refs are, the better. When the choice is Interception orTouchdown, and 2 refs are making 2 different signals, we have a problem. Maybe a better solution is to have a completely separate set of rules for hail mary situations, because they can get chaotic.
A play like that is closer to the requirments of a catch though.... the ball never touches the ground. This type of play , however , 100% does not meet the requirments for an incomplete pass....the ball never touches the ground.
I agree that one of the sides should get a catch. if the rule is tie goes to the offense, so be it. but you said they should replay the down. why should it be a loss of down? if that is the case, the defense or the offense benefits solely for the other's penalty because the one side loses the result of the play but the other receives no punishment for their own penalty. do you really need these examples spelled out for you: a defensive offsides and offensive holding occur on a play that the offense scores a TD on. the offense loses the TD and the down of play, but the defense gets off the hook for the TD they give up. how does that punish the defense for their own penalty? they benefit from it and only the offense is punished. vice versa, same penalties, but the offense throws an INT for a TD, but the dual penalties simply result in a loss of down. in this case the defense loses the TD scored, but the offense is let off the hook for giving up the TD with no comparable repercussion for their own penalty. or even a more bland example. same penalties, but a simple incompletion. the offense loses a down, which they would have anyways, so they receive no negative repercussion for their own penalty. but the defense also receives no benefit for the offense's penalty as well as no punishment for their own penalty, which may have been a determining factor in the incompletion. heck, the holding could have been a result of the offisides, and thus again one side, the defense, benefits from the penalty because they instigated the hold, but receives not punishment because they wiped out one of the downs for the offense. how does that make sense to you? that is why the penalties offset and the play is replayed, because it the penalties wipe out the results for both sides. absolutely not. you don't replay a down just because the officials cannot determine with absolute certainty the outcome of the play. that is what you are clamoring for. the officials have to make a call; it is either a reception, interception or incomplete pass. they do not call simultaneous catch. the rules for simultaneous catch simply guide the call of a reception or INT. there is nothing about the examples I stated that are exaggerations -- they occur in every game. your argument was that in a situation where the official cannot determine a reception or INT with absolute certainty (which is all a simultaneous catch is) the play should be replayed. so, for that to be a logical argument you have to be able to apply that reasoning to all plays, not just one specific play of uncertainty. why should simultaneous possession be the exception but not a reception if the issue is simply an official's ability to make the call with certainty? if the official cannot determine with absolute certainty the player caught it, why should he be given a catch? conversely, why should he be given an incompletion if that can't be known with certainty either? the logical application of your reasoning would be that in any play that it cannot be determined with certainty the outcome of the play, just like who should actually be awarded a catch in a simultaneous possession, you replay the down. that would apply to many instances of catches or fumbles. there is nothing about those situations fitting your own argument's criteria, that makes them an exaggeration. they simply reveal that your argument isn't reasonable because it requires a unique exception that only applies to it.
I never said offsetting penaltys should be a loss of down, I brought it up because the idea of a redo was so outrageous to you. Everything you put down regarding that subject is backs up what I was saying, your right none of those scenarios would make sense to have the rules unfairly benefit one team and not the other...so they replay the down. Im glad you understand. The rules of a simultaneous catch DO NOT guide the decision towards INT or reception. IF a decision of a simultaneous catch is reached, they simply award it to the offense which makes it a loaded decision which is BS.
