Pretty convincing

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

Read through the whole thing before you make an ignorant statement that just repeats the media bias.

These guys make a fair point. I've already come to grips with this play but after somebody pointed this out to me I may have to go through the miserable task of reevaluating my opinion once again.

This site was brought to my attention by Marcus Croskey of Bleacherreport.com.

Originally posted by tomtom232
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/

Read through the whole thing before you make an ignorant statement that just repeats the media bias.

These guys make a fair point. I've already come to grips with this play but after somebody pointed this out to me I may have to go through the mi ...[text shortened]... n once again.

This site was brought to my attention by Marcus Croskey of Bleacherreport.com.

Don't do it! It was a fake TD and cost GB homefield in second round. I don't buy the media bias angle. Me, I have no animus against the Seahawks and have come around even to favor them over Redskins, favored them over 49'ers in week 16 and think they are currently the hottest team in playoffs and should be feared by all in playoffs, altough I also think RGIII certainly is better than Russell Wilson although former ishobbled by injury. Better D shall win. That said, I insist there is no simultaneity when Golden Tate was not the first with both hands on the ball and hence physically impossible to fit remotest definition of "simultaneous"!

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Don't do it! It was a fake TD and cost GB homefield in second round. I don't buy the media bias angle. Me, I have no animus against the Seahawks and have come around even to favor them over Redskins, favored them over 49'ers in week 16 and think they are currently the hottest team in playoffs and should be feared by all in playoffs, altough I also think ...[text shortened]... s on the ball and hence physically impossible to fit remotest definition of "simultaneous"!

You don't need to have two hands on the ball to make a catch. This is why I asked you to read the whole thing first. They bring about the good point that Tate must have had a pretty good grip on it or else the other guy should have been able to easily rip it away, and they show that he also had his hand on the ball before jennings touches it and maintains a hand on the ball throughout the process and gains "possession" before jennings when he gets both feet on the ground first but this isn't about simultaneous possession it is about a simultaneous CATCH. If you take jennings out of the picture tate caught it, if you take tate out of the picture jennings caught it, thus simultaneous. Maybe it can be proven that it wasn't, somehow, but not under the hood by a ref in a game where touchdown was the original call.

According to the rules of the NFL this was not a bad call, I'm not going to sit here and try to prove that it was absolutely the correct call but it is a call where you have to go with the on field ruling as there is not enough evidence to turn it over. Hence, why the NFL backed the decision of the refs.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You don't need to have two hands on the ball to make a catch. This is why I asked you to read the whole thing first. They bring about the good point that Tate must have had a pretty good grip on it or else the other guy should have been able to easily rip it away, and they show that he also had his hand on the ball before jennings touches it and mai ...[text shortened]... s not enough evidence to turn it over. Hence, why the NFL backed the decision of the refs.

Look at the play in real time and you can obviously tell it was a GB interception. It's like you are arguing that those incompetent replacement refs got this one right. This was the call that was so egregious, it ended the reign of te replacement refs. If the NFL really agreed with this call, it would have continued the lockout. Don't be naive. A bad call is a bad call.

Originally posted by usmc7257
Look at the play in real time and you can obviously tell it was a GB interception. It's like you are arguing that those incompetent replacement refs got this one right. This was the call that was so egregious, it ended the reign of te replacement refs. If the NFL really agreed with this call, it would have continued the lockout. Don't be naive. A bad call is a bad call.

No, I can't tell as much. What is being argued is semantics but the rules of the NFL are clear. The reason why the deal was made was because it was the replacements that made the call... My contention is that it is likely the regulars make the same call. The only reason it is "egregious" is that it is a clear reason why the rule for this needs to be looked at closer and, yes, it should have been an INT but that doesn't mean a ref who is expected to know the rules of the NFL should automatically call it as such because there is no adendum to the rule that states it is an INT if the defender has both handa on it, pins it to his chest while the reciever only secures it with one hand. Stop being biased and actually read the article instead of blindly agreeing with the talking heads.

The main problem with this is that people see the play and see jennings get "more" of the ball but this site clearly shows that Tate got a hand on it first.

Its not being naive, its looking at the facts and trying to be objective. I obviously have bias but I came around on this and called it an INT but it is clearly not so clear cut.

A catch means you have to gain control of the ball before it hits the ground, gain possession of the ball by having both feet in bounds and maintain possession long enough to make a football move. This was clearly achieved by both tate and jennings during the same proccess.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You don't need to have two hands on the ball to make a catch. This is why I asked you to read the whole thing first. They bring about the good point that Tate must have had a pretty good grip on it or else the other guy should have been able to easily rip it away, and they show that he also had his hand on the ball before jennings touches it and mai ...[text shortened]... s not enough evidence to turn it over. Hence, why the NFL backed the decision of the refs.

You're smoking crack.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You're smoking crack.

You didn't read it either.

Which part of the rules for a catch did Tate fail to accomplish? Which part of the rules made this instance not a simultaneous catch?

You can be an idiot all you want and accuse somebody you have never met of smoking crack when you are the one who has done no research and just blindly believe what the media spoon feeds you.

Originally posted by tomtom232
You didn't read it either.

Which part of the rules for a catch did Tate fail to accomplish? Which part of the rules made this instance not a simultaneous catch?

You can be an idiot all you want and accuse somebody you have never met of smoking crack when you are the one who has done no research and just blindly believe what the media spoon feeds you.

Frame 2 shows Jennings with both hands on the ball. He's already caught it (he clearly outjumps Tate) and never loses control until, perhaps, after he is on the ground. Case closed. Even IF (and it's a big IF) Tate's left hand touched the ball first, the rules don't say anything about touching the ball; it says control of the ball. Jennings has both hands on the ball and clearly controls it first. Thus, there is no simultaneous catch.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Frame 2 shows Jennings with both hands on the ball. He's already caught it (he clearly outjumps Tate) and never loses control until, perhaps, after he is on the ground. Case closed. Even IF (and it's a big IF) Tate's left hand [b]touched the ball first, the rules don't say anything about touching the ball; it says control of the ball. J ...[text shortened]... ands on the ball and clearly controls it first. Thus, there is no simultaneous catch.[/b]

If your hand is on the ball and the ball is controlled then how do you not have control? In one of the pictures on the site I reference it shows tates forearm and hand firmly grasping the ball.

Players have ran out of bounds with the ball pinned to their helmet without ever touching it with their second hand. Some players catch and tuck with one hand and never touch it with their second hand. If these fulfill the definition of a catch then surely so does Tate because if he was only "touching" the ball throughout the proccess then when jennings tried to rip it away it would have been easy.

That's my beef, people are assuming tate didn't have control with the one hand when it isn't so clear. What I am saying is its a possibility he didn't have control with that hand but there is no evidence of that anywhere. The only evidence points to him having control with his one hand while jenning initially gets controll with two hands(I say initially because there is another shot showing that both only have one hand on it and one point.)

At least you read it and put together an argument. Thank you.

Edit: Say you're out playing jackpot right(with NFL rules for a catch... Forgrt about simultaneous catch)? Who caught the ball? Its going to be a big vicious argument on the playground if anybody claimed that either one didn't catch it.

You guys need to play a real game!

YouTube

😛

-m. 😀

Originally posted by mikelom
You guys need to play a real game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXE54aAdXbU

😛

-m. 😀

Ha,

Originally posted by tomtom232
If your hand is on the ball and the ball is controlled then how do you not have control? In one of the pictures on the site I reference it shows tates forearm and hand firmly grasping the ball.

Players have ran out of bounds with the ball pinned to their helmet without ever touching it with their second hand. Some players catch and tuck with one hand a g vicious argument on the playground if anybody claimed that either one didn't catch it.

I see no indication that Tate controlled the ball with one hand. Yes, you can but he didn't. Players touch the ball with one hand a lot but don't control it. That's what happened here even if Tate touched it first (which is far from clear from the frames shown).

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see no indication that Tate controlled the ball with one hand. Yes, you can but he didn't. Players touch the ball with one hand a lot but don't control it. That's what happened here even if Tate touched it first (which is far from clear from the frames shown).

I see no indication that he didn't control it. The only indication is that he had a firm grip on the ball when his feet hit the ground. He, in essense, pins the ball to Jennings hand.

The call on the feild was TD and there is no clear proof that tate did not control the ball so how could it be over turned? Keep in mind the site I reference is a well respected research site and there are links throughout the page that present even more perspetive from other researchers.

It wasn't as horrible a call as everyone makes it out to be and it wasn't any worse than any other call in the game, including the phantom pass interference that allowed GB to score their TD. It just happen to go against the NFL poster child Packers.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I see no indication that he didn't control it. The only indication is that he had a firm grip on the ball when his feet hit the ground. He, in essense, pins the ball to Jennings hand.

The call on the feild was TD and there is no clear proof that tate did not control the ball so how could it be over turned? Keep in mind the site I reference is a well res that allowed GB to score their TD. It just happen to go against the NFL poster child Packers.

I disagree. There is clear evidence that Jennings controls the ball first as there is no evidence that Tate ever controlled it with just his left hand. Thus, by rule, it is an INT.

Your repeated claim that penalties on the last Packer drive "gave" Green Bay a TD is BS. There was one penalty and it was clear interference. Moreover, it happened around midfield. In fact, the Packers had a TD reversed (though that looked like a good call).

Originally posted by no1marauder
I disagree. There is clear evidence that Jennings controls the ball first as there is no evidence that Tate ever controlled it with just his left hand. Thus, by rule, it is an INT.

Your repeated claim that penalties on the last Packer drive "gave" Green Bay a TD is BS. There was one penalty and it was clear interference. Moreover, it happ ...[text shortened]... around midfield. In fact, the Packers had a TD reversed (though that looked like a good call).

There is "no" evidence that tate "ever" controlled it with one hand? Then why couldn't jennings take the ball from him?

Second, it was clearly noy PI and everyone knows it. The other horrible call was reversing the call on third and inches with no clear evidence and no measurement afterwards that would have held them to a field goal.