The interception call...

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Golden*Wheels said:

That "pick". My wife hadn't sworn out loud that I had heard in like 10 years. yesterday was, I think, it's the first time she ever swore in front of our kids. I was furious too but even I turned around with the bug eyes.

 

What a bunch of crap that call was.

I simply don't understand how they could not reverse it.

 

Only thing I could think is that the league has decided that they aren't overturning the call on the field unless it is completely and obviously wrong.  

 

But that play even met that standard.   There was no video evidence whatsoever that the defender had clear possession at any time, and there was clear video evidence that Kroft did and that the defender went after the ball after Kroft's catch.  

 

I suppose the analysis is this:  Ruling on the field is interception.  That means that some official saw the defender with clear possession of the ball.  There was no video evidence that that was incorrect - their bodies were locked together and we couldn't see the ball, so it's theoretically possible that in mid-air the defender actually took it from Kroft.  Since there was no video evidence of Kroft actually taking the ball to the ground, or the two of them taking the ball to the ground simultaneously, the ruling on the field stands.  

 

That's ridiculous, of course, because it was clear (1) that Kroft caught it, (2) the defender went after the ball as Kroft was putting it away, and (3) the defender couldn't possibly have taken the ball away because the ball and their arms were all instantly pinned together with no movement of anyone's arms or shoulders.  When they hit the ground and we first could see the ball again, it was still possessed by both.  

 

It's simply amazing that the NFL has so much trouble getting this stuff correct.  

[Kirby Jackson]

13 hours ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Yep. Simultaneous possession goes to the offense. There is no other way that play could be interpreted. It was beyond egregious. It was unconscionable. 

[SteveFreeman22]

14 hours ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

Yes he did, since he is being touched by a defender, as soon as a body part, other than hand or foot, touches the ground, he is down, play over.

[BuffaloBob]

13 hours ago, klos63 said:

2- it was a catch. It's not impossible.

How can you say Kroft didn't have possession, yet say the defender did?

weak OPI call as well.

It was weak, but also totally unnecessary.  That was actually an awesome ball placement.  The DB under played it, and it was exactly where it needed to be for only Kroft to highpoint it.  The last view of that replay made it clear.  Kroft never gave up possession.  He had it first, and never gave it up.  EOS.

[frostbitmic]

The reason that there's a preseason is so the Refs can get up to speed.

[JESSEFEFFER]

52 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I simply don't understand how they could not reverse it.

 

Only thing I could think is that the league has decided that they aren't overturning the call on the field unless it is completely and obviously wrong.  

 

But that play even met that standard.   There was no video evidence whatsoever that the defender had clear possession at any time, and there was clear video evidence that Kroft did and that the defender went after the ball after Kroft's catch.  

 

I suppose the analysis is this:  Ruling on the field is interception.  That means that some official saw the defender with clear possession of the ball.  There was no video evidence that that was incorrect - their bodies were locked together and we couldn't see the ball, so it's theoretically possible that in mid-air the defender actually took it from Kroft.  Since there was no video evidence of Kroft actually taking the ball to the ground, or the two of them taking the ball to the ground simultaneously, the ruling on the field stands.  

 

That's ridiculous, of course, because it was clear (1) that Kroft caught it, (2) the defender went after the ball as Kroft was putting it away, and (3) the defender couldn't possibly have taken the ball away because the ball and their arms were all instantly pinned together with no movement of anyone's arms or shoulders.  When they hit the ground and we first could see the ball again, it was still possessed by both.  

 

It's simply amazing that the NFL has so much trouble getting this stuff correct.  

Observation of time and space and application of simple laws of physics are not allowed on any review.  Too complicated for Al Riveron.

 

 

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

Observation of time and space and application of simple laws of physics are not allowed on any review.  Too complicated for Al Riveron.

 

 

I think that's exactly right.   Everything about the replay confirmed that Kroft caught it first and then it became a shared possession.   The rule is completely clear about the outcome in that situation.   However, simply because the call on the field was interception (and I'm completely baffled how anyone in real time thought that was interception), the boys in New York just said "well, I can't prove it wasn't an interception on the replay, so the play will stand."  As I said, why the NFL would think that's a good way to review calls, I don't know.  

[JESSEFEFFER]

31 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think that's exactly right.   Everything about the replay confirmed that Kroft caught it first and then it became a shared possession.   The rule is completely clear about the outcome in that situation.   However, simply because the call on the field was interception (and I'm completely baffled how anyone in real time thought that was interception), the boys in New York just said "well, I can't prove it wasn't an interception on the replay, so the play will stand."  As I said, why the NFL would think that's a good way to review calls, I don't know.  

It happened in front of the Rams' sideline and I think they made the call for him.  That bogus PI call on NRC in London was influenced by the Jags sideline.  Having dozens of people within feet of you all screaming for a particular call can influence the call that gets made, imo.  That's at all levels of team sports.

 

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

It happened in front of the Rams' sideline and I think they made the call for him.  That bogus PI call on NRC in London was influenced by the Jags sideline.  Having dozens of people within feet of you all screaming for a particular call can influence the call that gets made, imo.  That's at all levels of team sports.

 

Another excellent point.