The Fake Interception

[-X-]

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

Spoiler: I'd like to propose a change

 

[Snaz]

He was down when he hit the ground, play is over. Ripping it out took place after he was down. He controlled the ball through the ground. Had the defender not ripped it out, he would stlll have the ball. To me it's a catch and no interception because the play ended when he was down.

 

[Allen2McVay]

1. Woods has possession of the Ball while standing up.

That’s a lot of analysis to save Goff an interception on a ball that was thrown late, low and behind the receiver.

 

[fearsomefour]

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.

Good question.
Not a catch if there was no defender.
It was a lucky play for the defender.
Reminded me of Adam Archuletta’s TD from years ago.

 

[-X-]

I appreciate the breakdown, but the thing that gets lost in these things is the speed of the game. I know the refs look at it in slow motion, but it all happened so fast that there was no way they were gonna call that a "completed catch".



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6BTvauuLjc

 

[Ewe83]

I think what it probably should have been wan an incomplete after they went back and looked at it. Goff throws that JUST a little higher and it would have been on the money. Oh well we won and Goff still had a great game. Appreciate you taking a good look at it though Texas

 

[-X-]

 

[Selassie I]

I was pissed after the ball was awarded to the cheaters. At least they didn't gift wrap them a fake return for a TD too.

But when we came right back and pick 6ed Neuter... That was the Football Gods telling everyone....

Ball don't lie bitches!

 

[drsnook]

It's the same play Adam Archuletta got a pick on some years back. Receiver intially has hands on the ball as they roll, defender comes away with it mid-roll with all kinds of body parts contacting the ground. I didn't like the play, but I think the refs ruled correctly. No one on the Rams sideline argued, either.

 

[dieterbrock]

Well, they couldnt call it incomplete, the ball never touched the ground.
It was either a catch or an INT.
I dont think Woods had control of the ball and the Pats were just lucky as crap.
Karma reared its head though a couple plays later with Cam's TD pass to Kenny Young

 

[snackdaddy]

I suppose the only thing it hurts is Goff's QB rating. But I thought it shoulda been a fumble rather than an INT. We actually did better with the result of it with the pick six. So its all good.

 

[dieterbrock]

But I thought it shoulda been a fumble rather than an INT.

I was thinking that at first, but the only way it could have been a fumble would have required Woods to gain possession. And if he had been ruled in possession, he would have also been ruled down with contact

 

[SWAdude]

I really don't like (hate) relying on the football gods for our teams destiny. Until recently they really have not been kind for a long time.

This was a well presented post that has given many pause. Including me. Reading through this I flopped back and forth on this call. That is not easy to do. Well done!

I think in real time there at best was questionable possession. As much as those still shots bring about some reasonable doubt it does appear the ball was not secure and always moving around.

Freak plays happen like this. Goff took a beating by a troll or two that night on this play. Right now, in this offense, with this coach, I would rather have Goff than any other QB in the league right now.

It is a very complex game with many moving parts. Chess with gladiators as I like to put it.

GO RAMS!!!

 

[RamBall]

I wasnt happy with the call, but the pick 6 that came shortly after this play made up for it. Was it karma repaying NE for the bogus call?

 

[Jorgeh0605]

Football rules say he needs to have possession long enough to do a football move like ward off a defender, pretty clear that he never warded off the defender. Interception and down on contact was the right call.

 

[Karate61]

It was an interception!

Super-Duper-Slow-Mo does not always accurately depict the rules of the game. Woods had possession of the ball for less time than we could all yell "FUCK"! That's not "possession". 1/10 of one second of possession is not possession!

Ball never hit the ground, so interception!

Thank God they got it right that he was down by contact!

 

[LARAMSinFeb.]

FAKERCEPTION

 

[Bootleg]

I dunno my friends. I thought that was a catch when I watched the game, and think it's a catch even more now.

Let's say there's no defender involved. If Woods reaches back for a football, catches it in his outstretched hands, and still has possession of the ball once his butt hits the ground. That's a catch. He doesn't need to bring it into his body or make a football move. Butt on the ground. Ball firmly in hand. That's exactly what happened here. There's no bobbling by Woods.

I get it happened fast and it's hard for the refs to sort it out in real time. But after seeing the replay Thursday night I was really surprised the interception call stood. At least that's the way I see it. Your mileage may vary.

 

[1maGoh]

It was an interception!

Super-Duper-Slow-Mo does not always accurately depict the rules of the game. Woods had possession of the ball for less time than we could all yell "FUCK"! That's not "possession". 1/10 of one second of possession is not possession!

Ball never hit the ground, so interception!

Thank God they got it right that he was down by contact!

Super duper slow mo reflects reality. If the rules don't match up to super duper slow mo or what a perfect electronic system could measure, then the rules are wrong. Rules can need adjustment. This desire by some folks to keep the game in this shitty limbo where sometimes the exact same play is called differently because Bob's wife yelled at him last night and he's feeling pissy that day is maddening.

 

[tklongball]

I dunno my friends. I thought that was a catch when I watched the game, and think it's a catch even more now.

Let's say there's no defender involved. If Woods reaches back for a football, catches it in his outstretched hands, and still has possession of the ball once his butt hits the ground. That's a catch. He doesn't need to bring it into his body or make a football move. Butt on the ground. Ball firmly in hand. That's exactly what happened here. There's no bobbling by Woods.

I get it happened fast and it's hard for the refs to sort it out in real time. But after seeing the replay Thursday night I was really surprised the interception call stood. At least that's the way I see it. Your mileage may vary.

The bolded part above is incorrect

Jrry32 already posted the rule, and your scenario would in fact, NOT be a catch, see part 'C' below

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.

I am really not understanding the confusion. It is pretty cut and dry when you watch it in real time (Posted by @-X- in #35 in this thread). As much as I hated that it happened, as soon as I saw the replay, I knew it was an interception. The only question when I originally saw it live was if the ball hit the ground.