Was there any way to get Romo's second "interception" overturned?

[loublue22]

Is there a mechanism for that? Can it be reviewed?

 

[burmafrd]

what? where did this come from?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Is there a mechanism for that? Can it be reviewed?

what and ruled a fumble by street?

 

[burmafrd]

what and ruled a fumble by street?

never will happen though that was really what it was. It popped loose after he had caught it so it really should be a fumble.

 

[Corso]

Is there a mechanism for that? Can it be reviewed?

All turnovers, like touchdowns are reviewed on the spot, I believe.

 

[Corso]

never will happen though that was really what it was. It popped loose after he had caught it so it really should be a fumble.

Did he even get his feet down? I don't remember, but I thought he didn't get that done when he got hit.

 

[burmafrd]

Did he even get his feet down? I don't remember, but I thought he didn't get that done when he got hit.

should not matter- he had secured the ball when the impact knocked it loose.

 

[loublue22]

Did he even get his feet down? I don't remember, but I thought he didn't get that done when he got hit.

I seem to remember a couple of steps at least. Can't find a video.

 

[Corso]

should not matter- he had secured the ball when the impact knocked it loose.

Normally I would absolutely agree, but with the way the NFL is interpreting what is and isn't a catch in their strange, amorphous way has brought me to question everything I now hold as truth- when it comes to play on the field.

These are strange times in the NFL right now.

 

[Corso]

I seem to remember a couple of steps at least. Can't find a video.

Shoot- I hope a vid can be found. That would lay this bird to rest.
Wasn't that good a thread anyways...

 

[Paniolo22]

Normally I would absolutely agree, but with the way the NFL is interpreting what is and isn't a catch in their strange, amorphous way has brought me to question everything I now hold as truth- when it comes to play on the field.

These are strange times in the NFL right now.

Doesn't matter, ball never touched the ground.

 

[Corso]

Doesn't matter, ball never touched the ground.

Okay so... INT, or fumble on this particular incident?
Which is it?

 

[JDSmith]

Having it incorrectly (IMO) called an interception lowered Romo's passer rating from 112 to 103. Hardly earth shattering. The bigger question on that play is why they didn't flag that scumbag from the Giants for an illegal block in the back on Romo. Had they done so it would have been Giants ball on the 15 instead of the 1. That would have made a difference in the game, unlike changing an interception into a fumble.

 

[Corso]

Having it incorrectly (IMO) called an interception lowered Romo's passer rating from 112 to 103. Hardly earth shattering. The bigger question on that play is why they didn't flag that scumbag from the Giants for an illegal block in the back on Romo. Had they done so it would have been Giants ball on the 15 instead of the 1. That would have made a difference in the game, unlike changing an interception into a fumble.

Now that was pretty blatant, but I (can only) guess that the ref, if he/they saw it, thought it wasn't severe enough to toss the cloth.
Just my guess.

 

[JDSmith]

Now that was pretty blatant, but I (can only) guess that the ref, if he/they saw it, thought it wasn't severe enough to toss the cloth.
Just my guess.

They flag the exact same thing when it happens to the 45th guy on the roster during a punt return. That guy clearly blocked Romo in the back, I can only assume the ref didn't see it.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

should not matter- he had secured the ball when the impact knocked it loose.

in all fairness, had the ball hit the ground, it would be incomplete. street was at fault, but it's an int none the less.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Having it incorrectly (IMO) called an interception lowered Romo's passer rating from 112 to 103. Hardly earth shattering. The bigger question on that play is why they didn't flag that scumbag from the Giants for an illegal block in the back on Romo. Had they done so it would have been Giants ball on the 15 instead of the 1. That would have made a difference in the game, unlike changing an interception into a fumble.

Actually the 15 yards would start where the penalty happen not the end of the run. If I'm not mistaken it happened around the 15 yard line so Giants would have the ball at the 30 not the 15

 

[ConstantReboot]

Normally I would absolutely agree, but with the way the NFL is interpreting what is and isn't a catch in their strange, amorphous way has brought me to question everything I now hold as truth- when it comes to play on the field.

These are strange times in the NFL right now.

All this interpretation on what is a catch or not all started because of the Bryant's catch that was overturned. If they would have called it a catch and left it as that, this interpretation mayhem would not have happened.

 

[DandyDon52]

I have the game, so I took a look, and street only took 1 step and was hit, it looks like a catch and fumble, but maybe by their rules he hadnt caught it
yet, so it was still a pass lol.
About hit on romo on that play, 98 hit him in his left shoulder, so it technically wasn't a clip.
Also on that play frederick was hit and laid out after the int, much like lee was in Seattle.

 

[BrassCowboy]

should not matter- he had secured the ball when the impact knocked it loose.

well that does matter, possession doesn't happen til you get two feet down