jdblack":3d65gkz4 said:
It's easy to say it was an INT, but try explaining why! I have yet to see anyone give a good answer in the context of the simultaneous catch rule. They just back off if it comes up and put an expletive or two about homers.
Yup.
And I agree... the homer labeling is getting really old. It's on the same level as what you said in the first place about others not explaining why it was an INT. It's easier to put a negative label on someone in an effort to discredit.
Think about it this way... besides the refs making the calls - who else is going to even try to understand why it's a catch when it's the Seahawks? What % of fans who hate the Hawks in the first place actually know the rules of what constitutes a catch? Yet, it's suggested by some that we appeal to their sensibilities? Anyone suggesting that has got to be joking.
You've got the media (who is, of course,
never wrong) talking up a media darling team and not saying anything about how it could possibly be ruled a catch. Yah, that's fair and balanced alright. Sheesh. Some Hawks fans are so conditioned to being told to sit down and shut up that you just allow the media and popular opinion walk all over you.
What's popular isn't always right... and what's right isn't always popular. It was a TD catch by the rules, by the call, by the review. It doesn't make one a "better" Seahawk fan to cave to the media or "admit" something that doesn't warrant such action. People need to get over it alright. Those who shamefully beat to death that it was an INT.
I think the hard thing for those who see it as an INT is that it happens so fast and does sort of look that way at first depending on the angle without considering all that constitutes the right call. Even when watching it as the play happened... Tate had the possession on the ground and Jennings wrestled it away. That's what initially concerned me that the initial call would go to GBay and I was screaming at the TV that the DB took the ball from him after Tate was the first to establish possession with 2 feet on the ground (again, not the same criteria in this instance as breaking the plane.)
I've appreciated the excellent comments "for" the catch in this thread. Thanks to the O.P. for having the courage to post this and there's no reason to "move on" as if we fans should just sweep some crime under the rug. True enough, it's now the 2013 season. Still, apparently there's great reason to discuss such a key play from the past when it brings out some excellent points. Great point that there are not valid arguments in the context of the simultaneous catch rule for it being an INT.