There's no such thing as a simultaneous possession. There was no possession. There was no catch. It was a bad call.

1) If they BOTH had possession of the ball going to the ground, then by the DEFINITION of possession NEITHER of them had possession. It's in the NFL's very. defintion. of. the. word.

so what you're saying is, that someone had possession of the ball, and then tate's right hand came around the ball as they went to the ground, because control was established as they were jumping up, pretty much near the peak of the jump. You just admitted that this is not a simultaneous catch. Which was the ruling on…

There is no such thing as simultaneous possession. At least get it right.

someone needs to up the video of the basketball player posing in the museum. I agree. The figures are beautiful and sometimes downright creepy.

There's no such thing as Simultaneous Possession, by the definition. Simultaneous Catch, maybe, but he sure doesn't keep control of it. You can see his hand lift off and then rush back to the ball as he's going down.

The more I read this the more I'm having a hard time understanding. Where does it say that Possession means that the ball has to be brought to the ground?

I'm fairly confident the replay tapes will show you who has 2 hands around the ball before one person has more than 3 fingertips touching the ball. :)

Take it from someone who has no earthly clue about anything, since going deeply into official rules might seem like it's very detailed and precise.

You said it yourself, Tate is a clear second. As such, control was not established at the same time and as such, cannot possibly even remotely be a simultaneous catch. Both players kept possession, and the rules follow that if both do, the rules are dependent on the simultaneous rules.

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward

Agreed with Ben. From the rules, there's no mention of possession.

To be fair, the tricky word in the rule is "Control". If it was "possession", then it'd be up in the air. But by definition of Control we see that one player had control first then the other joined the fray, regardless of possession.

Not insane, that's like stating that systems almost never overheat due to collection of dust. That's just silly.

his argument isn't invalid. It's an opinion and personal record. Of which I happen to agree with. There had been countless times where I had oft removed and re-inserted a NES cartridge from a system to absolutely 0 change, the exact same glitchy screen (flashing backgrounds come to mind, distorted words). To which a…

If diablo were a pokemon... hell would break loose. Again.

I like it. Seems we're 2 and 2 now.

nah, and it is my fault. specially just the word "no", I agree with you.

It was kind of a joke associated with my other comment. I don't see how facebook isn't the internet :). Everything about it is the internet.

They dont. People out there treat dating like an act, a show. If a situation arises, they don't think about what they'd do, they think about what would be the coolest way to impress a woman.