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?

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

That's fine as your opinion, but dems not da rules in the NFL.

When is a player down by contact?

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by morphius

I'd really want the "football move" removed from the rule book. I don't see why 2 feet down and clear control of the ball isn't good enough everywhere on the field.

Or a knee or elbow, but I agree.

What irritates me most about the rule is the contradiction. If you have control of the ball and you are tackled to the ground, you are then 'down by contact'. Anything after that shouldnt matter.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

When is a player down by contact?

Well, its supposed to be any body part, other than a hand or foot(obviously) is touching the ground while a defender is touching you.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

Well, its supposed to be any body part, other than a hand or foot(obviously) is touching the ground while a defender is touching you.

The problem is that you cannot be down by contact if you haven't established possession of the ball.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

The problem is that you cannot be down by contact if you haven't established possession of the ball.

I still would argue that the player shows possession, with my rule anyway, as he had clear control and 2 feet down, and the ball caming out wouldn't have mattered as his butt hit the ground, which I believe is considered down just like a knee.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

The problem is that you cannot be down by contact if you haven't established possession of the ball.

Didn't the ref say "the Tampa receiver possessed the ball"

[Chiefnj2]

I have another "rules" question.

If you are in the WildCat formation, do the QB rules apply to the player taking the snap? If KC goes to the wildcat and Charles takes the snap and starts to run do the QB protection rules apply to him?

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by morphius

I still would argue that the player shows possession, with my rule anyway, as he had clear control and 2 feet down, and the ball caming out wouldn't have mattered as his butt hit the ground, which I believe is considered down just like a knee.

If that's the rule, then the problem is a receiver could have the ball just in his fingertips for a few seconds while being tackled, and then lose it right after his knee hits the ground, and it would by rule be a completion.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

If that's the rule, then the problem is a receiver could have the ball just in his fingertips for a few seconds while being tackled, and then lose it right after his knee hits the ground, and it would by rule be a completion.

Yup, I think a few seconds is long enough to show possession.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Didn't the ref say "the Tampa receiver possessed the ball"

Heh, he did as a matter of fact. If that's the case then there's no way it could be an interception. WTF.

[bobbything]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Didn't the ref say "the Tampa receiver possessed the ball"

Yes, which makes the possession debate null. If he had possession, he's down by contact. Therefore, no interception. However, I tend to think this ref misspoke and meant to say that the receiver did NOT have possession.

Either way, the whole thing is dumb. They need to rewrite the rule.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by morphius

Yup, I think a few seconds is long enough to show possession.

Well I don't, but with the way they set up the rules to favor the offense, I'm surprised that isn't the rule.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by bobbything

Yes, which makes the possession debate null. If he had possession, he's down by contact. Therefore, no interception. However, I tend to think this ref misspoke and meant to say that the receiver did NOT have possession.

Either way, the whole thing is dumb. They need to rewrite the rule.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think they can make a single rule that would be able to be applied in a fair manner to every possible scenario.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

I should add, the play being over as in down by contact. I understand the newer rules concerning catching the ball and maintaining possession throughout the play. Well, there is a contradiction in rules here then. Isnt the play over after a player is down by contact?

He never had possession, so he's not down by contact.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by bobbything

I just watched this 10 times and don't see anything that suggests an interception or a fumble. Catch, both feet down, defender tackles the player, players elbow hits the ground, ball pops out afterwards. It's a catch and down by contact. This was a blown call.

Not under NFL rules because to be a completed catch, you must maintain possession through the act of falling to the ground, unless you have already completed a "football move", which he had not because he got blow'd up the moment he got the ball.