That was not an interception

[FattyKnuckle]

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.

The newest rule in the book about catches is “surviving the ground”. The only difference than all the other instances this happens is that instead of the ball hitting the ground it goes in a defenders grasp. Proper call in the field, properly upheld on review. Your issue is with the rule, not how this call was officiated.

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

The ball just has to stop moving before he hits the ground. And it does

It doesnt have to be for a magical amount of time

This isnt a "football move" or two step situation

Its different when going down to the ground.

I know you know this and are just arguing to be contrarian, but I'm clearing it up for anyone else who was confused

 

[BASF]

How utterly unsurprising that the two ref white knights of .net continue their white knighting. Keep on keeping on white knights. We definitely need your explanations despite your being incorrect.

 

[cymatica]

The ball just has to stop moving before he hits the ground. And it does

It doesnt have to be for a magical amount of time

This isnt a "football move" or two step situation

Its different when going down to the ground.

I know you know this and are just arguing to be contrarian, but I'm clearing it up for anyone else who was confused

Sorry but you have it wrong. See the post above yours. If Wagner was not there and the ball came out of his hands right after his knee touches, it's not a catch, and that's assuming the ball was secure. In this case, the ball was not secure at first, it then looks like it might have been for a split second in slow motion, then he loses it right after hitting the ground. If he established possession and maintained it before the knee touches, then he might have a case.

 

[cymatica]

How utterly unsurprising that the two ref white knights of .net continue their white knighting. Keep on keeping on white knights. We definitely need your explanations despite your being incorrect.

Lol, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about considering I always call out the officiating. I guess seeing this one single play differently all of the sudden makes me a "white knight" for the refs. Lol gtfo here

 

[Followthelegion]

Really not sure where all this confusion is coming from here…

As the rule is written, there was no control of the ball and so no possession was gained. The knee being down is irrelevant without control. As the ball didn’t hit the ground the interception is the correct call.

 

[rjdriver]

Why didnt that apply last week to Metcalf?

I'm way more pissed at the Metcalf call and not just because of the final outcome of the game. I wasn't too pissed at the Wags pick and thought that had he been ruled down, that would have stood also. I acknowledge the DK call was close, but the amount of time they spent clearly indicates there was nothing conclusive. The only thing convincing was the league in NY convincing the refs of the need to overturn.

 

[themunn]

If only it was last weeks ref crew then they'd have whistled it dead for forward progress

 

[MyrtleHawk]

There's multiple replays of it so you can watch it over and over and over and over again.

Jones had the ball literally STILL (not moving) in his HAND against HIS BODY with NO BALL MOVEMENT as his knee is on the ground and his forearm touches the ground.

There are TWO POINTS where he should have been "down" with control of the ball and the refs absolutely blew this call.

 

[Hollandhawk]

There's multiple replays of it so you can watch it over and over and over and over again.

Jones had the ball literally STILL (not moving) in his HAND against HIS BODY with NO BALL MOVEMENT as his knee is on the ground and his forearm touches the ground.

There are TWO POINTS where he should have been "down" with control of the ball and the refs absolutely blew this call.

Ball is under control, knee on ground and contact with another player. Down by contact. Why is this complicated?

 

[jammerhawk]

This is yet another example of the creative bias against the Seahawks by NFL officials.

Simply the player was down by contact with possession, and the rest is creative justification of yet another horrible call by the league.

It was a total BS call.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, that was a crap call. Yet again, the defense had to make up for a crap call by the refs.

 

[Followthelegion]

There is no point where he ascertains control. You must have it under control long enough to perform an act common to the game. To me the ball is always moving and the catch is never completed. Even if the ball stops moving for a micro second this is not sufficient to be deemed a catch and then consideration of him being down would apply.

Like another poster above said, be annoyed with the rule and not the ruling here. The refs got this one right as per the catch rule.

As for DK one last week… I get it but hated the long long time it took them to determine it was clear and obvious an incompletion.

 

[JPatera76]

Sorry but you have it wrong. See the post above yours. If Wagner was not there and the ball came out of his hands right after his knee touches, it's not a catch, and that's assuming the ball was secure. In this case, the ball was not secure at first, it then looks like it might have been for a split second in slow motion, then he loses it right after hitting the ground. If he established possession and maintained it before the knee touches, then he might have a case.

Wrong he had it all the way down. He was down and the NFL ****** the call. Had Possession. How many times this year have we seen players go on their back's with defenders players trying to strip the ball still knowing damn well the players down and the officials calls the play dead. Plenty. "The right call" my ass.

"Maintain possession" "catch" etc all rules the NFL has used MANY times this year against Seattle as Subjective. Especially against DK.

 

[JPatera76]

There is no point where he ascertains control. You must have it under control long enough to perform an act common to the game. To me the ball is always moving and the catch is never completed. Even if the ball stops moving for a micro second this is not sufficient to be deemed a catch and then consideration of him being down would apply.

Like another poster above said, be annoyed with the rule and not the ruling here. The refs got this one right as per the catch rule.

As for DK one last week… I get it but hated the long long time it took them to determine it was clear and obvious an incompletion.

See picture above, He does, and his knee and forearm are down.
Thats plenty. Otherwise, all those sideline catches, toe taps, and immediate tackles RIGHT after catches in NFL history were just never truly catches by your perception. Numerous times someone has CAUGHT a ball and tackled immediately and guess what? They're called down. lol with ready for it? NO ACT was done in those either, they caught it and were tackled right away so all of the catches like it in the NFL weren't completed by your definition either.

 

[Natethegreat]

The assertion that he does not at any point establish control of the ball is not correct in my opinion. When a guy has the ball in his stomach on his back he has control of it. It was stripped by Wagner literally after he was on his back with the ball in his stomach and his arms wrapped around the ball in his hands. I was surprised they ruled it an int and even more surprised they didn't overturn it.

 

[pmedic920]

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 ?

Probably not.
Having said that, if the ball had touched the ground it would have been an incomplete pass NOT a fumble.

Again it sucks but it makes sense.

 

[pmedic920]

Agreed.

But remember the current rule.
They have to maintain possession all the way through landing on the ground.

How many incompletions have we all seen because of a slight bobble at any point while going to, or landing on the ground, especially when goo out of bounds?

That ball touches the ground at all and it would have been an incomplete pass not a fumble.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And honestly, the ball shouldn't have been thrown. It took a half an hour to get over there. Just throw it away.

 

[pmedic920]

The assertion that he does not at any point establish control of the ball is not correct in my opinion. When a guy has the ball in his stomach on his back he has control of it. It was stripped by Wagner literally after he was on his back with the ball in his stomach and his arms wrapped around the ball in his hands. I was surprised they ruled it an int and even more surprised they didn't overturn it.

I was too but as soon as they stated he never controlled the ball it was over.

Reply official was looking for complete control and ruled it wasn’t.

I don’t like the call but I do understand it.