Rammer wrote:Blue In BC wrote:Blitz wrote:I thought the refs blew the call because 1) he had possession/control 2) when he got up following the interception his one knee was off the ground and the second knee hit the football out of his hand...so quite simply it was an interception, beginning of a run following the intercetpion, a fumble, and a fumble recovery! He did not lose control when in contact with the ground.
Except one knee was still on the ground ( left I think ) and his right knee hit the ball as he was rising knocking it lose. If his left knee had cleared the ground, I think they would have had no choice but to call it an int and a fumble.
The grey area here is that usually the contact with the ground causes a player to lose control of the ball. That was not the case here, because it was a body part that caused him to lose the ball after he had possession.
The rule needs to be changed. Whether that is to allow a judgement by the ref or a word change in the rule, I don't know.
Hard to define that he had it " long enough " Where does a ref draw that line on a call.
Fortunately it didn't decide the outcome of the game. It could have.
Edit: If it HAD changed the outcome of the game, I wonder if the VP of officiating would have said anything. We'll never know.
Except that Palamula (sp) had a stride and a half before he went down to the ground rolled and got up. I am sure that even in the deepest of interpretations that was an INT. That was a brutal call that came close to affecting the outcome that wasn't in the NFL's favour. It is also why the conspiracy theorists have come out.
The rule says you must have control of it when you hit the ground. It's no different if a receiver catches an over the shoulder pass while running at full speed and as a result ends up on the ground, losing control when he hits the ground.
I don't watch the NFL that often, but even I've seen the same application of the rule all year. The problem here is that he did have control of it when he hit the ground and lost it while he was still on the ground.
There is nothing in the rule that says a player can roll over 27 times after looking to have gained contol and then lose it on roll 28 that it's still considered possession.
I exaggerate, but I've also seen TD's over ruled where the receiver caught the ball and while hitting the ground, the ball is stripped by the DB.