# NFL Week 3 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 20, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273 "2012-09-20T15:26:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/341 "2012-09-26T02:31:03Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Hamlet > No one is playing the equivalence game or justifying the Seattle victory. There were bad calls both ways. My bad then. When I hear (or read) “there were bad calls both ways”, I assume pointing that out is an attempt to equivalate (is that even a word?) the calls. Sure there were bad calls both ways, but I think the number and actual damage done by those bad calls rested much more heavily against the Packand than the Seahawks. [Quote=Saint Cad] My point is that with so many bad calls and non-calls both ways during the game, it is really unfair to say Seattle should have lost and the Packers should have on on the basis of that one play because in a properly officiated game who knows how it would have turned out. [/QUOTE] We could play that game for every single call for every single game of football. If the refs hadn’t given Rodgers the wrong ball on the 2 point conversion. If the refs hadn’t called that holding in the first quarter. If the refs hadn’t called ticky tack personal fouls. All those things, and hundreds of others that occur in the game, would/could change the ooutcome. Pointing that out is, to me, useless. Yes, the game may have been different. But that doesn’t mean the poor officiating didn’t cost the Packers a win. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/342 "2012-09-26T04:11:54Z")
Question: Will anyone even be discussing this game after week 4? ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/343 "2012-09-26T04:38:57Z")
They will when the playoff picture starts to take shape. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/344 "2012-09-26T04:43:08Z")
I suspect the Packers have little to worry about on that front if they’re going to give up 8 sacks a half to good-but-not-great defenses. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/345 "2012-09-26T06:11:35Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Except at succumb second mark tate’s right hand clearly come of the balk while jennings clearly had possession. Aside from the fact that your keyboard skills were less than optimal for this post, if you go back and read my post that you quoted you will see that I thought Tates right hand was on Jennings arm, not the ball. So I’m not sure why you would respond with “ **except** right hand came off ball”…it seems like you think my post said the opposite of what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/346 "2012-09-26T12:14:43Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > This is great, but is there an NFL definition for what a “catch” is in this scenario? I don’t think there is. Catch may well be equivalent to possession according to the rule book. I don’t know. I’ve only looked at the specific rules for simultaneous catch and possession, but from those it makes no sense at all to think catch =possession. > [@](#): > > 5: Simultaneous Catch. 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. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball. Note that the word ‘possession’ doesn’t appear here. The NFL (intentionally distractingly) posted possession rules in their comment. Possession is pretty clearly defined as making the catch, then controlling it all the way through landing in-bounds, and enough time to make a football move or whatever the language is. So any reasonable reading of this is that a catch happens (or control is established) FIRST, then, after landing,etc. the control becomes formal possession. It’s reasonable by the plain language, and reasonable because intuitively we fell that’s right – if someone catches the ball, comes down, and while they’re rolling over on the ground someone sticks their hand it, we all think it’s pretty clear the first guy caught it and deserves the ball. Of course, the NFL, wanting to cover assess, intentionally made an unreasonable reading of the rule, pretending that the simultaneous catch rule was a simultaneous possession rule, pretty much ignoring the clear second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule. Evidently, they’re happy throwing the on-field referee to the wolves by admitting he blew the OPI call, but they’ll torture the rules to defend the booth review guy. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/347 "2012-09-26T13:11:46Z")
Has anyone heard Mike Pereira weigh in on this? I looked but only found his comments through Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/348 "2012-09-26T13:43:01Z")
No, and he’s a fucking idiot anyway. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/349 "2012-09-26T15:13:46Z")
Ah, well then by all means come back and report what your bitch Schiano thinks about the call if that carries more weight for you than the opinion of the former Vice President of Officiating for the National Football League. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/350 "2012-09-26T15:23:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, and he’s a fucking idiot anyway. This was what I thought when he was an apologist for the league as well. Since he went to work as an analyst, he’s been much more straightforward and (IMHO) credible. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/351 "2012-09-26T15:29:19Z")
That’s my take, plus he had the nuts to call Gruden out, someone who actually is a fucking idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/353 "2012-09-26T15:47:09Z")
> [@bunbunpants](#): > > Doesn’t matter if the refs don’t see it. > > So you’ve supposedly seen more punches thrown in the first three weeks of this season than the last few seasons. > > So fucking what? > > Interesting how you don’t lay any blame for the out of control nature of the current season where it truly belongs, on the players. The players have been in the league for the most part for several years and know what the rules are, but you excuse and absolve them of all responsibility for their actions. > > Nice. > > Classy. > > Extremely moral. You might want to slow your roll a bit there champ. **Oakminster** never even came close to doing what you are pretending to do, absolving the players of all responsibility. In fact, I’m hard pressed to see how you could even conclude that when he actually advocates throwing the players out for throwing punches or even for cheap shots. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/354 "2012-09-26T16:55:49Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > the NFL, wanting to cover assess, intentionally made an unreasonable reading of the rule, pretending that the simultaneous catch rule was a simultaneous possession rule, pretty much ignoring the clear second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule. Right. They have a rule in place that clearly deals with this situation, but to cite it properly would indeed reflect badly on those who did the video review of the play. So they decide that a mumbling, handwaving explanation is the way to go. Classy, as always. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/355 "2012-09-26T16:59:30Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You might want to slow your roll a bit there champ. **Oakminster** never even came close to doing what you are pretending to do, absolving the players of all responsibility. In fact, I’m hard pressed to see how you could even conclude that when he actually advocates throwing the players out for throwing punches or even for cheap shots. Well, he sort of touches on one good point, which is that all this stuff about how the replacements are jeopardizing player safety is bullshit. If the players are hitting illegally because they’re less worried about penalties, (1) they’re assholes, and (2) the league should be fining them more. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/356 "2012-09-26T17:15:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, he sort of touches on one good point, which is that all this stuff about how the replacements are jeopardizing player safety is bullshit. If the players are hitting illegally because they’re less worried about penalties, (1) they’re assholes, and (2) the league should be fining them more. True, but that’s not contradicting anything Oakminster said. If bunbun came in and said: “hey, players are responsible too!”, it wouldn’t have even been an issue. Instead, he came in, misrepresented what Oak said, and was kinda a Schiano. That was my problem with him, not the point that the players should be blamed also. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/357 "2012-09-26T17:48:18Z")
Yeah, I have no idea why I quoted your post. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/358 "2012-09-26T17:49:02Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I’ve only looked at the specific rules for simultaneous catch and possession, but from those it makes no sense at all to think catch =possession. > Note that the word ‘possession’ doesn’t appear here. > > The NFL (intentionally distractingly) posted possession rules in their comment. Possession is pretty clearly defined as making the catch, then controlling it all the way through landing in-bounds, and enough time to make a football move or whatever the language is. > So any reasonable reading of this is that a catch happens (or control is established) FIRST, then, after landing,etc. the control becomes formal possession. It’s reasonable by the plain language, and reasonable because intuitively we fell that’s right – if someone catches the ball, comes down, and while they’re rolling over on the ground someone sticks their hand it, we all think it’s pretty clear the first guy caught it and deserves the ball. > > Of course, the NFL, wanting to cover assess, intentionally made an unreasonable reading of the rule, pretending that the simultaneous catch rule was a simultaneous possession rule, pretty much ignoring the clear second sentence of the simultaneous catch rule. Evidently, they’re happy throwing the on-field referee to the wolves by admitting he blew the OPI call, but they’ll torture the rules to defend the booth review guy. I don’t agree with this assumption at all. The fact that “possession” is not used anywhere in that description implies to me that catch and possession are synonyms and not mutually exclusive. You’re assuming that because it’s not mentioned they are mutually exclusive, not sure why you feel you can make that leap. In the NFLs response they too imply that catch and possession are synonyms and I see no reason to accuse them of linguistic jerrymandering there. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/359 "2012-09-26T17:53:07Z")
Its being reported the lockout is over. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/360 "2012-09-26T17:56:43Z")
Chris Mortenson is reporting a “deal in principle” ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273/361 "2012-09-26T17:57:00Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Its being reported the lockout is over. Latest at [SI.com](http://SI.com) is “not so fast”: [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter\_king/09/26/referees-deal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp\_t11\_a0](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/26/referees-deal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a0) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-3/635273.md?page=19)