Why the Wilcox INT should have stood

[links18]

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

I don't know, did it? Is that what the refs said? A catch is catch regardless of who makes it--offense or defense.

 

[Crown Royal]

I don't know, did it? Is that what the refs said? A catch is catch regardless of who makes it--offense or defense.

Yes. They said the nose of the ball touched the ground and therefore it's an incomplete pass. My point is that if he had maintained control, it would have been a catch because his hand was under it. Same should apply for the INT.

Just a terrible, terrible call. That Mike Pereira supported the overturning confuses me even more.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.

Point 1: absolutely agree.
Point 2: Can't agree with you there. Avant didn't hold on and he wasn't credited with a catch. And it's not a reception (or interception) if the ball touches the ground BEFORE the receiver ever touches it, which is what the refs say happened in this case: it touched the ground before Wilcox ever got hold of it. You can't argue that Avant had control of it when it touched the ground and further argue that it was incomplete to Avant, since he clearly didn't actually have control of it.

 

[romothesavior]

No exaggeration, this may have been the worst call I've ever seen in an NFL game.

 

[Crown Royal]

Point 1: absolutely agree.
Point 2: Can't agree with you there. Avant didn't hold on and he wasn't credited with a catch. And it's not a reception (or interception) if the ball touches the ground BEFORE the receiver ever touches it, which is what the refs say happened in this case: it touched the ground before Wilcox ever got hold of it. You can't argue that Avant had control of it when it touched the ground and further argue that it was incomplete to Avant, since he clearly didn't actually have control of it.

I think I understand your point on the before, my only point is that if Avant had NOT popped it into the air and had cradled it, would have been a catch no matter what.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think I understand your point on the before, my only point is that if Avant had NOT popped it into the air and had cradled it, would have been a catch no matter what.

Yes, that's certainly true. And if Wilcox had caught it the same way, he would have been credited with an interception. But nobody will ever be credited with a catch on a ball that touched the ground before they ever got their hands on it.

 

[starfrombirth]

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?

umm yes! Did you see the officiating yesterday? That was one of the most biased officiating examples I've ever seen. People have been saying that we should have lost because Foles was so horrible. I contend that we would have blown them out if they had called even half the tackles.. I mean holds.. that the eagles did to us. Not to mention all the other missed calls.. I'm not even gonna go into all of them.

 

[starfrombirth]

Yes. They said the nose of the ball touched the ground and therefore it's an incomplete pass. My point is that if he had maintained control, it would have been a catch because his hand was under it. Same should apply for the INT.

Just a terrible, terrible call. That Mike Pereira supported the overturning confuses me even more.

Mike Pereira is a ****** who hates the Cowboys as much as the rest of the officials in the NFL. Who do you think instilled their mentality to us. He was the head of officiating for a long time before taking that gig on Fox.. or is he still head of officiating .. which would explain it even better. /endrant

 

[Crown Royal]

Yes, that's certainly true. And if Wilcox had caught it the same way, he would have been credited with an interception. But nobody will ever be credited with a catch on a ball that touched the ground before they ever got their hands on it.

Does the rule say that explicitly?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Does the rule say that explicitly?

Does the rule say what? That it's not a catch if the ball bounces on the ground before you ever touch it? Pretty sure it does. And that's what happened, if you accept that (a) it wasn't actually completed to the targeted receiver and (b) it touched the ground.

 

[beevomav]

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.

It appears they looked for a reason to overturn the call? My brain tells me this makes no sense, but my eyes show me there is no way for them to tell if the ball hit the ground I thought the rule states there has to be clear and convincing evidence to overturn the call on the field? In other words, the tie goes to the call on the field. That clearly did not happen in this instance.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

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.

I felt the same exact way. It was one of those plays where what is called on the field should stand as there is no hard evidence one way or the other.

 

[The Quest for Six]

the back of the football hit the ground, end of story...correct call!

 

[Zekeats]

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.

You my friend are wrong........He had a clear path to come out and if he had cut it back inside at the right time he may have been gone. I understand where you are coming from, there are certain times they should not run it out but his momentum, and the clear path he had with a chance to make a play an even bigger play, it was the right decision for that particular play.

 

[BaybeeJay]

Does the rule say that explicitly?

I am not sure what you are confused about. The refs believed the ball touched the ground, and Avant never demonstrated control of the ball. That is an incomplete pass, and the play is over.

 

[Hostile]

the back of the football hit the ground, end of story...correct call!

Prove it. I contend there is no shot showing the ball on the ground without Avant's hand under it. There was no clear evidence. It should not have been over turned.

 

[Zekeats]

Ball never hit the ground.......they called it incomplete on pure judgment just because of the way it popped upward.........and it popped up like that because the receivers hand was against the ground which allowed his hand to be just about as hard as the ground. There was no evidence, no angle, no zoom that showed the ball touching the ground, and as someone else stated the zoom was to blurry to tell and it was not inconclusive evidence to overturn, end of story.

 

[Crown Royal]

Prove it. I contend there is no shot showing the ball on the ground without Avant's hand under it. There was no clear evidence. It should not have been over turned.

This. Even if you disagree with my interpretation about the hand being under (which is fine), there was no irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. Not a bit.

 

[WV Cowboy]

You my friend are wrong........He had a clear path to come out and if he had cut it back inside at the right time he may have been gone. I understand where you are coming from, there are certain times they should not run it out but his momentum, and the clear path he had with a chance to make a play an even bigger play, it was the right decision for that particular play.

He was shoved out of bounds inside our 10 yd line, .. at the 6 I think.
If that possibility even exists, which it surely did, .. then just stay in the EZ.

The results of the return proves who was right and who was wrong.

 

[Zekeats]

He was shoved out of bounds inside our 10 yd line, .. at the 6 I think.
If that possibility even exists, which it surely did, .. then just stay in the EZ.

The results of the return proves who was right and who was wrong.

Not true...........anything could happen. Actually there was no result of any return since the play was ruled an incomplete pass. Now who is right?