How the **** is this an INT?

[-King-]

I'm revisiting the Sunday games and I came across this play. I saw it on Sunday but didn't think anything of it. But now that I really watch it, how the **** is this an INT?

1)Clayton clearly has possession, elbow down, and a defender had touched him down before the ball being ripped.

2) Even the ref said Clayton had possession, so even if it is a turnover(which it's not) it would be a fumble right?

3) Is this the worst season ever in the NFL officiating wise?

[KCChiefsMan]

that's BS

[Lonewolf Ed]

The ref spoke like he had just started reading the rule book a few days before. He didn't sound confident at all.

[Bugeater]

I don't know how they could get any conclusive evidence from that replay with that ref's big fat head in the way.

[jAZ]

I couldn't hear everything he said in the final explanation, but from what I understand the review is whether the ruling on the field was correct. So the question is, was their enough visual evidence to say that it was NOT and "incomplete pass" (the ruling on the field).

Given the angle we see here, the ref walks in front of the camera at exactly the moment we need to see in order to judge exactly what happend. That's would seem to prohibit ANY reason for over turning the ruling on the play, no matter what might appear to be happening based on the shot before and after the ref blocks the camera.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by jAZ

I couldn't hear everything he said in the final explanation, but from what I understand the review is whether the ruling on the field was correct. So the question is, was their enough visual evidence to say that it was NOT and "incomplete pass" (the ruling on the field).

Given the angle we see here, the ref walks in front of the camera at exactly the moment we need to see in order to judge exactly what happend. That's would seem to prohibit ANY reason for over turning the ruling on the play, no matter what might appear to be happening based on the shot before and after the ref blocks the camera.

Also, Claytons elbow hits the ground long before the ball comes out. Play is dead at that point. The referee blocking the view doesn't matter because the play was dead soon as that elbow touched.

[BigMeatballDave]

Holy Crap that was a horrible call. How the **** do you miss a call like that with replay?

[Jenson71]

That's amazing quality video. Wow.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by jAZ

Given the angle we see here, the ref walks in front of the camera at exactly the moment we need to see in order to judge exactly what happend. That's would seem to prohibit ANY reason for over turning the ruling on the play, no matter what might appear to be happening based on the shot before and after the ref blocks the camera.

You can see the WR is obviously down right before the ref blocks the shot.

[bowener]

I believe there are a few points missing from all of your arguments against it being an INT.

First, it was not a ball thrown by Peyton Manning, thus it CAN be an INT.

Second, it was also not a ball thrown by Tom Brady, thus it CAN be an INT.

Third, the WR never had possession of the ball, thus incomplete at best for the offense, and while the offender was being taken down he was losing possession of the ball; the ball never touched the ground, striking a defenders body instead. Said defender rolled as the ball struck him, bouncing the ball into the quite aware hands of Mr. Jason Taylor, he then ran it in for 6 points.

Nowhere did the ball touch the ground; the call on the field was incomplete pass, which it was, however upon review the booth official realized that the ball never once was dead and did in fact result in a pick 6.

At least that is my $.02.

[UKMike]

How is the play even reviewable? If they rule the pass incomplete (I don't have sound so may be wrong here) then effectively the play stops at the point of the incomplete pass, you can't then revert back to something that happened after the play was effectively dead, right?

[jidar]

It's an INT

It has always been the case that a receiver falling to the ground has to maintain possession of the ball all the way through the fall. Even if you catch and tuck the ball in on the way down, if you don't hold onto it when you hit the ground it is still not a complete pass. In this case he caught, tucked, fell and when he hit the ball popped out, at this point it's a bobbled pass and still in play.

[Dante84]

Originally Posted by jidar

It's an INT
In this case he caught, tucked, fell and when he hit the ball popped out, at this point it's a bobbled pass and still in play.

Alright, so you say he has possession before it pops out. Based on him having possession, when his knee/elbow/back/butt/shoulder are touching the ground because of contact with an opponent, it is a tackle and the play is over.

The tackle occurred before the ball is jarred loose, ending the play. That should not have been ruled an INT.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Dante84

Alright, so you say he has possession before it pops out. Based on him having possession, when his knee/elbow/back/butt/shoulder are touching the ground because of contact with an opponent, it is a tackle and the play is over.

The tackle occurred before the ball is jarred loose, ending the play. That should not have been ruled an INT.

Wrong. The rule changed more than a few years ago. Even if the player has possesion going down to the ground, the player has to maintain possesion all the way through. Even after he hits the ground.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by UKMike

How is the play even reviewable? If they rule the pass incomplete (I don't have sound so may be wrong here) then effectively the play stops at the point of the incomplete pass, you can't then revert back to something that happened after the play was effectively dead, right?

That's just flat wrong.