Why the Wilcox INT should have stood

[Crown Royal]

I should point out that I don't know exactly what the rule in this situation is, but I still want to give some reasons I feel that was an INT:

1. There was simply NO clear and obvious evidence that the football touched the ground. Zooming in it was far to pixelated to actually see the football touch the ground at ANY point in that motion. Assuming that it did and overturning a call was a poor, poor decision. The play should have stood (not confirmed, just stood).
2. IF Avant holds onto the ball, he gets credited with a catch, whether the football touched or not. This is where I don't know exactly what the rule says, but I do know that if he controls it, it counts as a catch, touch or no touch on the ground. This is unfairly biased to the offense (surprise surprise), but it was clear he had a hand under it and was in the process of catching it. If the hand-under rule is enough for a catch, then it should apply to the interception as well.

 

[Redball Express]

I also thought the call was too close to overturn.
And that is where the home field advantage plays out.

It was a great reaction on Wilcox's part..I think if he stays healthy..he's going to be a good addition to the defense.
I thought his play in pre-season was impressive.

 

[DCBoysfan]

Yea I didnt think it was enough evidence to overturn the call of an int. I though it was a very nice play by Wilcox.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Would have liked to see Wilcox take a knee in the EZ.

I know they are kids, and are just trying to make a play, but in that situation, he should have stayed in the EZ to give us the ball at the 20.

I think he should understand that much about the game.

 

[Crown Royal]

I guess what bothers me more is that EVEN IF it did graze the ground, it was clear that at the time it happened, Avant had his hand underneath it and was in what would have been considered "in control" during the catch process. If that is good enough for an offensive catch, I don't see how you can overturn it for the defense. Just so lame.

 

[jterrell]

Terrible decision to overturn based on visual evidence.
Would have understood if it had been called incomplete than upheld but that was inconclusive as can be.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Terrible decision to overturn based on visual evidence.
Would have understood if it had been called incomplete than upheld but that was inconclusive as can be.

Exactly the way I felt, at the time. No way there was enough evidence to overturn. If it had been called incomplete, same deal. I agree JT.

 

[hairic]

That was terrible. The best "evidence" is the 3rd image, and the shadow of his index finger is still visible under the ball. That'd require a lot of ball deformity to touch the ground.

 

[Doomsday101]

I also thought the call was too close to overturn.
And that is where the home field advantage plays out.

It was a great reaction on Wilcox's part..I think if he stays healthy..he's going to be a good addition to the defense.
I thought his play in pre-season was impressive.

I agree. Replay is suppose to be used to over turn a clear cut mistake. There was nothing clear cut about that play so what was called on the field should have stood.

 

[joseephuss]

I wonder what would have happened after the ball bounced up had it come straight back down to Avant and ruled a TD. Would they see it the same way and overturn it then?

 

[WV Cowboy]

I think we all agree that the "overturn" of the INT was inexplainable, .. so can anyone explain it?

Why would the replay booth overturn that play?

Clearly they were wrong, .. why then did they make that call?

 

[JohnsKey19]

Given it was ruled an INT on the field, the call should have stood. If it was called an incomplete pass on the field, it should have stood. There was no evidence to overturn the call either way it was called on the field.The officiating in general was terrible yesterday.

 

[fifaguy]

the refs have been awful no doubt there

 

[hra8700]

I thought it def hit the ground. Overturn vs ruling on the field standing i figured would be 50/50.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The game was in Philly. I knew when they reviewed the play Wilcox lost his INT and said so at the time. What really grates on me - if Avant catches that ball they would have called it a TD not an incompletion.

 

[Crown Royal]

I thought it def hit the ground. Overturn vs ruling on the field standing i figured would be 50/50.

Even if it HAD hit the ground, had he controlled it he would have unquestionably been awarded a TD and catch. That's what bothers me. Control it it's a catch. Don't control it with the same effect and somebody grabs it, the same standard should apply.

 

[Everson24]

This officiating bias has to stop. The NFL is losing credibility each and every week with the refs controlling games. It's getting to be like the NBA where an officiating crew can shift the competitive balance of a game.

I think Jerry needs to get one of his grand-kids to put together a video montage of all the blatantly bad calls that have gone against us this year. He needs to be more like Phil Jackson and just accept the inevitable fine. It's getting so ridiculous that I can barely stand to watch NFL games anymore. The NFL needs to have 2 or 3 spare officiating crews and suspend the bad crews or else the personal bias will continue until there are more severe repercussions.

The ending of the Jets - Patriots game was a good example. It was inexcusable for a refs to call that penalty at that point and basically ending the game and handing the victory to the Jets. These refs are determining far too many outcomes.

Yes we won this time. But this has been going on all year and if it continues it just may cost us another chance at a playoff berth.

 

[Crown Royal]

Addendum; how the sideline pass to Bryant was not reviewed by the booth amazes me. I understand not calling it on the field, but the review team upstairs should have challenged that (since the coach can't). I think we ran the clock down specifically because they thought the review team would see that. It was so blatantly a catch!

 

[links18]

The rules for what constitute a catch are the same for offense and defensive players. There are not separate rules for interceptions.

 

[Crown Royal]

The rules for what constitute a catch are the same for offense and defensive players. There are not separate rules for interceptions.

Then why does the ball hitting the ground matter in this instance?