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

[BrassCowboy]

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.

no, in all fairness it really does matter, because what they are saying is that it was a catch and fumble by street which means that if it hit the ground it still would be a live ball. It is so close. not sure but to me doesn't matter here as the result was the same.

 

[DandyDon52]

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

he got 2 feet down.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

What does this do for this team if it's changed? Does this thread have fantasy football implications?

 

[percyhoward]

This will even out the next time a defender drops a sure interception.

 

[Risen Star]

This will even out the next time a defender drops a sure interception.

Percy, you Romo hater.

 

[iceberg]

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.

the bigger question is why we come in all torqued off about missed calls but giggle and look away at the calls we got away with...

 

[Bungarian]

Not important really.

 

[AbeBeta]

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

As to whether they happened. They aren't going to change pick to fumble. That a statistical issue that has nothing to do with the outcome of the play

 

[SDCowboy]

They need to change the INT stat. If it's blatantly on the receiver, they should get charged with the INT. Not the QB. Receiving targets cause INT's just as QB's do, so why it the stat only for QB's?

 

[NinePointOh]

On the reverse angle you can see Street bobbling the ball as he brought it down. Both hands came all the way off the ball and then enclosed around it again. He only had it secured for a split second before he got hit and the ball came loose, which is not "long enough to perform any act common to the game." Thus it was not a catch, as the rule is written.

http://gfycat.com/JovialZestyJunco#?speed=0.5

 

[wick]

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

Corrections typically happen the day after the game, or at least that's what I recall when I used to play fantasy football. It won't be changed at this point. It would be nice if the NFL introduced new ways to score turnovers for that type of situation. The negative play is charged 100 percent to Romo even though he made a great throw and had nothing to do with the turnover. Call it an interception, but charge it to the receiver, not to the quarterback.

 

[NinePointOh]

They need to change the INT stat. If it's blatantly on the receiver, they should get charged with the INT. Not the QB. Receiving targets cause INT's just as QB's do, so why it the stat only for QB's?

First, it already goes into the receiver's catch rate -- it's just that fans pay less attention to stats like those.

Second, by your logic, a QB shouldn't get credit for passing yards if he just chucks it up and the receiver outjumps two defenders, or dumps it off to a guy who breaks a tackle and runs 30 yards after the catch -- after all, those positive plays were blatantly created by the receiver. It injects far too much subjectivity into record-keeping if a human has to dissect every play to assign credit and blame. Who gets credit if it's a great throw and a great catch? Who gets credit if it's a mediocre throw and a bad catch, but still complete? What if it's a great throw but the receiver ran the wrong route and it gets picked? What if it's a bad pass AND gets deflected off the receiver's hands for an interception (see: the Unga interception)? What if the QB leads the receiver directly into the path of an oncoming defender (arguably what happened on the McBride INT)? If we don't even trust NFL officials to consistently call what's a catch and what's pass interference and what's holding, why would we trust them to know each player's responsibility and assign blame subjectively? The potential for added controversy is just staggering.

Third, it's not like there's any tangible consequence of having an INT assigned to you. A turnover is a turnover. Coaches can already grade players based on their actual performance, and observers simply have to be smart enough to consider context when looking at any number. The only people this matters to are fantasy football owners and ignorant fans who talk smack about stat lines without watching the games.

 

[hornitosmonster]

just a stats, doesn't matter in the end. We got that W and that is what counts most

 

[dogberry]

Does baseball change stats after the game?

 

[DFWJC]

I thought it was a misprint when that was called a fumble. Perfect pass, caught, and then the Street got crunched and lost the ball. That's how I saw it.
But unless we're talking about QB rating (this year and historical), it really doesn't matter.
Bad luck for Romo's stats....doubt he cares one bit, so we shouldn't really either.
record is 1-0

 

[Cowboys22]

There's no way under the current system for that to be anything but an INT. I would not mind seeing a change that includes INT stats for WR/RBs. A perfectly thrown ball that goes off a WR/RBs hands and gets intercepted goes in the book as an INT for the WR/RB not the QB. I might seem weird at first but an INT should be credited to the person at fault. I might even go so far as to allow teams to petition the official scorer after games for something like the WR ran the wrong route and it resulted in an INT. That might get a little tricky and night not work so well.

 

[DallasEast]

They need to change the INT stat. If it's blatantly on the receiver, they should get charged with the INT. Not the QB. Receiving targets cause INT's just as QB's do, so why it the stat only for QB's?

I've been saying the same thing for over 20 years.

 

[xwalker]

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

1. On the Steet play, it didn't matter if it was a catch and fumble or an INT. The ball never his the ground. The Giants get the turnover either way. The only difference is Romo's INT stats.

2. All turnovers and scoring plays are automatically reviewed.

 

[Sage3030]

Does baseball change stats after the game?

All the time. Here are some

Edit: these all occurred after the game was over btw. And these are from this year alone. The link has a lot more:

http://m.mlb.com/promo/scoring-changes

"4/6, SF at ARI, Brandon Crawford's double in the top of the 5th inning was changed to a single, costing him one RBI and making Casey McGehee's run unearned. Josh Collmenter is charged with a total of four earned runs.

2: 4/8, SD at LAD, Jimmy Rollins credited with a triple in the bottom of the 8th inning instead of a three-base error on center fielder Wil Myers.

3: 4/8, STL at CHC, Jason Heyward credited with an infield single in the top of the 8th instead of an error on shortstop Starlin Castro.

4: 4/8, TEX at OAK, Josh Phegley credited with an infield single in the bottom of the 4th instead of an error on shortstop Elvis Andrus.

5: 4/15, CWS at CLE, Catcher Geovany Soto's error on Roberto Perez's sacrifice in the bottom of the 3rd has been removed. This makes Lonnie Chisenhall's run earned, charged against Jon Danks."

 

[perrykemp]

just a stats, doesn't matter in the end. We got that W and that is what counts most

Only matters at a individual level for Romo -- ie another close MVP race etc where an extra TD here or one less INT there might be the tie-breaker.

The thing is -- all QBs have some percentage of their interceptions fall into the general category of not being their fault.