The Fake Interception

[jrry32]

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.

Contact with the ground has everything to do with this play. The defender took the ball away right after he hit the ground. It was a pick. He did not control it through contact with the ground. Your pictures clearly show him starting to lose it. 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.

.

It was ripped out of his hands before he completed the catch. It doesn't matter if he had control when his butt hit the ground. The play isn't over until he completes the catch. He didn't complete the catch before hitting the ground.

 

[CGI_Ram]

FAKERCEPTION

BUTTMUSTNOTCOUNTCEPTION

 

[Bootleg]

I am really not understanding the confusion.

You make some great points and yes the rule supports your argument.

But here’s where the confusion comes in for me:

What if a receiver dives air-born and makes a catch mid-air with his arms out-stretched. He falls to the ground on his belly with the ball in his hands and his arms still out stretched. A defender is touching him. Isn’t that a catch? And isn’t that what, for all intents and purposes, happened to Woods? And while the scenario above does not follow the rules exactly wouldn't it still be ruled a catch?

I’m just genuinely confused, Not trying to be a dick. Again you made some good points.

 

[Karate61]

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.

Ok. How about you press pause, for say one full hour. Then you can claim Woods had possession for a full hour before the ball was ripped out of his hands!

 

[matt30]

You make some great points and yes the rule supports your argument.

But here’s where the confusion comes in for me:

What if a receiver dives air-born and makes a catch mid-air with his arms out-stretched. He falls to the ground on his belly with the ball in his hands and his arms still out stretched. A defender is touching him. Isn’t that a catch? And isn’t that what, for all intents and purposes, happened to Woods? And while the scenario above does not follow the rules exactly wouldn't it still be ruled a catch?

I’m just genuinely confused, Not trying to be a dick. Again you made some good points.

The receiver would still need to maintain possession of the ball after he hits the ground. The rule is not the same as a fumble.

If a RB dives and loses possession of the ball as he hits the ground, he is down. A receiver needs to maintain control of the ball (long enough that if he wanted to, he could perform a football move with it).

 

[tklongball]

You make some great points and yes the rule supports your argument.

But here’s where the confusion comes in for me:

What if a receiver dives air-born and makes a catch mid-air with his arms out-stretched. He falls to the ground on his belly with the ball in his hands and his arms still out stretched. A defender is touching him. Isn’t that a catch? And isn’t that what, for all intents and purposes, happened to Woods? And while the scenario above does not follow the rules exactly wouldn't it still be ruled a catch?

I’m just genuinely confused, Not trying to be a dick. Again you made some good points.

There is still a time component, which is what is lacking in the interception.

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.

Watch it again in regular speed (This thread Message #35), and you will see that Woods doen't control the ball anywhere close to long enough.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I feel like Woods had possession initially with arms extended but as he tried to pull it into his body it went thru the defenders hands and changed possession at that point. It's a stolen pick.

Easy for me to say but maybe if woods kept his arms extended to "show" the ball rather than bringing the ball back into his body (hence right into the defenders hands) the ref may have disregarded the defender stealing it away at the end of the play.

Maybe. Maybe not.
Flukey stuff.

 

[TexasRam]

Yea in trying to see the opposing point of view I can see the argument that he didn't have control "long enough".

When watching in real time it happens so fast that it appears Woods never had control or didnt have control before he stopped rolling.

I would contend he had possession standing and then on the ground while touched and through his role. But the problem is the defender pulls it out immediately at that point causing Woods to roll more and it therefore looks like one complete movement in real time.

I'm willing to let this one die because it really is irrelevant in the outcome of the game.

I still think there is a problem with the rule not specifying the meaning of "Long Enough". But that will never change unless we are going to have a league define things in terms of milliseconds.

So all in all, I can't blame the refs on this call as it happened so quick there was no fair way to overturn it. And I still think the rules are inconsistently applied. I know I have seen a very similar situation called the other way.

But appreciate everyone's input.

 

[matt30]

I still think there is a problem with the rule not specifying the meaning of "Long Enough". But that will never change unless we are going to have a league define things in terms of milliseconds.

I actually think the old rule was better. It was much more technical about what happens when a player hits the ground.

It read like this in 2017:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

The college rule is even better:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.

 

[MachS]

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

That's what I dont get . No thread on the beautiful sprint out TD throw to Kupp. Or the PA boot 20 yard double-pump throw to Higbee on the run, or the break free from a sack - run for 12 yards, or the dime throw to Reynolds which was dropped, or the PA laser 20 yard pass from his own end-zone that he threw to Kupp. All some of his best plays of the game. But instead let's make a thread trying to absolve him from what was clearly one of his worst throws of the day. The logic is so funny to me. Instead of being like "yea it was a bad throw, but he made a bunch of other good plays." People waste time trying to prove it wasn't a bad play, like the majority of this board doesn't understand football. Same thing after the MIA debacle when people had the nerve to blame McVay for all the turnovers. Just say it was a bad game and move on. He followed that up with great games against SEA and TB.

 

[TexasRam]

That's what I dont get . No thread on the beautiful sprint out TD throw to Kupp. Or the PA boot 20 yard double-pump throw to Higbee on the run, or the break free from a sack - run for 12 yards, or the dime throw to Reynolds which was dropped, or the PA laser 20 yard pass from his own end-zone that he threw to Kupp. All some of his best plays of the game. But instead let's make a thread trying to absolve him from what was clearly one of his worst throws of the day. The logic is so funny to me. Instead of being like "yea it was a bad throw, but he made a bunch of other good plays." People waste time trying to prove it wasn't a bad play, like the majority of this board doesn't understand football. Same thing after the MIA debacle when people had the nerve to blame McVay for all the turnovers. Just say it was a bad game and move on. He followed that up with great games against SEA and TB.

Oh Trust me, we pointed out those awesome throws in other posts

The Woods throw was clearly low and behind the WR, no one is saying it was a perfect throw. No one is defending every Goff throw LOL. My argument is his overall game was really good. There is no QB that isn't going to have a bad pass or two literally every game. Goff's grounding was pretty shitty as well.

I am not sure it's a fair statement to say people blamed Mcvay for ALL the turnovers in Miami. I am pretty sure most people that are defending Goff in the Miami game are saying he should not be held responsible for some of the unblocked defenders that lead to sacks and fumbles. From what I can tell, these extreme generalizations are what is driving the heated debates. Mcvays own words in the post conference tells you he took at least partial blame for the play calls in the Miami game. Goff is definitely to blame for some of those turnovers but all? I guess that's where we differ.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I still think there is a problem with the rule not specifying the meaning of "Long Enough".

I read an article about this in which the author argued that it is impossible to find any language for a “catch” rule that would completely eliminate subjective uncertainty.

The key question indeed is “long enough.” Let’s say for the sake of argument that the league established an arbitrary time frame of 1.5 seconds as “long enough to demonstrate possession.” But the subjective question would still remain... when do you “start” the clock after “possession has been demonstrated?” On a given play, different people might have different notions of when possession was established, and therefore when to “start” the clock ticking to 1.5 seconds.

Bottom line: it’s amazing to me how much the rule now is spectacularly better than the rule was prior to 2017. The “maintain possession all the way through the ground” BS was so horrible. Almost every week, there was a controversy.

Remember awful plays like this one—the Dez Bryant play that was so obviously a catch, yet was ruled incomplete? The notion this was ever ruled “not a catch” is frickin unbelievable.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQxp-A5uvkA

 

[matt30]

Remember awful plays like this one—the Dez Bryant play that was so obviously a catch, yet was ruled incomplete? The notion this was ever ruled “not a catch” is frickin unbelievable.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQxp-A5uvkA

I still think this would be an incomplete pass under the new rules. I would say this because if the ball was jolted further away from his body after the fall to the ground, I would have called it incomplete regardless of the two steps. I think the new rules make that situation even more ambiguous.

Under the old rules it was clear that possession had to be maintained after he hit the ground. In the new rules you get into a fuzzy situation of refs having to determine what an "act common to the game" is and whether Dez had possession long enough to do it.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I still think this would be an incomplete pass under the new rules. I would say this because if the ball was jolted further away from his body after the fall to the ground, I would have called it incomplete regardless of the two steps. I think the new rules make that situation even more ambiguous.

Under the old rules it was clear that possession had to be maintained after he hit the ground. In the new rules you get into a fuzzy situation of refs having to determine what an "act common to the game" is and whether Dez had possession long enough to do it.

No, by the current rules, it would be ruled as exactly what it looks like: a completed catch, then down by contact inside the one yard line. In the video, you can see the Line Judge (ref #43) initially ruled it that way, too.

Dez had possession for a LONG time. Caught the ball in the air, then took step, step, step (THREE steps!), THEN his right hand down, THEN lunges forward with the football with his left hand.

 

[matt30]

No, by the current rules, it would be ruled as exactly what it looks like: a completed catch, then down by contact inside the one yard line. In the video, you can see the Line Judge (ref #43) initially ruled it that way, too.

Dez had possession for a LONG time. Caught the ball in the air, then took step, step, step (THREE steps!), THEN his right hand down, THEN lunges forward with the football with his left hand.

The entire problem with this play is that the DB jolts the ball loose and Dez doesn't appear to have possession with his first step. He then hits the ground and again appears to lose control. The 2017 rule is clear. If he doesn't maintain possession after he falls to the ground, it's incomplete (regardless of making an act "common to the game").

In 2020, a reviewer in NY would have to make a subjective call as to whether Dez is putting his elbow out to make a football move or just brace his fall. And if they don't think the elbow out is an act common to the game (it looks like he initially tries to tuck it or reach but doesn't have time to do either), whether he had possession long enough to do so.

The line judge is irrelevant.

 

[XXXIVwin]

The entire problem with this play is that the DB jolts the ball loose and Dez doesn't appear to have possession with his first step. He then hits the ground and again appears to lose control. The 2017 rule is clear. If he doesn't maintain possession after he falls to the ground, it's incomplete (regardless of making an act "common to the game").

In 2020, a reviewer in NY would have to make a subjective call as to whether Dez is putting his elbow out to make a football move or just brace his fall. And if they don't think the elbow out is an act common to the game (it looks like he initially tries to tuck it or reach but doesn't have time to do either), whether he had possession long enough to do so.

The line judge is irrelevant.

With all due respect, I completely disagree and you’re just plain wrong.

Dez clearly has control while his first foot (his left) is still on the ground. Dez establishes control just as he’s landing on that left foot, but by the time he pushes off that left foot, he’s firmly in control.

EDIT: Here’s an even better angle of Dez with full possession (both hands firmly cradling ball) while that first left foot is still touching ground:

Then he takes a second step (his right foot)

Then by the time he takes the third step (his left again), the catch is complete. (See the rules posted earlier: a THIRD step is all that is required to satisfy the “football move” requirement).

Everything else is gravy. By the time he puts down his right hand and lunges with his left, the catch has already been established.

There are a ton of articles out there analyzing this play, and they all reach the same conclusion: OF COURSE this is a catch.

Kinda hard for me to imagine that anyone could possibly argue that the 2017 rule was “better” than the 2020 rule.

Only caveat: I agree with you actually that the 2017 rule was “clear”. For those that truly understood it, there was a simple kind of cut-and-dry logic to it. Only problem was, it resulted in officiating decisions that seemed to defy common sense. But it had a certain “logic” nonetheless.

Anyway— absolutely no doubt in my mind that were the Dez call go to replay in 2020, the current rulebook would unequivocally state it was a catch, and no, it’s not even close.

 

[Snaz]

My argument is Wood was down by contact with the ground. You cannot strip the ball from a downed player. So it is either incomplete, failed to maintain possession when contacting the ground. Or a catch. I cannot see an interception because the defender did not have possession prior to the receiver being down.

 

[1maGoh]

Ok. How about you press pause, for say one full hour. Then you can claim Woods had possession for a full hour before the ball was ripped out of his hands!

That's an absolutely absurd counter argument, wasn't the point I was making at all, and intellectually dishonest on your part.

 

[Karate61]

That's an absolutely absurd counter argument, wasn't the point I was making at all, and intellectually dishonest on your part.

But, replay doesn't reflect actual time, which can be used to determine possession in this particular play. Woods never had the ball for a moment. It was less than a moment. Wham-Bam. That's not a catch and I believe interception, down by contact, was the perfect call.

 

[1maGoh]

But, replay doesn't reflect actual time, which can be used to determine possession in this particular play. Woods never had the ball for a moment. It was less than a moment. Wham-Bam. That's not a catch and I believe interception, down by contact, was the perfect call.

If course it doesn't reflect actual time. I don't know how you could have possibly thought that I was trying to say slowing down video reflected actual time. That's what I meant when I said it was intellectual dishonesty. There's no way in any of the possible universes of the infinite multiverse that anyone could look at what I said and think, "When he said slowing down a video reflected reality, he clearly meant that pausing the video for an hour means the act actually took an hour." It's absolutely asinine that you would come back and say that.

What happens in the video on slow mo is what actually happened in the game (and for those with difficulties getting past their own point of view and are who willing to argue over things that were clearly not said because they can't accept being wrong: it is obvious that the time elapsed in slow mo is not the same time that elapses at regular video playing speed). Therefore, if it's obvious that something happened while watching a video on slow mo, that thing is what happened at regular speed. It just happened faster.

I don't even disagree that the interception was the right call. I wouldn't have disagreed if it was ruled a catch and down by contact. It's a close judgement call scenario in that situation. If the defender didn't take the ball and Woods maintained possession, they would have called him down when his butt hit the ground, in my opinion. So there's a bit of a double standard, in my opinion.

What I'm against is the idea that we should allow people with failing eye site, personal biases, personal emotions, and personal interpretations of the rules to decide what happened when we have the tools and technology to call a game according to reality. I get that we didn't have the technology and ability to do that when you started watching and it feels like someone is trying to move you're cheese. However, changing something to make the game objectively better is... Well it's better. Objectively better.