The Fake Interception

[TexasRam]

1. Woods has possession of the Ball while standing up.
2. Woods still has possession of the ball when his butt and legs are on the Ground.
3. The defender does NOT have hands near the ball AT ALL.
4. The Defender has TOUCHED WOODS while on the ground IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL.



1. Woods With Possession OF THE BALL

2. Woods Butt and legs are on the Ground WITH POSSESSION, DEFENDER TOUCHING HIM.

Notice defenders left hand from the back camera angle is NO WHERE NEAR THE BALL while WOODS butt is ON THE GROUND!

 

[Picked4td]

he didnt have possession nearly long enough for that to be ruled down. had there been no defender and it was just incomplete, it woulda been ruled incomplete not a catch and fumble

 

[TexasRam]

he didnt have possession nearly long enough for that to be ruled down. had there been no defender and it was just incomplete, it woulda been ruled incomplete not a catch and fumble

He absolutely did. From standing up to on his butt to rolling.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Well, you’ve certainly made me think twice about that one.

Let me ask you this;

Would you call it a catch, had the ball popped out (and hit the ground), the moment his butt hit?

I think the answer might be, no? ...the roll and tucking away is what completes the catch into a possession. It just so happens the other guy did the last part.

 

[So Ram]

He absolutely did. From standing up to on his butt to rolling.

View attachment 41888View attachment 41889View attachment 41892

that is an excellent pick up by you.

I wonder if Woods feet were inbounds & taken out of bounds while rolling on his butt if that is ruled a catch?

The defender would have been ruled out of bounds.

 

[TexasRam]

Well, you’ve certainly made me think twice about that one.

Let me ask you this;

Would you call it a catch, had the ball popped out (and hit the ground), the moment his butt hit?

I think the answer might be, no? ...the roll and tucking away is what completes the catch into a possession. It just so happens the other guy did the last part.

If the WR lost it right when his butt hit then that might be a different story. The way I see this one is Woods with possession while in his roll and even while his shoulder is on the ground. The defender pulls it out after that point.


Below notice Woods hand. He has possession. The Defender does not have his hands on the ball.

Below Woods Hands on the ball in possession.

Below, Woods hands are still around the ball, that is Woods hand there.

This picture Below shows when the defender starts getting possession. Notice Woods already on his side fully.

This picture below is where Woods shoulder is on the ground after the roll and he still has possession, notice the defenders hands arent even on the ball.

 

[jrry32]

It's a pick. You have to control the pass through contact with the ground in order to complete the catch. That doesn't mean first contact. Woods didn't have possession long enough to complete the catch. It's a fluke play. But it was a pick.

 

[CGI_Ram]

We should put a link to the NFL rules somewhere, here. I wonder how this is defined there...

Another thought; in the old days, before replay, how would the eye see that one? In your school yard game, how would you call it?

To me, thats what a rule should be written to do. What’s fair there?

I’d say, that’s probably interception... because I’d call that an interception in the school yard game too.

 

[TexasRam]

It's a pick. You have to control the pass through contact with the ground in order to complete the catch. That doesn't mean first contact. Woods didn't have possession long enough to complete the catch. It's a fluke play. But it was a pick.

What would you define as "through contact". What is the definition of "Long enough".

I guess we need the literal stated actual rules but that sounds rather subjective. I see players go down all the time and then the ball is punched out while they are still moving and the ball carrier maintains possesion because he was "down". The Refs used his hand and pats the ground to signify he was down.

Woods has the ball standing up, on his butt, rolling to his side and with his shoulder touching the ground before its ripped out.

 

[TexasRam]

We should put a link to the NFL rules somewhere, here. I wonder how this is defined there...

Another thought; in the old days, before replay, how would the eye see that one? In your school yard game, how would you call it?

To me, thats what a rule should be written to do. What’s fair there?

I’d say, that’s probably interception... because I’d call that an interception in the school yard game too.

Yea i would agree it looked like defender pulled it out during the scuffle in real time. My arguement is on review with tape it clearly shows Woods with possession all the way through side roll when the defender then pulls it out.

Maybe I learn something here and am wrong, but as several analysts have admitted, I am not sure what a catch is anymore.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I believe the “control through contact with the ground” BS is long gone from the rulebook (and thankfully so, what a travesty that was).

I believe the new rules rely more on common sense and what most people would consider to be a catch.

IMHO, the key question is whether Woods maintained possession LONG ENOUGH for it to be considered a completed catch. Yes Woods had possession, yes he had two feet down. But did he have possession for long enough, i.e. a second or two?

In slo-mo, yeah a case can be made that Woods had sufficient possession time. But when I watch that play at full speed, it looks like a bam-bam play and no one really possesses it long enough until the defender is lying on the ground with the ball in his lap.

Yeah I’m a homer too, but I don’t think Woods controlled it long enough to demonstrate possession and a completed pass. When I watch it in real time, I’d call it a pick.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F2qFBWTfVPA

 

[jrry32]

I believe the “control through contact with the ground” BS is long gone from the rulebook (and thankfully so, what a travesty that was).

This is the rule:
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds
-------------------------------------------------------
Quite clear that it wasn't a catch. Woods didn't control it through the contact with the ground and did not have possession long enough to make a football move before hitting the ground.

 

[Ram_Rally]

He absolutely did. From standing up to on his butt to rolling.

View attachment 41888View attachment 41889View attachment 41892

I have to disagree here. If that ball squirts out and hits the ground I think we all agree that it's just incomplete.

 

[XXXIVwin]

We should put a link to the NFL rules somewhere, here. I wonder how this is defined there...

Another thought; in the old days, before replay, how would the eye see that one? In your school yard game, how would you call it?

To me, thats what a rule should be written to do. What’s fair there?

I’d say, that’s probably interception... because I’d call that an interception in the school yard game too.

I honestly think the NFL tried to adjust the language of the rules to reflect the idea “would I call it a catch on the schoolyard.”

If it looks like a catch, it’s almost always a catch. If if looks incomplete, it’s almost always incomplete. If it looks like an interception, it’s almost always an interception. And so on.

 

[TexasRam]

This is the rule:
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds
-------------------------------------------------------
Quite clear that it wasn't a catch. Woods didn't control it through the contact with the ground and did not have possession long enough to make a football move before hitting the ground.

It appears to me Woods clearly controlled the ball through contact with the ground. His butt hit the ground, his legs were on the ground and then he rolled to the side with his shoulder on the ground all while he still had possession of the ball. Contact of the ground has zero to do with this play from the still shots I showed, it wasnt until the defender pulled the ball away from Woods after Woods rolled on his side that got the ball out. In other Words, Woods controlled the ball through contact with the ground.

The issue of "long enough" is maybe where the arguement can be made in my book. But I haven't seen a definition of long enough.

 

[tklongball]

It appears to me Woods clearly controlled the ball through contact with the ground. His butt hit the ground, his legs were on the ground and then he rolled to the side with his shoulder on the ground all while he still had possession of the ball. Contact of the ground has zero to do with this play from the still shots I showed, it wasnt until the defender pulled the ball away from Woods after Woods rolled on his side that got the ball out. In other Words, Woods controlled the ball through contact with the ground.

The issue of "long enough" is maybe where the arguement can be made in my book. But I haven't seen a definition of long enough.

Was a pretty clear interception. No way Woods had the ball long enough for it to be complete and down by contact, not even close.

Doesn't matter, no game is a perfect performance, and we are in first place in the division.

 

[ramfan46]

Was a pretty clear interception. No way Woods had the ball long enough for it to be complete and down by contact, not even close.

Doesn't matter, no game is a perfect performance, and we are in first place in the division.

It’s the way the ball bounces sometimes. JJ3 made a similar INT off of Kittle a couple of years ago.

 

[kurtfaulk]

It's a pick. You have to control the pass through contact with the ground in order to complete the catch. That doesn't mean first contact. Woods didn't have possession long enough to complete the catch. It's a fluke play. But it was a pick.

He didn't drop it. It was ripped out of his hands. He had control when his butt hit the ground.

.

 

[-X-]

It's a pick. You have to control the pass through contact with the ground in order to complete the catch. That doesn't mean first contact. Woods didn't have possession long enough to complete the catch. It's a fluke play. But it was a pick.

Yeah, that's how I saw it too. Although, what constitutes a "complete catch" is arbitrary at best as far as rule enforcement goes. But if Hill or Ramsey came away with a pick like that, we'd be calling it a great play.

 

[Mister Sin]

Good news is that Cam threw us a Pick Six right after. We may have ended up with 3 instead of 7 if that pick wasn't made. Ill take it lol