That was not an interception

[renofox]

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

I think this is where the disagreement on rules interpretation is focused.

The "must maintain possession all the way through" applies only when the player is going to the ground while in the process of making the catch.

In this case, the receiver was upright when the process started, and only started going to the ground after being tackled by the defender.

The only "football move" possible was being tackled, or if you want to be a rules nazi, "going down and taking a knee".

If he maintained possession and control at any point while his knee was down, that was a catch and down by contact.

My eyes tell me that between the time his knee was down with his back facing upward and the time the tackler had flipped his body 180 degrees and his back was facing downward, the receiver had possession and control for a measurable period of time.

That would make it a catch and down by contact per applicable NFL Rule 3, Article 7.

Also, Rule 8, Article 3 states "movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control". My eyes tell me he had control of the ball by his hand keeping it pressed to his body during the time he was face down with his knee touching to the time he was face-up on his back.

 

[James in PA]

The ball was STILL while his knee and arm were down and he was being touched by the defender. THEN, it was ripped out. No int all day, every day. I wish we were privy to those conversations the team had with the league later in the week. Once again, it will be another "Oops, sorry, we got it wrong, Seattle" from the league.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

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

Because you're not applying actual NFL rules to your definition of a catch.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

I think this is where the disagreement on rules interpretation is focused.

The "must maintain possession all the way through" applies only when the player is going to the ground while in the process of making the catch.

In this case, the receiver was upright when the process started, and only started going to the ground after being tackled by the defender.

The only "football move" possible was being tackled, or if you want to be a rules nazi, "going down and taking a knee".

If he maintained possession and control at any point while his knee was down, that was a catch and down by contact.

My eyes tell me that between the time his knee was down with his back facing upward and the time the tackler had flipped his body 180 degrees and his back was facing downward, the receiver had possession and control for a measurable period of time.

That would make it a catch and down by contact per applicable NFL Rule 3, Article 7.

Also, Rule 8, Article 3 states "movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control". My eyes tell me he had control of the ball by his hand keeping it pressed to his body during the time he was face down with his knee touching to the time he was face-up on his back.

Being hit and going to the ground as you catch still counts as going to the ground.

 

[sutz]

Because you're not applying actual NFL rules to your definition of a catch.

Why should we? The refs don't.

 

[cymatica]

View attachment 56005Wrong 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.

Please explain how a picture can prove anything if the ball was moving. I'm actually curious to hear your reasoning

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Please explain how a picture can prove anything if the ball was moving. I'm actually curious to hear your reasoning

Nothing in any of his posts about this contain any. Especially the idea that Seattle is being denied catches that 31 other teams would allow. I mean, the exact same thing happened to a Raiders interception last week as happened to DK and STILL they believe the NFL is unfairly biased against Seattle. Proof in the same exact game that it's applied to other teams and it's a complete non factor in their "reasoning".

 

[Followthelegion]

for those posters shouting about a picture of control, this is NOT control when going to the ground. The examples of going out of bounds, are completely separately than when going to the ground.

IF they ruled catch on the field by Jones, I still think this is overturned on replay to an interception. Again, we can bitch all day about the rule, because in instances it seems counter intuitive, such as plays like this. However, as it currently stands, this is NOT a catch.

 

[Natethegreat]

I personally don't buy into the anti Seattle narrative at all. That to me is non sense, I do however think that was a clearly bad call. Ripping the ball out after someone is down by contact should not be ruled an interception.

 

[Followthelegion]

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.

This is the issue. He never did establish control with the ball in his stomach on his back. The ball was constantly moving as he fell to the ground and the two were battling for it on the ground. Thats what replay were checking, if Jones did gain control of the ball before it being stripped, it would have been ruled down and a catch. Given the ball was moving consistently before Wagner stripped it = interception

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, Josh Jacobs CLEARLY fumbled in the Raiders game, and that pretty much cost the Hawks game. Officials impacting a game is pathetic.

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

Consistency is all we can ask for

If conclusive evidence is the bar that is set, stick to it (which they clearly didnt do last week)

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

Absolutely not correct

Please learn the rules before commenting further.

Thank you

 

[pmedic920]

I think this is where the disagreement on rules interpretation is focused.

The "must maintain possession all the way through" applies only when the player is going to the ground while in the process of making the catch.

In this case, the receiver was upright when the process started, and only started going to the ground after being tackled by the defender.

The only "football move" possible was being tackled, or if you want to be a rules nazi, "going down and taking a knee".

If he maintained possession and control at any point while his knee was down, that was a catch and down by contact.

My eyes tell me that between the time his knee was down with his back facing upward and the time the tackler had flipped his body 180 degrees and his back was facing downward, the receiver had possession and control for a measurable period of time.

That would make it a catch and down by contact per applicable NFL Rule 3, Article 7.

Also, Rule 8, Article 3 states "movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control". My eyes tell me he had control of the ball by his hand keeping it pressed to his body during the time he was face down with his knee touching to the time he was face-up on his back.

My personal belief is that it should have been a catch and down by contact, and I’d hate to say it but I’d feel the same if it was another team. Generally I try to put myself in the opposite fan base at times like this. If I were a Rams fan, I would reluctantly have to admit we got lucky.

My statements are only about how the call was made and explanation given following replay. I’m not arguing that I like or agree with the call.

My biggest issue is when they say “the ruling on the field” and if it was called a catch on the field it would also stand.
WTF is that?
If not for insuring the correct call was made “on the field” why do we even have to suffer though the replay process.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

I personally don't buy into the anti Seattle narrative at all. That to me is non sense, I do however think that was a clearly bad call. Ripping the ball out after someone is down by contact should not be ruled an interception.

You are correct 3out of 4 times, however your last sentence isn't what happened here. He never had by-the-rules possession, therefore he was never down by contact.

 

[RiverDog]

Why didnt that apply last week to Metcalf?

Good question. My problem with that call wasn't the reversal, it was the amount of time they took to review it. If it took them that long to find evidence, then it wasn't very obvious. Besides, there's supposed to be a time limit of 60 seconds after which they pull the plug and let the call on the field stand, or at least that was my understanding.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

It seems like the crux of the argument is whether he had control (or the ball was moving) while going down. Many feel (as I do) he did have control. If true then he should have been called down. Those who don’t feel the same way have an equally valid point and the ruling makes sense to them.

IMHO he had control. Even if the ball “moves” a little does that mean he does not have control? If so does a basketball player have “control” of a ball that they can spin on their finger? It is obviously moving.

We can did deep deep deep into semantics of the wording but at some point that will have to stop or everything play will be broken down into many parts and each part analyzed. Not good for anyone really.

 

[RiverDog]

My biggest issue is when they say “the ruling on the field” and if it was called a catch on the field it would also stand.
WTF is that?
If not for insuring the correct call was made “on the field” why do we even have to suffer though the replay process.

It wasn't ruled a catch on the field because he didn't maintain control through the entire process. He didn't gain control until after Wags had already started to wrestle it away.

It was a very difficult play to call, and the ref wasn't in a good position to see the ball. I'm not even sure if he could see if Jones' knee was touching the ground or not or when he had control. Not seeing any evidence of the receiver being down by contact, he ruled on what he did see, which is Wagner coming up with the ball.

All turnovers are reviewed automatically, so officials are instructed that when in doubt, call it a turnover and they'll straighten it out on review rather than forcing one of the teams to burn a challenge/timeout. Since the ref wasn't in the best position to see the play, it's quite possible that's what was going through his mind when he made the call.

 

[themunn]

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.

If that's the case, then say Wagner hadn't pulled the ball out, could Jones have gotten up and run the ball for a few yards?

The answer is clearly NO because he was down by contact.

If he "didn't have control" at any point he doesn't possess the ball and therefore can't be tackled, so the play still runs? It doesn't make any sense, because he had control, and he was down.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

If that's the case, then say Wagner hadn't pulled the ball out, could Jones have gotten up and run the ball for a few yards?

The answer is clearly NO because he was down by contact.

If he had held onto the ball through the tackle/contact with the ground, then you'd be right. Bobby taking it was the same thing as it bouncing out of his hands on contact with the ground. If he had caught it, taken three steps or a football move then Bobby tackled him and wrested the ball from him on the ground, he'd be down by contact. But he hadn't established possession, by NFL rules, before Bobby took it. Repeat: By NFL rules, he did not establish POSSESSION before Bobby took it. Yes, he had secured the ball on the way down and it was secure when his knee hit, but he had not yet established possession, as defined by NFL rules, because securing it is only one criteria for a catch. The rule sucks, not the call.