The Fake Interception
- Thread starter TexasRam
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
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.
That’s a lot of analysis to save Goff an interception on a ball that was thrown late, low and behind the receiver.
fearsomefour
Legend
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.
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
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6BTvauuLjc
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
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!
But when we came right back and pick 6ed Neuter... That was the Football Gods telling everyone....
Ball don't lie bitches!
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.
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
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
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.
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
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!!!
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!!!
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?
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.
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 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.
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
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.
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
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.