NFL Rulebook: Simultaneous Posession

[MikeInRoch]

Here's what I can find. Disclaimer: this is from the 2006 rulebook, but I'm pretty sure this rule hasn't changed.


If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opposing players who both retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and retains control, regardless of subsequent joint control with 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.

and


To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

Keep in mind that the term 'loose ball' includes those that have been passed - so it does not only refer to fumbled or tipped balls.

I'm going by memory here, but to me I thought Evans had control of the ball first, so by the first rule, it should have been Evans ball anyway.

[parrishlynchevans]

Here's what I can find. Disclaimer: this is from the 2006 rulebook, but I'm pretty sure this rule hasn't changed.



and



Keep in mind that the term 'loose ball' includes those that have been passed - so it does not only refer to fumbled or tipped balls.

I'm going by memory here, but to me I thought Evans had control of the ball first, so by the first rule, it should have been Evans ball anyway.

The fact that he had possession of the football and was already down by contact means the play should of been dead.

[mybills]

The fact that he had possession of the football and was already down by contact means the play should of been dead.
Exactly!

[M]

The fact that he had possession of the football and was already down by contact means the play should of been dead.

Agreed. BUT, he should have never let that guy wrestle the ball away from him in the first place. Dead play or not.

[mybills]

That doesn't matter when you're down by contact. I think it looks stupid pat-like to do that..like you're a sore loser so you have to rip the ball out of their hands. :chuckle:

[parrishlynchevans]

Agreed. BUT, he should have never let that guy wrestle the ball away from him in the first place. Dead play or not.

I don't care about that. The dumber play of the day made by Evans was trying to do something crazy just to get out of bounds at the end of the 1st half when the Bills had a chance to at least put up three points on the board.

[Historian]

I thought it was a terrible call.

[PECKERWOOD]

I agree, we got screwed hard on that call and the alleged offensive pass interference call on Evans was balogna.

[Dr. Lecter]

Evans pass interference call was correct. It happened almost in front of me andhe pushed off.

[Dujek]

The pass interference call was spot on. It was one of the most obvious push-offs I've seen in a long time.

The interception should definitely have been called as a reception by Evans though, bad call by the officials and then an even worse one when they didn't reverse it.

[RedEyE]

This was a very bad call by the officials and the fact that they used instant replay (still getting it wrong) and not consulting their rulebook, irratates me to no end.

[BigZ]

The play and camera angles should be sent to the league office for review. It was a bad call and changed the whole game - until the 4th quarter. Had the catch stood, the Raiders wouldn 't have scored then and maybe the Bills even would have put points on the board.

Let the league decide.

[RockStar36]

It was a terrible call.

I remember a few years back, I think it was against Baltimore on New Years, Evans caught a bomb and wrestled with the defender and the ref specifically said "a tie goes to the receiver".

[Forward_Lateral]

I want to hear the NFL's explanation of this, and I hope Jauron speaks up about it too.

[Michael82]

I've always thought that a tie goes to a receiver, so it definitely should have been Lee Evans' ball. I was really pissed with that call because to me it looked like Evans had it the whole way down, until the defender ripped the ball out of his hands when he was already down on the ground. :mad:

[mybills]

Evans pass interference call was correct. It happened almost in front of me andhe pushed off.
The tv cameras showed his hands half up, then that arm came down slow, then back up to catch it. The slow downward part looked at best like a slight 'let me brush those crumbs off your shirt' type deal, not a definite shove. But who cares, they won. :up:

[Coach Sal]

The ref ruled that Evans never actually had possession. He said the "receiver did not have control of the ball prior to the defender catching it."

So, there was no "simultaneous possession" in his view and therefore he didn't mess up the rule.

It was bad judgement, however, because I believe Evans had possession and a knee down.

[Meathead]

bing

go

[Meathead]

the play:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80afa016