That was not an interception

[Year of The Hawk]

I still love me some BWags but I Still don’t know why that was called an interception. Total BS call. I don’t understand how they see the same thing on review and make the wrong call. SO glad that did not determine the outcome of the game.

 

[Hockey Guy]

Geno DID NOT have an Interception

IDGAF What that stat says. Jone's knee was f'ing down. If anything it would've been a Simultaneous catch again which Jones still would've won. But in the end... Jones knee was down and this was just the NFL once again changing what the very "up for interpretation" of "what is a catch"

www.seahawks.net

 

[scutterhawk]

I told the wife that there's no damned way that crap call by the Ref. stands, but sure enough, the bullsh!t call was upheld.

 

[RiverDog]

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.

 

[JPatera76]

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.

I have ocean front property in Arizona to offer you.

 

[pmedic920]

Story is, least the way I understand it.

The catch was NEVER actually completed. This provided the opportunity for what was ruled an interception.

Doesn’t make it feel any better but it’s at least an understandable explanation.

For the record, I argued hard for the “he was down” side.

 

[JPatera76]

Story is, least the way I understand it.

The catch was NEVER actually completed. This provided the opportunity for what was ruled an interception.

Doesn’t make it feel any better but it’s at least an understandable explanation.

For the record, I argued hard for the “he was down” side.

Worst case i dont even think it should've qualified for an interception either. It very much could've been a simultaneous catch in which Jones was down first. Either way I feel the refs raw dogged that call and botched it, and the NFL was hyping up Bobby. Afterall, it was all game cast bobby this, bobby that, Ramsey here in bobby's ear.

 

[JerHawk81]

I'm not even sure what constitutes a catch any more...

 

[James in PA]

That call INFURIATED me! That was NOT an interception, yet, I had no doubt that bs would stand. Seahawks player has the ball secured in his hands with a knee clearly on the ground. But nope, lets just throw all logic out the window and call it a pick. I friggin hate the NFL and it's unfair officiating, but I love the Hawks more. Its the only reason I keep watching.

 

[pmedic920]

I'm not even sure what constitutes a catch any more...

Well you’re in a boat with several million other NFL fans, myself included.

 

[cymatica]

View attachment 55998



I have ocean front property in Arizona to offer you.

Posting pictures is pointless considering the reasoning was that the ball was moving and never fully possessed

 

[flv2]

The ruling on the field was no catch by the Seahawks receiver, (process of catch, 2 feet down, and football move wasn't completed), so it remained a live ball until it was possessed or it touched the ground. The replay wasn't conclusive about this. The ball didn't touch the ground and the 1st player to possess the ball was Wagner. If the receiver didn't complete the process then the knee being down doesn't come into play.

 

[TransGenderHawkFan]

The ruling on the field was no catch by the Seahawks receiver, (process of catch, 2 feet down, and football move wasn't completed), so it remained a live ball until it was possessed or it touched the ground. The replay wasn't conclusive about this. The ball didn't touch the ground and the 1st player to possess the ball was Wagner. If the receiver didn't complete the process then the knee being down doesn't come into play.

One knee = two feet

 

[FattyKnuckle]

One knee = two feet

Still needs control and a football move.

 

[renofox]

One knee = two feet

Exactly. Receiver was down by contact with possession. He was NOT "going to the ground in the process of making a catch".

It was clear he had the ball secured when down. AFTER he was flipped 180 degrees by the tackler, he STILL had possession until the ball was ripped out while he was laying on his back.

 

[renofox]

Still needs control and a football move.

What "football move" is possible after your knee is down?

And as the pics show, he had control when his knee was down.

 

[OahuHawkFan]

Still needs control and a football move.

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.

 

[evergreen]

Compare it to the Josh Jacobs fumble forward progress call.

 

[HawkFreak]

Still needs control and a football move.

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

 

[James in PA]

Give me a break that call does not go that way against just about any other team in the NFL. Maybe Jacksonville. i'm so sick of these clown refs loophole-ing the hell out of things until they get the result they want against Seattle. Last week against DK was the same crap. Let's take 45 minutes to review the play until we can figure out a way for it to go against Seattle.