Goodell just compared the Packers call to the tuck rule

[Yehoodi]

During his press conference, problem is one was a legit call on an actual rule and one was a blown call made by his gang of Division III incompetents and Lingerie League rejects. Does he even know the rules of the game he is commissioner of? He is such douchebag. I can't stand him.

I did not hear the presser by the Goodell regarding the his comparsing between the tuck rule and this most recent call . . . but I imagine that he is referring to the reaction by fans to a call which the fans think was wrong but was actually correct and inability for fans to comprehend the aspect of it . . . fans are just too blind, narrow minded, or simply have an agenda, but still even today fans can't see to grasp the fact that the call was correct under the rules . . . simple put they both had possession of the ball, both had control of the ball at the apex of the rise (and hence no real transfer of control) and when they landed their hands and arms were interlocked with each other and around the ball . . . that is what is called a simultaneous catch . . . but fans across the nation can't seem to grasp this concept, which is a mysterty to me . . .

so bottom line, in both cases, you have the following:

1) A call that was late enough in the game that made a direct impact on the result
2) A call that was made correct with respect to rules (but might seem unfair with what the fans saw on the field)
3) A rule that fans can not seem to grasp and refuse to apply
4) Fans refusing to open their eyes to follow the rule
5) Fans feeling like they got robbed
6) the winning team saying the rule was applied correctly
7) National media attention
8) Something that we will hear about for the rest of our lives . . .

ya, I think Goodell's analogy between the tuck rule and the most recent call is pretty spot on . . . .

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Actually, the simultaneous catch rule refers to initial control, as distinct from possession. You can have control before you have possession. (To have possession you have to have control plus other things). For there to be a simultaneous catch both players have to establish initial control of the ball simultaneously.

The rulebook even has a specific example ruling saying that if player A controls the ball and then player B establishes joint control and then they hit the ground both holding the ball, that is not a simultaneous catch and it is player A's ball, even if A is the defender.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Good article on Goodell's untruthfulness and arrogance.

Roger Goodell: 'That's the beauty of sports' - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

During a conference call to discuss the league's labor agreement with its regular officials, Goodell offered measured sympathy for the mistakes that contributed to the Packers' defeat. He classified them in the broader sense of the league's history of officiating blunders. (This is where he directly mentioned the tuck rule)

That isn't what he said. The term he used was controversies.

"You obviously have a very strong view about what you think the call was," he told the reporter. "… That's the beauty of sports and the beauty of officiating. There are controversial calls and people see them differently. I understand that. That's the beauty of sports."

It's only beautiful, I suppose, if you're not the Packers. Asked directly about the impact the play could have on the Packers' playoff hopes, Goodell said: "I understand the frustration."

He then lumped the outrage into what the league office hears after any controversial finish.

"We get that unfortunately on a regular basis throughout any season when there are controversial calls," Goodell said, "particularly [given] the importance of each game. … I understand that after 32 years [in the NFL]. It's particularly sensitive obviously because of the replacement officials. We get that and we understand that. … We want to do everything to make sure that the officiating going forward will avoid mistakes. But it's not practical. Officiating is imperfect. We're going to have mistakes. Whether it's replacement official or [not], it's going to happen.

"It's just part of sports."

 

[robbomango]

Neither of them had possession untill they came down to the ground they were still catching and bringing it in. Tate had (2) hands on the ball, just because you can only see his right arm doesn't mean his left arm disapeared unless you think jennings is so weak he couldnt wrestle out from tates one arm on the ball. It doesn't matter if he caught it in his but cheeks it's still is considered possession they both came down from the air with their hands on that ball.

If it was the wrong call they would of said it, they didn't because it wasn't. No matter how much these media pundants huff and puff about this controversial call it doesn't change the fact that they are all dead wrong. It was the right call... it shouldn't of matter though because the offensive PI should of ended the game right then and there.

It was the wrong call Rodger!

NFL’s rulebook, casebook confirm call was incorrect | ProFootballTalk

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Much to the chagrin of the commissioner haters, most of whoms hate is grounded in one ruling that went against their team, Florio nails it on this. Goodell is the league enforcer and he absorbs all the slings and arrows that would otherwise be aimed at one or more of his 32 franchise/league owners whose bidding he is doing while at the same time balancing their competing egos.

Owners skirt blame for officials debacle | ProFootballTalk

 

[Yehoodi]

Actually, the simultaneous catch rule refers to initial control, as distinct from possession. You can have control before you have possession. (To have possession you have to have control plus other things). For there to be a simultaneous catch both players have to establish initial control of the ball simultaneously.

The rulebook even has a specific example ruling saying that if player A controls the ball and then player B establishes joint control and then they hit the ground both holding the ball, that is not a simultaneous catch and it is player A's ball, even if A is the defender.

yes but they both had their hands on the ball at the apex of the jump, the defender with two hands and Tate with one hand so each had control over the ball . . . there is nothing is the rule book distingusihing between better control, control is control plain and simple

we all know that you can have control of the ball with one hand . . . we have seen many times plays going out of bounds catching the ball with just one hand (and staying that way like Moss did with Revis in '10) or the player grabbing it with one hand then craddled it with the second hand as he falls out of bounds . . .his control of the ball is initialed with the first single hand . . . so the control issue is therefore satisfied, the players had control of the ball as essentially the same time (you never see exactly with 1/1000th of second equal control). . . and as they fell tate brought in his second hand on to the ball and they locked hands and arms around the ball as they landed . . . is simultaneous catch 101 . . .

bottom line the other way to look at it, is Tate would have easily caught the ball had the defender not been there . . . its not like tate was standing on the ground the and defender landed on top of him with a secured ball and then tate grabbed the ball. In another words, it was not the defender that brought the ball to tate who would otherwise not caught the ball had the defender not presented it to him . . . to the contrary Tate did not need any help from the defender to gain control of the ball and did so at the apex of his jump . . .

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

There were 3 1/2 inexcusable, game-changing calls on that last drive alone. Of those, the question of simultaneous possession was the least atrocious, since in real-time it was not an open-and-shut case.

1. 1st and 10 deep in Seahawks on territory. Wilson tried to force the ball to the TE; ball is tipped and INT'd by Green Bay. Roughing the Passer against the Packers. A sure victory reversed. The call was not entirely egregious but pretty close. I can assure you one thing: had the game been in GB, no way that is called. On this I'll give a 1/2 bad call.

2. 1st and 25 close to midfield. Easily the worst call of the night, much worse than the McCourty holding. Rice runs down the left sideline for a floating ball, covered like a blanked by Shields, who has inside position. Shields, with perfect technique, turns to intercept the ball. Rice literally tackles Shields to the ground. Call: DEFENSIVE pass interference against Shields. A no-call would have been horrendous. A call against Shields is beyond description for its injustice.

3. The push-off. Tate pushed Shields to the ground. How could you possibly miss that? I don't care if an analyst said those aren't called very often because they are rarely as blantant and obvious as that. You could plainly see it in real-time, and the ref is standing right there. Second worst (no) call.

4. Simultaneous possession. It wasn't so much a terrible call, it was more about the tremendous gaffe in failing to review the play, which should have led to an overturned victory and Packers victory. Those plays ARE reviewable if they happen in the endzone, per the NFL rule book (PFT had a good article on this.) The call itself could have been missed even by the best ref, as we are talking about split seconds and a lot players in the same area. But the call was ulimately wrong by the rulebook.

Tuck Rule- one call was made correctly, although counter-intuitive to our eyes. Happened to us earlier in the year as well when we sacked Vinny Testaverde.

Don't see much of a comparison.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Much to the chagrin of the commissioner haters, most of whoms hate is grounded in one ruling that went against their team, Florio nails it on this. Goodell is the league enforcer and he absorbs all the slings and arrows that would otherwise be aimed at one or more of his 32 franchise/league owners whose bidding he is doing while at the same time balancing their competing egos.

Owners skirt blame for officials debacle | ProFootballTalk

Why do you feel the need to defend him at all costs? Why do label anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a Goodell hater?

He has brought unnecessary negative attention to the league far too many times. His judgement deserves to be questioned. He deserves to be called out on his arrogance.

And he should not be lumping in a correctly called rule with that botched mess of a call Monday night, whether they were both controversial or not.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

we all know that you can have control of the ball with one hand . . . we have seen many times plays going out of bounds catching the ball with just one hand (and staying that way like Moss did with Revis in '10) or the player grabbing it with one hand then craddled it with the second hand as he falls out of bounds . . .his control of the ball is initialed with the first single hand . . .

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).

 

[PatsDeb]

F Goodell. On to the Bills. He did what he should have done before the start of the season three weeks too late and now he's trying to put the blame elsewhere and shift the focus to his favorite villain. What else is new? I only hope that we get a good bunch of refs, they make the right calls, the Pats play well and WIN convincingly. Go Pats!!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Why do you feel the need to defend him at all costs? Why do label anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a Goodell hater?

He has brought unnecessary negative attention to the league far too many times. His judgement deserves to be questioned. He deserves to be called out on his arrogance.

And he should not be lumping in a correctly called rule with that botched mess of a call Monday night, whether they were both controversial or not.

Because I can seperate butt hurt driven hatred from reality. Arrogance is a trait he shares with many of his detractors. And he was talking about controversial calls, and the Tuck Rule call was certainly that. Even Brady thought it was a fumble and many Pats fans insist it was as well although they'll take it. Personally I called it on the spot and was thrilled to see the rule impact us positively for a change. It's not a rule I would have written, although once someone did I won't quibble when it is enforced correctly. There are lots of rules I disagree with, but no one cares what I think. More fans need to grasp that level of reality.

 

[Fencer]

Some thoughts:

• At least, the rule observation makes the call less bad. All that matters is possession at the time the bodies start hitting the ground.
• Some think that the Pats winning the tuck rule review was in part a make up for an unreviewable missed penalty call. It's not front-of-mind; I can't even recall the penalty for sure (roughing the passer by hitting Brady's head?). But in any case, basic fairness should have led to GB winning the review if at all possible.
• It was indeed possible. Seattle's possession was very questionable.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Because I can seperate butt hurt driven hatred from reality. Arrogance is a trait he shares with many of his detractors. And he was talking about controversial calls, and the Tuck Rule call was certainly that. Even Brady thought it was a fumble and many Pats fans insist it was as well although they'll take it. Personally I called it on the spot and was thrilled to see the rule impact us positively for a change. It's not a rule I would have written, although once someone did I won't quibble when it is enforced correctly. There are lots of rules I disagree with, but no one cares what I think. More fans need to grasp that level of reality.

Goodell calls it the "beauty of sports". I call it blown calls and buffoonery from a group of incompetent 5th level replacements. How can he be that out of touch? The beauty of sports is about it being decided on the field, not by refs and certainly not these clowns.

Goodell says "But it's not practical. Officiating is imperfect. We're going to have mistakes. Whether it's replacement official or [not], it's going to happen." He then alludes to the Tuck Rule like it was some kind of mistake - it wasn't, it was the correct call of an actual rule - whether it was unpopular or controversial doesn't matter, the fact that it was called correctly does. He then tries to lump in it with a clearly botched call from his HS refs. That's a huge difference. He's either stupid, a liar or incompetent. I vote for all three.

Roger Goodell: 'That's the beauty of sports' - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

They were both the right call, there is a reason when the NFL released its letter it did not say it was not a simultaneous catch. It said the play should of been reversed because they missed a pass interference penalty. Just like I stated when this happened before the media and fans got all riled up for blood. It was a simultaneous catch by both players. You can have possession of a ball around someones back or holding it on your helmet it doesnt matter, all that matters is both players came down from the air with possession of that ball in their hands.

Is it unfair? No not really I've seen just as iffy simultaneous catch calls numerous times, they just never ended a game. The media and fans were out looking for blood waiting on any little discrepency to jump down on the new refs.

And I'm no fan of the new refs, they are slow and have a bad understanding of the rules but what most people have been criticising has been there with the old refs. It's just that it was more taboo to come out and say it 500 times on a broadcast.

Go watch the seattle vs pittsburg superbowl game and tell me how much better those refs were? Where was the outrage then?

Anyways back to the point, the call was correct just as the tuck rule was.. it just wasn't popular

I just think it is an honor Mr. infamous Ref Wayne Elliott that you stopped by Patsfans after you called the GB INT a TD.

I would have thought you would be in some type of witness protection program by now.

How's the Real Estate business going?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I keep hearing from people saying that we will be upset when the real refs blow calls too.

Yes, that's true. But blowing 2-3 calls per game vs. blowing 15-20 calls per game is a huge difference.

Also, blowing calls was to me anyway not even the main problem with the replacement refs that was making games unwatchable. The replacement officials simply could not administer the game, meaning:
1) they often did not know the rules
2) they often did not communicate the calls to coaches, players, fans, or anybody
3) they often did not even spot the ball correctly-- uummm knowing down and distance is not a "nice to have" option!
4) they did not keep random skirmishes from breaking out all over the field 10X a game due to missed cheap shots
5) they could not keep the game moving, with all of the random extended moments of indecision

To me, the season starts now.

 

[Claremonster]

They were both the right call, there is a reason when the NFL released its letter it did not say it was not a simultaneous catch. It said the play should of been reversed because they missed a pass interference penalty. Just like I stated when this happened before the media and fans got all riled up for blood. It was a simultaneous catch by both players. You can have possession of a ball around someones back or holding it on your helmet it doesnt matter, all that matters is both players came down from the air with possession of that ball in their hands.

Is it unfair? No not really I've seen just as iffy simultaneous catch calls numerous times, they just never ended a game. The media and fans were out looking for blood waiting on any little discrepency to jump down on the new refs.

And I'm no fan of the new refs, they are slow and have a bad understanding of the rules but what most people have been criticising has been there with the old refs. It's just that it was more taboo to come out and say it 500 times on a broadcast.

Go watch the seattle vs pittsburg superbowl game and tell me how much better those refs were? Where was the outrage then?

Anyways back to the point, the call was correct just as the tuck rule was.. it just wasn't popular

Nope. The tuck rule was the right call. The Pats and the Packers lost their games because of the wrong calls though.

 

[patrickscribe]

Wasn't the Bruschi play just a fumble and recovery?

watching the replay, I'd guess that if Rhodes had caught it in the end zone, it's a touchdown. Rhodes has possession, then Bruschi dislodges the ball with his initial hit, then they wrestle over it as they go to the ground.

On the first view, it looks like Bruschi stops Rhodes with the ball and wrestles it loose. I would think that since forward progress was stopped, he can't really yank it free...except the last view of it on the YouTube clip shows it coming loose at first hit, so forward progress doesn't matter.

 

[Jack Handy]

They were both the right call, there is a reason when the NFL released its letter it did not say it was not a simultaneous catch. It said the play should of been reversed because they missed a pass interference penalty. Just like I stated when this happened before the media and fans got all riled up for blood. It was a simultaneous catch by both players. You can have possession of a ball around someones back or holding it on your helmet it doesnt matter, all that matters is both players came down from the air with possession of that ball in their hands.

Is it unfair? No not really I've seen just as iffy simultaneous catch calls numerous times, they just never ended a game. The media and fans were out looking for blood waiting on any little discrepency to jump down on the new refs.

And I'm no fan of the new refs, they are slow and have a bad understanding of the rules but what most people have been criticising has been there with the old refs. It's just that it was more taboo to come out and say it 500 times on a broadcast.

Go watch the seattle vs pittsburg superbowl game and tell me how much better those refs were? Where was the outrage then?

Anyways back to the point, the call was correct just as the tuck rule was.. it just wasn't popular

What game did you watch. This was a blown call not even close to being correct. to say that this is a media produced issue insults everyone that saw the play.

 

[Crononaut]

I've been reluctant to post this at the risk of getting flamed, and at this point I'd say most people's opinions are firmly entrenched on the matter, but there's a really great article arguing why the refs made the correct call here:

Why the Seahawks-Packers finish was not an interception, and why it would have been called the same by any referee crew. « Life In Rewind

I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it is well written and step by step.

The biggest points for the argument are:

- You can clearly see Tate get his left hand on the ball at the same time as Jennings.

- Jennings then pulls the ball towards his chest, wedging Tate's hand in there as well in the process.

- By the time Tate's 2 feet touch the ground, he has both hands on the ball, and Jenning's feet still haven't touched the ground (not that this matters for control, but does establish posession for Tate).

- At no point is it conclusive that Tate did not have control with his left hand throughout the catch. Remember, it's simultaneous if both players establish control at the same time; the degree of control is not a relevant factor according to the rules.

And I think this is where the problem lies. In real time, a proper ref with a proper view would deem that Jennings definitely had control, would be unsure about Tate, and rule it an interception (which I believe should have been the ruling on the field BTW). Reviewing the play would not change the result for the same reason that ruling it a TD didn't: it is inconclusive whether Tate had control with his left hand throughout; we only see him grab the ball at the same time as Jennings.

In real time, the refs didn't have a proper view, and the play was fast and hard to see (even the announcer said "Tate, Jennings, simultaneous"). So while I disagree with the article (I think as a ref you have to rule that as what it looks like, ie interception, and then review), I think the article justifies why the ruling couldn't be overturned.

A very interesting situation to be sure and ultimately I'm glad it was portrayed as such a horrendous call. I'm not confident we'd have the regular refs back otherwise.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I keep hearing from people saying that we will be upset when the real refs blow calls too.

Yes, that's true. But blowing 2-3 calls per game vs. blowing 15-20 calls per game is a huge difference.

Also, blowing calls was to me anyway not even the main problem with the replacement refs that was making games unwatchable. The replacement officials simply could not administer the game, meaning:
1) they often did not know the rules
2) they often did not communicate the calls to coaches, players, fans, or anybody
3) they often did not even spot the ball correctly-- uummm knowing down and distance is not a "nice to have" option!
4) they did not keep random skirmishes from breaking out all over the field 10X a game due to missed cheap shots
5) they could not keep the game moving, with all of the random extended moments of indecision

To me, the season starts now.

All good point but its also the way the gme was played, they were like 5th graders with a substitute teacher seeing what they could get away with, and kept doing it unless it was called. It was not a clean well played football game decided on the field by players.