That was not an interception

[pmedic920]

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.

I’m aware it wasn’t ruled a catch.

My issue is that “replay” is supposed to ensure that the correct call was made, Yet we constantly see calls “stand” because it was ruled such or such on the field, if it were called the opposite way on the field then that would stand.

It’s like saying both or either is the correct call, only matters what was called “on the field” if what is called the field is going to be the determination why make spectators suffer through the process of going to replay.

Take this particular play as an example, if it had been “called on the field” as a catch and down by contact it would have stood (hypothetically). But it wasn’t called a catch so the call stands in replay.
Potentially saying that either call was ok (or correct).
Sure they overturn some plays but many just hold up solely because of how they were “called on the field”.

There are not two correct answers, there is one correct answer and replay is supposed to ensure the correct answer was called.
I’m not arguing that the wrong call was made in this situation, I’m saying that on any replay evaluation it should not be what was called on the field being the determining factor.

 

[pmedic920]

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.

And if the ball had touched the ground it would have been ruled an incomplete pass, not a fumble?

 

[RiverDog]

My issue is that “replay” is supposed to ensure that the correct call was made, Yet we constantly see calls “stand” because it was ruled such or such on the field, if it were called the opposite way on the field then that would stand.

It’s like saying both or either is the correct call, only matters what was called “on the field” if what is called the field is going to be the determination why make spectators suffer through the process of going to replay.

Take this particular play as an example, if it had been “called on the field” as a catch and down by contact it would have stood (hypothetically). But it wasn’t called a catch so the call stands in replay.
Potentially saying that either call was ok (or correct).
Sure they overturn some plays but many just hold up solely because of how they were “called on the field”.

There are not two correct answers, there is one correct answer and replay is supposed to ensure the correct answer was called.
I’m not arguing that the wrong call was made in this situation, I’m saying that on any replay evaluation it should not be what was called on the field being the determining factor.

I'm not aware of anyone, league official or otherwise, saying that replay review was going to "ensure" that the correct call was made. It was instituted in an effort to improve the quality of officiating. No one ever told us that it was going to be foolproof or that it was flawless.

The reason they instituted, or re-instituted, replay review was to try to eliminate some of the egregiously bad calls, like the Vinny Testaverde helmet touchdown. This one was not even close to being in that category.

 

[sutz]

IIRC, the official who made the first call of an Int didn't have a good view of the ball. From where he ran up, it looked to me like Wagner's body actually screened the ball from the ref, who probably couldn't see the ball until Wags rolled over on his back with it. There was a view of the catch where the receiver had it firmly in his grasp, and Wags didn't have a hand on it yet. That's when the receiver's knee hit the ground, then his elbow, and only then did Wags reach in and start wrestling for the ball. At least, that's how I saw it.

 

[oldhawkfan]

You saw it correctly. Actually, Bobby didn't take the ball until the receivers ass was also down. It went knee, elbow, ass, then Bobby takes it as his own. I'm not sure if this call was worse or the fumble non fumble last week against the Raiders.

 

[James in PA]

You saw it correctly. Actually, Bobby didn't take the ball until the receivers ass was also down. It went knee, elbow, ass, then Bobby takes it as his own. I'm not sure if this call was worse or the fumble non fumble last week against the Raiders.

Don't forget DK's non catch last week. It was ruled a catch initially, then they took 45 minutes to review it.

Clear and obvious.

 

[RiverDog]

IIRC, the official who made the first call of an Int didn't have a good view of the ball. From where he ran up, it looked to me like Wagner's body actually screened the ball from the ref, who probably couldn't see the ball until Wags rolled over on his back with it. There was a view of the catch where the receiver had it firmly in his grasp, and Wags didn't have a hand on it yet. That's when the receiver's knee hit the ground, then his elbow, and only then did Wags reach in and start wrestling for the ball. At least, that's how I saw it.

I agree. I don't think the ref on the field had a clear look at it, either. That's why I said that I think what might have gone through his mind was to call it an interception and if it was incorrect, it would get overturned on review as all turnovers are automatically reviewed.

Had he called it the other way, the Rams would have had the dilemma of challenging the play, burning a challenge, perhaps losing a timeout. I do believe that's what refs are instructed to do if they have a doubt.

 

[oldhawkfan]

When did it not become ok to not use your body in aiding the catch? I remember as a kid learning the game, coaches saying to bring the ball into your body. Use your body to help with the catch. I used to always think it was a catch if the ball didn't hit the ground. What will they rule if sometime in the future a WR falls down on his back and then the ball comes to rest on his body without his hands firmly securing the ball without a defender on him? Its weird but I'm convinced that someday something like this will happen.

 

[pmedic920]

I'm not aware of anyone, league official or otherwise, saying that replay review was going to "ensure" that the correct call was made. It was instituted in an effort to improve the quality of officiating. No one ever told us that it was going to be foolproof or that it was flawless.

The reason they instituted, or re-instituted, replay review was to try to eliminate some of the egregiously bad calls, like the Vinny Testaverde helmet touchdown. This one was not even close to being in that category.

I’m pretty sure we understand each other.

My issue with the whole process is, there isn’t two correct answers.
If it’s going to boil down to what was called on the field, just eliminate the BS of replay and speed the game back up.

This was absolutely a situation where whatever was called on the field was going to stand. We just didn’t catch the break of the call on field being in our favor.
I’m thankful that it didn’t cost us the game.

I absolutely HATE that Geno has another interception added to his bottom line.

 

[Hawkpower]

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

I'm not aware of anyone, league official or otherwise, saying that replay review was going to "ensure" that the correct call was made. It was instituted in an effort to improve the quality of officiating. No one ever told us that it was going to be foolproof or that it was flawless.

The reason they instituted, or re-instituted, replay review was to try to eliminate some of the egregiously bad calls, like the Vinny Testaverde helmet touchdown. This one was not even close to being in that category.

why can't replay ensure that the correct call is made at the end of it all?

I don't think what's called on the field should have any bearing on what the end call is myself

Just get it right

 

[cymatica]

Absolutely not correct

Please learn the rules before commenting further.

Thank you

So you're telling me that if he was by himself with no defender, and the ball fell out when he hits the ground, that they would rule that a catch? Okay.....

 

[Hawkpower]

So you're telling me that if he was by himself with no defender, and the ball fell out when he hits the ground, that they would rule that a catch? Okay.....

Why are you creating a fake scenario?

The defenders matter. Where he was when he started the process of the catch, and his subsequent fall, matters. That the defender was on top of him when he hits the ground with possession, matters

There's no way you don't know this. It's ok to say you messed up and just bow out at this point my friend

 

[cymatica]

Why are you creating a fake scenario?

The defenders matter. Where he was when he started the process of the catch, and his subsequent fall, matters. That the defender was on top of him when he hits the ground with possession, matters

There's no way you don't know this. It's ok to say you messed up and just bow out at this point my friend

It 100% matters. If possession was never established, then it would have been incomplete, just the same as it was an interception. If you can't make an argument it would have been a catch by itself then you can't make an argument that he caught it and the play was over the second his knee touched.

 

[renofox]

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.

That provision is still in the Rulebook as of 2022. It's ignored when convenient.

 

[RiverDog]

I’m pretty sure we understand each other.

My issue with the whole process is, there isn’t two correct answers.
If it’s going to boil down to what was called on the field, just eliminate the BS of replay and speed the game back up.

This was absolutely a situation where whatever was called on the field was going to stand. We just didn’t catch the break of the call on field being in our favor.
I’m thankful that it didn’t cost us the game.

I absolutely HATE that Geno has another interception added to his bottom line.

I guess I'm not sure what your beef with the process is. The ref on the field that made the call, in my opinion, could not make a determination as to which way the call should go so he opted to call it a turnover, knowing that it would automatically be reviewed without a team having to challenge it. It's his way of taking the 5th so as not to make an egregious mistake. Are you advocating that we should not be automatically reviewing turnovers? How about scoring plays?

As far as replay slowing down the game for calls that end up being sustained, they've made significant improvements since it replay was re-instituted back in 1999 when they overturned just 29% of the calls. In 2021, that percentage was up to 57% and hasn't dipped below 40% since 2014. And if you want to go back even further into the 80's when they first instituted it, the percentage was just 10-15%.

I didn't have a single problem with the way the call was made. The one I didn't like, and one that I'd like to hear an explanation for, was the Metcalf reception in the Raiders game last week, of which I was in attendance, that took seemingly forever to decide. I was under the impression that they had a time limit of 60 seconds to review a play and that if they couldn't come to a determination, that the call on the field was to stand.

Upon Further Review… | NFL Football Operations

The NFL has come to embrace instant replay, but its history in football is filled with stops and starts, missteps and controversy, and modifications and improvement.

operations.nfl.com

 

[RiverDog]

That provision is still in the Rulebook as of 2022. It's ignored when convenient.

Thanks. I knew that they had reduced it from 90 seconds to 60 seconds a few years back.

I could understand if they took more time to review a play if they needed to figure out where the ball was to be spotted or how much time to put back on the clock, but those two factors weren't present, and even if they were it still wouldn't account for the extraordinary length of time it took them to announce their decision.

I have the game recorded, so perhaps I'll go back and time it, but it had to be close to 3 minutes.