Goodell just compared the Packers call to the tuck rule

[Joker]

It's OK, PWP...people hurled personal epithets, curses and threats at the people on Wall Street that questioned the business practices of Bernie Madoff....

"several whistle-blowers filed complaints and suspicions about Bernard Madoff with federal securities regulators years before the disgraced financier's December arrest for allegedly running a massive Ponzi scheme, newly released federal records show.



The complaints appear to show that Massachusetts financial investigator Harry Markopolos, who recently told Congress about his unsuccessful nine-year crusade seeking SEC action against Madoff, wasn't the only one who relayed warning signs."

They desperately want people like me to be silenced, as the steady stream of insults to my character go on unabated here...just as they have for years. I question the integrity of Roger Goodell, THEY personally attack me every time...the same group of strident Goodell apologists. That's fine, the truth always comes out in the end. No amount of personal insults and vicious cyber attacks are going to deter me from questioning the reign of Roger Goodell....after all, squelching dissent is the first step in the genesis of totalitarianism...last time I checked , this was the U.S.A.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's one of those things that gets repeated so often that it is accepted as fact. That call always makes the obligatory 'ten worst calls' in sports history whenever a ref/umpire blows a call. Nobody in the media wants to stand up and say 'actually the ref made the right call', because the agenda for those type of lists is to rile up fans who feel their team got jobbed.

Bad rule, right call.

But that message is not going to attract viewers/readers/listeners - the agenda when those lists are compiled is to show how bad refs have screwed up, and spark debate over which call was the worst. Ratings trump honest analysis every time.



I haven't heard what Goodell said yet, so it's difficult for me to comment on that part of it. Was he saying that Walt Coleman blew the call against Oakland? Or was he saying that both were perhaps poorly worded rules, and the refs in both cases actually made the right call - even though in both examples that doesn't appear to be the case when you see the replay?

Exactly, not sure why so many people have a problem distinguishing between the two.

Alll of these complaints about the Tuck Rule will hold more water if/when someone (anyone) actually tries to get it removed from the rulebook. People have been *****ing about it for a decade, but it's still in there. If it's so terrible, and Goodell even agrees, then why isn't anyone bringing it up as a potential rule change?

 

[Wolfpack]

lets face it, goodell is an idiot and we have four of the worst commissioners in the history of each sport.

Why do you say that? The NFL has never been this popular and Goodell is doing exactly what his employers - the owners - have told him to do. He's even smart enough to figure out how to get people like you to blame him instead of putting the blame where it really belongs, on the owners.

 

[Yehoodi]

You can achieve control of the ball with a one-handed catch, sure.

Do you have control of the ball, though, when you have a hand on top of the ball, while another person has both hands on it, holding it to their body?

No. It's not really that complicated.

Jefferson had control, the ball didn't move, his butt hit the ground, and the ball still didn't move. PLAY OVER! Then Tate gots a little bigger piece of the ball as they are rolling on the ground. Too little, too late to matter (or it should have been).

Both players can have control of the ball . . . and why a subsequent catch is called a simultaneous catch . . . this is nothing in the rule book that deals with "superior" control on the ball and if the same removes/disqualifies the control of an opposing playing . . . if each players has control of the ball that is all that is needed . . .

put it a different way, would tate had catch the ball at the apex of the jump, sure he would have . . . its not like Tate was flat footer looking up at the ball which was grabbed by Jennings then Jennings came down on top of Tate and then Tate reached in and grabbed the ball (which would not be a simultaneous catch as you would have subsequent control by Tate . . . if you photoshopped out Jennings you would see Tate with his hand on the ball and reeling in the ball as he falls to the ground, which translates to control and subswquent catch . . .

As the play happened Tate had his hand on the ball at the apex of teh jump and thus control, the fact that he did not have two hands on the ball, or fewer hands than the opponent does not divest him of control of the ball . . .

I think people are confusing what they think as "better" control of the ball as being dispositive on the issue of simultaneous catch . . . which it is not and you will not find such a theory in the NFL rules . . . the only issue does the player have control on the ball regardless of what his opponent is doing . . .and in this case Tate does . . . plain and simple . . .
l

 

[mojocaster.com]

Why do we do this to ourselves? We all know Goodell is a piece of crap. We all know that he's good for bonehead move after ridiculous statement.

Let's not inflict this on ourselves anymore. The guy's a jacksass. Let's move on

 

[marian]

My point here is that simultaneous catch in the end zone is a bit different story. The rule should be changed IMHO because as a receiver you just need to put your both hands on the ball before defender puts his both feet on the ground and that's it. What happens after, all the shots of Jennings laying on the ground with the ball - that's irrelevant.
I can understand why he has compared it to the tuck rule, because both rules are not fair.

 

[Yehoodi]

My point here is that simultaneous catch in the end zone is a bit different story. The rule should be changed IMHO because as a receiver you just need to put your both hands on the ball before defender puts his both feet on the ground and that's it. What happens after, all the shots of Jennings laying on the ground with the ball - that's irrelevant.
I can understand why he has compared it to the tuck rule, because both rules are not fair.

there are NO shots of Jennings lying on the ground with the ball . . . the only shot of Jennings with the ball is a full two+ seconds after the play was dead and called a TD . . . what people seemed to forget and dont want to see, is that the two players fought for the ball for a full three seconds and near the first second it was called a TD . . . the fact that jennings had the ball two seconds after the TD had been called is no more relevant then a player coming out of scrum with the ball two seconds after the officials gave possession to the other team . . . looks nice on TV but is complete irrelevant with respect to the play on the field . . .