Wpg/Hamilton Edwards vs Shivers catch or INT?

[Rammer]

If you saw the play, what would you call the play? For the record the play on the field was called an INT, and reviewed as correct. IMO, that is a catch no ifs and or buts about it.

[KnowItAll]

If you saw the play, what would you call the play? For the record the play on the field was called an INT, and reviewed as correct. IMO, that is a catch no ifs and or buts about it.

never any doubt in my mind that it was an int.

[Blue In BC]

It was a int IMO. Edwards had it but lost it to Shivers as he contacted the ground. I think they got it right.

I also thought the first challenge of Ralph as an incompletion was correct. Unfortunately I did think in Q4 when he caught a pass in the end zone for a TD ( ruled incomplete ) was an error on the refs but the Bombers no longer had a challenge available.

[wildthing]

tough call. Does the receiver have possession when he uses the defender's body to secure the catch? I would agree it was an INT based on that fact, it wasn't ever in Edwards control because he only had a hand on it, Shivers had possession as it was secured against him. I think of it like a trap against the ground, you can't have possession if ground is where the ball is secured, in this instance the trap was against the other player

[Blue In BC]

tough call. Does the receiver have possession when he uses the defender's body to secure the catch? I would agree it was an INT based on that fact, it wasn't ever in Edwards control because he only had a hand on it, Shivers had possession as it was secured against him. I think of it like a trap against the ground, you can't have possession if ground is where the ball is secured, in this instance the trap was against the other player

Cahoon made a reception last year against the helmet of the DB but it was a clear reception and the DB never got his hands on it.

Edwards had a chance to retain control but Shivers was able to pull it away as they fell to the ground.

That's the way it goes and was good play by the DB. Not much Edwards could do to get his second hand on it and retain control.

[Dan]

That call could have gone either way, but IMO the receiver had control of the ball and was down by contact, before the defender pulled the ball away. So my vote goes to a catch.

[Hambone]

I had no problem agreeing with the replay judgement on that one. I think it was all in the timing. Had it been clear Edwards had total control of the ball and Shivers didn't start gaining control until after Edwards' butt cheeks hit the turf then Winnipeg has a good argument. But it looked to me like Edwards was already starting to lose control of the ball to Shivers when he contacted the turf. Put it this was had the ball managed to squirt lose from Shivers after wrestling it from Edwards's control I think it gets ruled as incomplete.

[Ravi]

If you saw the play, what would you call the play? For the record the play on the field was called an INT, and reviewed as correct. IMO, that is a catch no ifs and or buts about it.

There is no doubt in my mind that that is an INT as Edwards didn't even have his hand on the ball when they came down. Shivers clearly had possession when they hit the turf IMO.

[Rammer]

If you saw the play, what would you call the play? For the record the play on the field was called an INT, and reviewed as correct. IMO, that is a catch no ifs and or buts about it.

There is no doubt in my mind that that is an INT as Edwards didn't even have his hand on the ball when they came down. Shivers clearly had possession when they hit the turf IMO.

I saw it differently, Edwards still had his hand on the ball. Doesn't the rule apply that dual possession go to the receiver?

[KnowItAll]

If you saw the play, what would you call the play? For the record the play on the field was called an INT, and reviewed as correct. IMO, that is a catch no ifs and or buts about it.

There is no doubt in my mind that that is an INT as Edwards didn't even have his hand on the ball when they came down. Shivers clearly had possession when they hit the turf IMO.

I saw it differently, Edwards still had his hand on the ball. Doesn't the rule apply that dual possession go to the receiver?

just having your hand on the ball isnt any kind of possession

[Rammer]

I saw it differently, Edwards still had his hand on the ball. Doesn't the rule apply that dual possession go to the receiver?

just having your hand on the ball isnt any kind of possession

He did coral the ball with one hand to Shivers body, sustaining the catch and continued to have his hand on the ball while the defender attempted to pull it away without success. An interesting play that does pose questions IMO.

[Blue In BC]

I saw it differently, Edwards still had his hand on the ball. Doesn't the rule apply that dual possession go to the receiver?

just having your hand on the ball isnt any kind of possession

He did coral the ball with one hand to Shivers body, sustaining the catch and continued to have his hand on the ball while the defender attempted to pull it away without success. An interesting play that does pose questions IMO.

Actually with the ball close to Shiver's body, he put his arm over the ball and greater possession of it than Edwards could possibly have had.

IMO, there was very little attempt needed to separate Edward's hand away where he looked like more of the DB than the DB.

Again. I had no problem with the call or the replay upholding the decision.