"tie goes to the offence"

[bowery4]

Did you know this rule? I honestly never saw/heard of it before. I would think it makes more sense if it was, tie is incomplete. I am not saying it because it was our team either.

[/dev/null]

That rule has been around a long time.

[DreReed83]

Did you know this rule? I honestly never saw/heard of it before. I would think it makes more sense if it was, tie is incomplete. I am not saying it because it was our team either.

 

dude. this rules been around for eternity. get over it.

Edited December 6, 2010 by DreReed83

[BuffaloBillsForever]

Jerry, in yesterday's Cardinals-Seahawks game, a controversial play occurred when receiver Larry Fitzgerald and linebacker Julian Peterson each grabbed a pass at the same time. When Fitzgerald's knee hit the ground, both players appeared to have possession of the ball. Peterson wrestled the ball away from Fitzgerald about a second later and possession was awarded to the Seahawks. Does the rulebook say that in this situation, a tie goes to the receiver, or is this strictly an official's judgment as to who gets possession? --Dan Agnell, Sumerduck, Va.

 

I'd like to quote the rule for you regarding "Simultaneous Catch." "If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opposing players who both retain possession, the ball belongs to the passing team. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and retains control, regardless of subsequent joined control of an opponent. 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."

 

http://www.chicagotr...t,0,67115.story

 

 

The bold portion is what occurred today's game.

Edited December 6, 2010 by BuffaloBillsForever

[Doc]

"Tie goes to the offense" applies in baseball as well, as in if a runner hits the bag the same time as the throw get there, the runner is safe. In basketball and hockey, you can face-off/jump ball, but you can't exactly do that in football or baseball.

[Offside Number 76]

Not only has the rule been around forever, but what would you want it to be? It's the only thing that makes sense. Options: (1) ball goes to defense--no, that's not what the NFL is about; (2) incomplete--that's just stupid (it was DOUBLY complete); (3) come up with another alternative, but I just don't see one.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Offsides Number 76

[bowery4]

God, people are moody after a loss I know it has been around for ages thanks. I just never saw it before in a game and I watch a fair amount of football. I think it makes more sense that it is incomplete because neither has full possession of the ball, if the other guy has it too. That make more sense to me.

[Offside Number 76]

God, people are moody after a loss I know it has been around for ages thanks. I just never saw it before in a game and I watch a fair amount of football. I think it makes more sense that it is incomplete because neither has full possession of the ball, if the other guy has it too. That make more sense to me.

 

Nah, it's complete. It's too complete. The rule might have worked against our guys today, but there's no good alternative, as far as I can tell.

[Fixxxer]

Not only has the rule been around forever, but what would you want it to be? It's the only thing that makes sense. Options: (1) ball goes to defense--no, that's not what the NFL is about; (2) incomplete--that's just stupid (it was DOUBLY complete); (3) come up with another alternative, but I just don't see one.

 

Replay of down, inconclusive posession. This should be the rule, the current one is unjust to the defender.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Its got to go to someone. Cant just do a jump ball like the NBA.

[Mark Vader]

Did you know this rule? I honestly never saw/heard of it before. I would think it makes more sense if it was, tie is incomplete. I am not saying it because it was our team either.

The rule is correct. It's just that you do'nt see it called a lot. Let's face it everbody, how many times do two players catch the same pass?

 

The answer: Rarely. So the call is correct.

 

What you can complain about is the non-call by the refs of Offensive Pass Interference on the part of the Vikings receiver on that play, and I am not being a homer on that call. We all saw it, but the fugging refs could'nt see a damn thing today!

[skibum]

Replay of down, inconclusive posession. This should be the rule, the current one is unjust to the defender. Bills.

 

 

Fixed.

[Fixxxer]

Fixed.

 

I'm not complaining because it happened to us. The rule says it goes to the offense and the refs called it right. My post was about what I think the rule should be.

[bowery4]

I'm not complaining because it happened to us. The rule says it goes to the offense and the refs called it right. My post was about what I think the rule should be.

 

Same here, even if it did cost us 7 and flip the momentum of the game at that point.

[NaPolian8693]

I think the rule is good the way that it is.

 

The passing team is the team that has possession. Since they already have possession, the onus is on the defending team to clearly take possession away from the offense.

 

Also, more offensive production in general is always a good thing.

[fansince88]

Did you know this rule? I honestly never saw/heard of it before. I would think it makes more sense if it was, tie is incomplete. I am not saying it because it was our team either.

More importantly where was the flag for Off Pass Int. That is the real question.

[richNjoisy]

More importantly where was the flag for Off Pass Int. That is the real question.

 

what particularly upset me was the OVERRULE of the on-the-field call plus the decision that "possession" occurred at the first instant when the ball was caught (inbounds) rather tha when the two players landed (out of bounds) and THEN why was it ruled a TD instead of 1st down Vikings at the 1?

 

I also agree it was offensive Pass interference.

[Mr. WEO]

The list of well-established rules just discovered (to their dosmay) by some Bills fans grows......

[CodeMonkey]

God, people are moody after a loss I know it has been around for ages thanks. I just never saw it before in a game and I watch a fair amount of football. I think it makes more sense that it is incomplete because neither has full possession of the ball, if the other guy has it too. That make more sense to me.

The rule was actually implemented yesterday as part of the ongoing plot against the Bills!!!

 

OK, back to reality. I think the rule reads this way for the same reason in baseball its "tie goes to the runner". Offense is more exciting to watch than defense. You see it rarely in baseball. Almost never in football.

[zow2]

what particularly upset me was the OVERRULE of the on-the-field call plus the decision that "possession" occurred at the first instant when the ball was caught (inbounds) rather tha when the two players landed (out of bounds) and THEN why was it ruled a TD instead of 1st down Vikings at the 1?

 

I also agree it was offensive Pass interference.

 

I totally did not understand the outcome of this play? I do get that a "tie" in possession goes to the offense..fine. But the guys shoulder pads landed out of bounds? I thought on a reception, the receiver has to land with some part of his body in-bounds first? Seemed like a gift to Minnesota to award them a TD on that one.

We've seen some weird crap happen to the Bills this year. Like Reggie Corner's non-interception vs. Baltimore b/c his foot was on Boldin's foot when they landed. Then the very next week in a random NFL game, I watched the same play get awarded as an interception. Just weird man.