As someone else who works in QA, I'd like to point out he's quite correct. There sure are a lot of weird and bad glitches.

Not that I disagree, if a law is broken the law can't really be upheld. But does anyone else find it interesting that individuals cannot use evidence that clearly labels guilty actions, regardless of the source?

I mean, it could. But then again the risk is exactly the same regardless (once he has your money he has no use for you anymore other than to be an eye witness to the crime that's been committed) which then leaves you back in the same predicament of "is your life worth the risk".

Or worse yet, if he called it as soon as the infielder camped under it, there was no way he was "easily obtainable", it was within a half second of it smacking the ground, and if you pause it, the ball is actually closer to the outfielder than the infielder.

It is depressing when a Foundation whose sole purpose is to better educate and attempt to cure a horrible disease denies a company that has done no heinous or criminal acts to offer help specifically for said horrible disease.

It is nice that we do remind people hat it is real without sexualizing. The problem is that people are being reminded about their worth is only because of a fundraiser? It's not like this service did not exist prior to the promotion. It was of no deal then, and it continues to be no deal afterwards. So why the focus…

Their campaign should not have any sway on how you feel about being sexy. Because boob or not, you are who you are. If you run into someone and the only reason they're talking to you is because of 2 bumps on your chest, you should probably consider them not exactly your type.

To be fair, my assumption was that the rules of a "catch" require possession. The rules of Possession state that if two individuals simultaneously catch (actually, if there is the slightest indication of it), that it is considered simultaneous and as such, there is no possession (Rule 2... something). If there's no…

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.