That was not an interception

[flv2]

One knee = two feet

The ruling was the ball wasn't under control, (coming loose/moving), before the knee came down so no, one knee didn't equal two feet.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

How does a receiver going to the ground, diving, sideline catch, etc. possibly make a "football move" after control/possession of the ball?

Maintaining possession “through contact with the ground”. The rule is dumb, the call was correct.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Compare it to the Josh Jacobs fumble forward progress call.

Jacobs had possession of the ball. They’re not comparable at all.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

This logic is actually crap when you consider all the circus catches receivers do tapping two feet right as they go out of bounds on the sideline. None of those catches (of which there are hundreds every season) ever allow for a "football move". In that vein, I would argue that the play was over as soon as that knee was down. Receiver had clear possession up to that point, and didn't lose control of the football until that point.

The difference is that they maintain control. He hadn’t established possession yet. Was going to the ground so he therefore had to maintain control before it counts. It’s a crappy rule but the correct call was made by those rules.

 

[projectorfreak]

I just can't understand how when he's down and somehow after he's down the ball comes out and after he's down ,,Voila , interception
That is some of the worst interpretation of the rule book and not sure how it was allowed
Were the rules changed ????
I guess so cuz I've never ever seen that before in any game
Has anyone else ?

 

[projectorfreak]

So was he supposed to make another football move , it sure lookedc like at many points he had control , just weird

 

[OahuHawkFan]

The difference is that they maintain control. He hadn’t established possession yet. Was going to the ground so he therefore had to maintain control before it counts. It’s a crappy rule but the correct call was made by those rules.

Appreciate the fact based perspective. Most of us are sports fans, and probably don't bother to look into the "official rulebook" for what a catch is nowadays. Rather, I think we all rely on a bit of "sports common sense".

Having common sense in the ruleset, and the ability to simply see and know something as simple as the definition of a "catch" is foundational to the continuity of a sport. Imagine trying to explain this sort of thing to 10-15 year old's going into football for the first time. Everyone always parrot's "a football move" nowadays... WTF is that?!!! It's BS.

While (I'll assume) you're not wrong. Imagine the ramifications that could be our real world take-aways. We're now in a world where wrestling the ball away from a "down" receiver can in some circumstances be an "interception". Does this also apply to mystery fumbles where there's a pile of bodies and by the time the officials clear the bodies, the ball is in different hands? The circumstances sure seem similar.

Hopefully, the NFL (and each team) has a team of lawyers watching each game. That's the sort of advocacy in officiating the NFL now (apparently) requires.

In all honestly, I think this game is getting too complicated to officiate. I think technology (in the form of ball and player sensors) allows for some solutions that could be consistently applied and (while I would never assume perfection) could take the "human element" out of officiating. The ONLY reason this call went the way it went is because that is how it was called on the field (as though the officials in live action somehow have some superhuman ability to see things with greater clarity).

 

[cymatica]

The ball was never secure and the replay showed that. I don't understand how everyone missed it

 

[James in PA]

The question isn't, "was that really an interception?" (It wasn't, by the way). The real question is: other than the Seattle Seahawks, what other team would that exact sequence have been called against had it been them? I contend not many. Just like the DK "non- catch" last week against the Raiders. What other team would the refs have spent 45 minutes on reviewing a play until they could finally find a loophole? So sick of this crap. When it comes to NFL officiating, favoritism is very real.

 

[Hawkpower]

It was a close call and since there was no irrefutable evidence that he was in control of the ball, I agreed with the replay decision to stick with the call on the field.

Why didnt that apply last week to Metcalf?

 

[Hawkpower]

The ball was never secure and the replay showed that. I don't understand how everyone missed it

He actually secures it just before his arm/knee hits and it doesnt move again until after he rolls and bobby wrenches it away

 

[James in PA]

Why didnt that apply last week to Metcalf?

Bingo! If you need to spend 45 minutes reviewing it, its not "clear and obvious.". The DK play should have NEVER been overturned.

 

[TheLost]

The one consistent thing these replay's do is make sure Vinny Testaverde's Helmet still scores TD's on us.

 

[renofox]

He actually secures it just before his arm/knee hits and it doesnt move again until after he rolls and bobby wrenches it away

Agreed.

 

[ZornLargentPatera]

That was not an interception. He was clearly down well before the ball came out. I can maybe see missing the call in the "bang-bang" heat of the moment, but to then go through the review process and have the benefit of all of the instant replay super slo-mo, and STILL make the wrong call is exasperating.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

He was totally down on his back before the ball came out.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

The question isn't, "was that really an interception?" (It wasn't, by the way). The real question is: other than the Seattle Seahawks, what other team would that exact sequence have been called against had it been them? I contend not many. Just like the DK "non- catch" last week against the Raiders. What other team would the refs have spent 45 minutes on reviewing a play until they could finally find a loophole? So sick of this crap. When it comes to NFL officiating, favoritism is very real.

They reversed that catch for the exact same reason they reversed a Raiders interception earlier in the game.

The answer to your question is 31.

 

[cymatica]

He actually secures it just before his arm/knee hits and it doesnt move again until after he rolls and bobby wrenches it away

No he didn't. The ball was still for a split second and that's in slow motion. Not nearly enough time to establish any sort of possession.

 

[cymatica]

He was totally down on his back before the ball came out.

The ball was moving around, he never had possession. People are arguing that securing the ball for a fraction of a second constitutes possession

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Appreciate the fact based perspective. Most of us are sports fans, and probably don't bother to look into the "official rulebook" for what a catch is nowadays. Rather, I think we all rely on a bit of "sports common sense".

Having common sense in the ruleset, and the ability to simply see and know something as simple as the definition of a "catch" is foundational to the continuity of a sport. Imagine trying to explain this sort of thing to 10-15 year old's going into football for the first time. Everyone always parrot's "a football move" nowadays... WTF is that?!!! It's BS.

While (I'll assume) you're not wrong. Imagine the ramifications that could be our real world take-aways. We're now in a world where wrestling the ball away from a "down" receiver can in some circumstances be an "interception". Does this also apply to mystery fumbles where there's a pile of bodies and by the time the officials clear the bodies, the ball is in different hands? The circumstances sure seem similar.

Hopefully, the NFL (and each team) has a team of lawyers watching each game. That's the sort of advocacy in officiating the NFL now (apparently) requires.

In all honestly, I think this game is getting too complicated to officiate. I think technology (in the form of ball and player sensors) allows for some solutions that could be consistently applied and (while I would never assume perfection) could take the "human element" out of officiating. The ONLY reason this call went the way it went is because that is how it was called on the field (as though the officials in live action somehow have some superhuman ability to see things with greater clarity).

That’s incorrect. If it was called a catch and the Rams challenged it, it would be reversed. By no metric in the rule book is that a catch. Yes, the definition of a catch is unnecessarily complicated. There’s your team of lawyers for you. But common sense isn’t a metric by which the refs can operate. They could see a DL falling on top of an OL and common sense might tell them there was a hold involved. They have to see it and call it by the rules. I 100% believe the definition needs to be loosened but as they are written now, it was not a catch. Nor was DK’s, nor was the Raiders interception.