Not a complaint, just want to understand the ruling (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.

To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?

I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

 

[DropKick]

I think the TV networks could do a better job showing us replays, reverse angles etc.

If I'm not mistaken, they were interviewing Pereira, on that particular replay and he thought it would be upheld (a catch) but it was ruled incomplete. Everyone was real quiet after that.

In general, if you have complete control of the ball and it hits the ground - no problem. But if the ball shifts, or moves or you trap the ball against the ground, it will be ruled incomplete.

 

[theplayer11]

basically, the refs have taken away the diving catch with arms fully extended. The ball has to hit the ground and when doing so, it will move.

 

[boubucarow]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

The Shields play was incomplete by rule. It was reviewed since it was in the last 2 minutes of the half. And not only did they get keep the INT, they also didn't notice that Knox touched Sheilds on his way down. Two easy calls blown on the same play.

 

[detox]

I saw both plays and thought, both incomplete. If the balls touches the turf and wobbles while in the hands of the receiver then it's deemed an incompletion.

The Sam Shields int was with in the 2 minute warning, was reviewed and upheld. Very bad call IMHO.

 

[smackdaddies]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

during the game and in game replays it looked like the Shields ball never hit the ground - only his hand, which was under the ballat least thats my memory.

 

[boubucarow]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

during the game and in game replays it looked like the Shields ball never hit the ground - only his hand, which was under the ballat least thats my memory.

It hit the ground. Knox touched him. The refs missed both with replay.

 

[Lutherman2112]

I think the TV networks could do a better job showing us replays, reverse angles etc.If I'm not mistaken, they were interviewing Pereira, on that particular replay and he thought it would be upheld (a catch) but it was ruled incomplete. Everyone was real quiet after that.In general, if you have complete control of the ball and it hits the ground - no problem. But if the ball shifts, or moves or you trap the ball against the ground, it will be ruled incomplete.

As soon as I saw that ball move a bit in the crux of Miller's elbow, I knew the call would be incomplete.I believe there was a chance that the ball did not hit the ground, but once it moved, and if I was in the booth, that's an incomplete.I wanted it to be a completion, too.

 

[Go Pack]

I did not see any views where it was conclusive that Shields INT touched the ground. It appeared his hand may have been under it. It clearly moved, but not certain it hit the ground. The ref said the play stood, not that it was confirmed so I think that means inconclusive evidence? I think whatever was called on the field would have stood there.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

 

[TheWheel]

The way I understand it is that Miller didn't have enough control of the ball to hold onto the ball through the ground. He came down with two hands on the ball and ended with it between his arm and his shoulder. If he was strong enough to hold the ball through the ground, it would be a catch.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

So even if you have control when the ball hits the ground, if that causes it to move, its automatically incomplete?

 

[sho nuff]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

So you think you for sure saw it hit the ground?I did not see a single replay that showed any definitive view of the ball touching the ground.

All we could see is his hand cradled under the ball to an extent...but not one angle they showed in that clip or during the broadcast showed the ball touch the ground.

 

[Lutherman2112]

So even if you have control when the ball hits the ground, if that causes it to move, its automatically incomplete?

It seems that way to me, at least recently.The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can sure as heck contribute to an incomplete pass.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Damn. I used to use the eyeball test to determine if a play was a catch or not, but these days I really can't.

 

[smackdaddies]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

If those are the only replays, no way there is any evidence to overturn the call on the field

 

[DesmondBishop]

So even if you have control when the ball hits the ground, if that causes it to move, its automatically incomplete?

If the ball hits the ground even if you have control going down and it moves, it is incomplete.Shields had his hand under the ball so even though it moved, it was still a catch. Even Mike P said it was a pick and he wouldn't challenge it.

 

[Moniker]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

during the game and in game replays it looked like the Shields ball never hit the ground - only his hand, which was under the ballat least thats my memory.

It hit the ground. Knox touched him. The refs missed both with replay.

 

[DropKick]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

So you think you for sure saw it hit the ground?I did not see a single replay that showed any definitive view of the ball touching the ground.

All we could see is his hand cradled under the ball to an extent...but not one angle they showed in that clip or during the broadcast showed the ball touch the ground.

Yes, I do think it hits the ground. He has about 1/3 of the ball gripped in his hand as he hits the ground and after the rebound off the ground the ball clearly shifts.Did they not get the spot right either? He was clearly touched by Knox.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

If those are the only replays, no way there is any evidence to overturn the call on the field

I could be totally wrong, just my opinion, and I doubt I could convince you. Your mind is set, I don't have the time, or an inclination to debate you. I didn't watch the game.Go cheeseheads.

 

[Flash]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

The Shields play was incomplete by rule. It was reviewed since it was in the last 2 minutes of the half. And not only did they get keep the INT, they also didn't notice that Knox touched Sheilds on his way down. Two easy calls blown on the same play.

I've watched Shelds int replay 5 times. The ball never hit the ground, His hand was under the ball. Yes it moved when his hand hit the ground, but the balll never did hit the ground. He then got control of it.That's why it was a catch. Like it or not, that;s what happened.

 

[smackdaddies]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

If those are the only replays, no way there is any evidence to overturn the call on the field

I could be totally wrong, just my opinion, and I doubt I could convince you. Your mind is set, I don't have the time, or an inclination to debate you. I didn't watch the game.Go cheeseheads.

 

[sho nuff]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

So you think you for sure saw it hit the ground?I did not see a single replay that showed any definitive view of the ball touching the ground.

All we could see is his hand cradled under the ball to an extent...but not one angle they showed in that clip or during the broadcast showed the ball touch the ground.

Yes, I do think it hits the ground. He has about 1/3 of the ball gripped in his hand as he hits the ground and after the rebound off the ground the ball clearly shifts.Did they not get the spot right either? He was clearly touched by Knox.

Thats the point...you "think" it hit the ground. But nowhere does that clip show the ball hitting the ground.As for the spot...I guess some could hold out hope they would stop the Packers for a safety there...but otherwise its pretty pointless to worry about that.

 

[DropKick]

Here's some video of the Shields INT.

If I was in the replay booth, and this was challenged, this is not an interception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

So you think you for sure saw it hit the ground?I did not see a single replay that showed any definitive view of the ball touching the ground.

All we could see is his hand cradled under the ball to an extent...but not one angle they showed in that clip or during the broadcast showed the ball touch the ground.

Yes, I do think it hits the ground. He has about 1/3 of the ball gripped in his hand as he hits the ground and after the rebound off the ground the ball clearly shifts.Did they not get the spot right either? He was clearly touched by Knox.

Thats the point...you "think" it hit the ground. But nowhere does that clip show the ball hitting the ground.As for the spot...I guess some could hold out hope they would stop the Packers for a safety there...but otherwise its pretty pointless to worry about that.

Given his grip of the ball - and he certainly did not have his hand "cradled under the ball" - and its position under his stomach, I would say it hit the ground. The video's quality is what it is. As far as spot of the ball, it contributes to the replay official making at least one mistake.

I'm not worried about anything. Just debating the technicalities of the play.

 

[BigJim®]

I thought Miller's looked incomplete although I don't fully understand the rule. Seemed like he still didn't have complete control with his body touching out of bounds. It would be more debatable for me if he did that in the middle of the field, but I am not clear on that rule at this point.

 

[boubucarow]

This was overturned and ruled incomplete. It looked to me like he had the ball in his hands, it hit the ground while he still had possession, wobbled a bit when he went to his back (after it hit the ground), he re-possessed it, and was touched down.To me, it seemed like a catch. He had possession when the ball touched the ground, it didn't move until after it was already back off the ground, and he managed to regain possession. Is it simply a matter these days of the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete, no matter what? Watching the highlights of the NFC game again this morning, it looked like Shields' first INT was the exact same situation, he had possession, the ball touched the ground, he bobbled it a bit afterwards, and regained possession. If Lovie had challenged that, does the INT get overturned?I'd link to the plays in question, but they don't seem to be on Youtube.

The Shields play was incomplete by rule. It was reviewed since it was in the last 2 minutes of the half. And not only did they get keep the INT, they also didn't notice that Knox touched Sheilds on his way down. Two easy calls blown on the same play.

I've watched Shelds int replay 5 times. The ball never hit the ground, His hand was under the ball. Yes it moved when his hand hit the ground, but the balll never did hit the ground. He then got control of it.That's why it was a catch. Like it or not, that;s what happened.

Is there video of the game during the official replay of the Shield's pick? I didn't question the pick until during that sequence where they showed a different angle from what I remember, and the Perierra guy then said it would be overturned.

 

[Tau837]

Watching the games and the replays shown during the games, I thought the Miller play was not a catch and the Shields play was an interception, so I agreed with the final rulings on both.

Miller was going to the ground as he made the catch, which means he has to maintain possession through the catch. If the ball hits the ground during this process without his hand under it and subsequently gets bobbled, I think it is automatically incomplete. Had the ball hit the ground while he held it with both hands, and it didn't subsequently come out of his grip, it would have been complete.

Shields was also going to the ground, but in my watching of the replays, I don't believe the ball ever touches the ground. I certainly didn't see any evidence to overturn the call on the field of it being an interception. The ball can move if it doesn't touch the ground, as long as the player ultimately gains possession in bounds. And there is no video proof I have seen that shows it touching the ground.

I agree that Shields could have been ruled down by contact, but that's a separate issue.

 

[DropKick]

Watching the games and the replays shown during the games, I thought the Miller play was not a catch and the Shields play was an interception, so I agreed with the final rulings on both.Miller was going to the ground as he made the catch, which means he has to maintain possession through the catch. If the ball hits the ground during this process without his hand under it and subsequently gets bobbled, I think it is automatically incomplete. Had the ball hit the ground while he held it with both hands, and it didn't subsequently come out of his grip, it would have been complete.Shields was also going to the ground, but in my watching of the replays, I don't believe the ball ever touches the ground. I certainly didn't see any evidence to overturn the call on the field of it being an interception. The ball can move if it doesn't touch the ground, as long as the player ultimately gains possession in bounds. And there is no video proof I have seen that shows it touching the ground.I agree that Shields could have been ruled down by contact, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly a great job of coverage by Shields. Although he could have been smarter on the pick to clinch the game. Did he actually put the ball on the ground after his "return"?

 

[sho nuff]

Given his grip of the ball - and he certainly did not have his hand "cradled under the ball" - and its position under his stomach, I would say it hit the ground. The video's quality is what it is. As far as spot of the ball, it contributes to the replay official making at least one mistake.I'm not worried about anything. Just debating the technicalities of the play.

Yes, the replay official missed on that...I just think there simply was not enough evidence to overturn it.Similarly...had they ruled it incomplete, there was not enough to show his hand was under it to overturn that call.Just thinking those that think it was a slam dunk incomplete don't really know...they are speculating based on seeing only part of the ball as he goes to the ground.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Watching the games and the replays shown during the games, I thought the Miller play was not a catch and the Shields play was an interception, so I agreed with the final rulings on both.

Miller was going to the ground as he made the catch, which means he has to maintain possession through the catch. If the ball hits the ground during this process without his hand under it and subsequently gets bobbled, I think it is automatically incomplete. Had the ball hit the ground while he held it with both hands, and it didn't subsequently come out of his grip, it would have been complete.

Shields was also going to the ground, but in my watching of the replays, I don't believe the ball ever touches the ground. I certainly didn't see any evidence to overturn the call on the field of it being an interception. The ball can move if it doesn't touch the ground, as long as the player ultimately gains possession in bounds. And there is no video proof I have seen that shows it touching the ground.

I agree that Shields could have been ruled down by contact, but that's a separate issue.

Bolded is what I was unclear on. If that is the case, then by rule, it was incomplete. I guess it just "looked like" a catch to me, but then again, so did Calvin Johnson's.

 

[renesauz]

basically, the refs have taken away the diving catch with arms fully extended. The ball has to hit the ground and when doing so, it will move.

The ball didn't just wiggle a little...it literally rolled around his arm so that he ended up pinning it with a part of his arm OTHER THEN HIS HAND against his shoulder....and THEN came almost completely loose as he rolled. Had he been going out of bounds..that last bobble would have been more then enough to immediately rule incomplete. It was the right call.

 

[renesauz]

So even if you have control when the ball hits the ground, if that causes it to move, its automatically incomplete?

No...but it has to stay in your hands. The ball did NOT stay in his hands.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Watching the games and the replays shown during the games, I thought the Miller play was not a catch and the Shields play was an interception, so I agreed with the final rulings on both.

Miller was going to the ground as he made the catch, which means he has to maintain possession through the catch. If the ball hits the ground during this process without his hand under it and subsequently gets bobbled, I think it is automatically incomplete. Had the ball hit the ground while he held it with both hands, and it didn't subsequently come out of his grip, it would have been complete.

Shields was also going to the ground, but in my watching of the replays, I don't believe the ball ever touches the ground. I certainly didn't see any evidence to overturn the call on the field of it being an interception. The ball can move if it doesn't touch the ground, as long as the player ultimately gains possession in bounds. And there is no video proof I have seen that shows it touching the ground.

I agree that Shields could have been ruled down by contact, but that's a separate issue.

Bolded is what I was unclear on. If that is the case, then by rule, it was incomplete. I guess it just "looked like" a catch to me, but then again, so did Calvin Johnson's.

I didn't see any conclusive video evidence that the ball hit the ground on Miller's catch. I could have missed it.

What I saw was Miller go to the ground, his hand looked to be underneath the ball, but in any case I didn't see any evidence that the ball touched the ground. The ball was jostled on impact, but stayed off the ground, then Miller ultimately controlled it.

Was the ruling overturned on the basis that they saw the ball TOUCH the ground or that he failed to secure it through HIS contact with the ground?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

So even if you have control when the ball hits the ground, if that causes it to move, its automatically incomplete?

No...but it has to stay in your hands. The ball did NOT stay in his hands.

True. But I didn't see it touch the ground. In the field of play, if the ball doesn't touch the ground, how can it be incomplete?