Jalen Ramsey's Game Clinching "Interception"

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

You're not looking carefully.  Play the second video and stop it at various points.   You can stop it with the ball hitting the ground, and a split second later you can stop it with the fingers of his right hand extend and then regripping the ball.   That was not an interception. 

 

Shaw give me the other angle the one that was shown on the broadcast. Clear arm was under. Sorry i cannot take a guy serious on Twitter if he only shows the angle that makes his point maybe

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

His hands weren’t under it the ball as it touched the ground. Also when you’re falling to the ground you have to have complete control of the ball all the way through. 

His hand was under the ball. We could see that clearly in the HD replay on the broadcast. This is a blurry Twitter replay that is misleading. 

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

That's a movement of the ball in his hands.   If the ball hits the ground he loses his grip on the ball, that's an incompletion. 

 

And there is NOTHING clear in that HD video that shows clearly thr ball hits the ground

[dave mcbride]

Definitely not an INT, but the call is karmic justice for such a cowardly throw when the snap occurs with 23 seconds left and no timeouts. Terrible decision by Peterman, who appears to stink. Scramble/fumble followed by intentional grounding followed by weak decision to throw short against an elite CB who read it all the way. 

[RyanC883]

2 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said:

was hard to tell at the game, but seeing the replay now there is no doubt that it was NOT a catch. Riveron is so freaking crooked.

 

Riveron needs to go.  He is beyond terrible.  He gets calls clearly wrong and is inconsistent in his approach to overruling the call on the field.  

 

Also, why is one guy in charge of making these determinations.  Should be a panel of at least 3.  

[MAJBobby]

4 minutes ago, BananaB said:

 

If your arm is under it how can it hit the ground.... It looks pretty clear to me the nose of the ball hits the ground.  He could still have his hand on the middle of the ball ( which he may have) but the nose still hit the ground and the ball cleary moved.  So he never maintained possesion

 

Of course it does. Your looking at is with the eyes of a Bills fan 

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's a movement of the ball in his hands.   If the ball hits the ground he loses his grip on the ball, that's an incompletion. 

 

You say he loses his grip. I say he doesnt. So see why the rule is trash?

[Shaw66]

23 minutes ago, section122 said:

This is one of those calls that we screamed about with KB.  Can't have it both ways folks.  If you have to look at every minute thing to see if it was a catch it should be ruled a catch (or int).  This is one of those cases.  It looked like a pick and maybe just maybe it moved slightly but I would rather calls go this way than the KB call.

Yes and no.   Yes, it was awfully close, so close you might want the rule to be let it go.  

 

But no, the rule is you overturn if there's conclusive evidence.   Here, there's conclusive evidence.  Yes, you have to look carefully, but there's no doubt.   And if there's no doubt, the call on the field has to be reversed.  

[dave mcbride]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

 

Of course it does. Your looking at is with the eyes of a Bills fan 

No, it wasn't an INT  - the ball can be under the arm but if the hold isn't stable (and this one wasn't) and any part of the ball touches the ground, it's an incompletion. It's as clear as day. That being said, it was karmic justice for Peterman (as I say above), and anyway there was just about a zero percent chance he was gonna take them down for a TD. I can't get too upset about it. 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

His hand was under the ball. We could see that clearly in the HD replay on the broadcast. This is a blurry Twitter replay that is misleading. 

 

The ball touches the ground without him having full control of it.   First post and comment from yards per pass proves this.  Also he didn’t complete the act of catching the ball.  It was an incompletion at least for several reasons, but at the least one clear reason. And that’s ignoring the obvious pass interference. 

[26CornerBlitz]

From NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000903795/Can-t-Miss-Play-Ramsey-picks-off-Peterman-to-seal-Jaguars-win

[Wayne Cubed]

I think it’s inconclusive, so you’d have to stay with the call on the field. Yes it looks like the ball moves and his left hand definitley comes off the ball. What I can’t tell is, if he gets his right hand under the ball. It starts on top when he first makes the catch. I don’t think it’s possible he gets it underneath in time but I’m making an assumption. 

 

This is what should have happened with the KB catch.

[buffaloboyinATL]

8 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Here is why it is still a catch. 

 

And jesus this rule is so long for just explaining what a freaking catch is 

 

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

Jesse James maintained control the entire time and it was overturned and ruled no catch.  

[section122]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes and no.   Yes, it was awfully close, so close you might want the rule to be let it go.  

 

But no, the rule is you overturn if there's conclusive evidence.   Here, there's conclusive evidence.  Yes, you have to look carefully, but there's no doubt.   And if there's no doubt, the call on the field has to be reversed.  

 

I'm with you that I thought live it wasn't an int but I really don't see the conclusive evidence.  I see the ball move but I also think his arm is under it.  Of all the blown calls this year that went against the Bills or for the patriots for that matter this one would be low on the meter for me.  I can see overturning it and I can see letting it stand.  When that is the case I can't/won't get upset about the call.

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The ball touches the ground without him having full control of it.   First post and comment from yards per pass proves this.  Also he didn’t complete the act of catching the ball.  It was an incompletion at least for several reasons, but at the least one clear reason. And that’s ignoring the obvious pass interference. 

You are correct, although the PI shouldn't have been called - it was bang-bang and he was going for the ball. The defender has a right to it too. It may have been a little early, but it was a good play by Ramsay.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by dave mcbride

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

No, it wasn't an INT  - the ball can be under the arm but if the hold isn't stable (and this one wasn't) and any part of the ball touches the ground, it's an incompletion. It's as clear as day. That being said, it was karmic justice for Peterman (as I say above), and anyway there was just about a zero percent chance he was gonna take them down for a TD. I can't get too upset about it. 

 

Nope not clear as day. In my eyes on either of those videos. 

1 minute ago, buffaloboyinATL said:

Jesse James maintained control the entire time and it was overturned and ruled no catch.  

 

Hence as i said SCRAP THE DUMB ASS RULE and start from scratch

[Wayne Cubed]

Just now, buffaloboyinATL said:

Jesse James maintained control the entire time and it was overturned and ruled no catch.  

 

Thats because they believe it touched the ground. Which you can’t use the ground to complete the catch.

 

I dont think there was an actual shot showing it touch the ground though.

 

[section122]

Just now, buffaloboyinATL said:

Jesse James maintained control the entire time and it was overturned and ruled no catch.  

 

This is the one sticking point with me.  Calls can be whatever the league decides but it needs to be consistent.  If James was incomplete then so should this have been.  I think James was a td and this should be an int though so who knows

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Nope not clear as day. In my eyes on either of those videos. 

 

Hence as i said SCRAP THE DUMB ASS RULE and start from scratch

I have no problem with the rule and agree with Belichick - getting rid of it would lead to countless weak fumble calls. 

[John in Jax]

36 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

It was bang-bang, but Ramsey also arrived early.

 

 

Reminds me of the Super Bowl vs. the Redskins...tons of plays like this early on that were not called either.

 

Went to the game yesterday, and am watching the replay right now. In the 2nd Qtr, on the Jags INT, it's virtually the same situation...the Jags DB got there early, and of course, no call. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by John in Jax

[Shaw66]

34 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

A better question? What the hell was Thompson doing not driving back to the ball? Also body positioning? Why did #10 not angle himself between ball & defender like a basketball box out so if Ramsey did drive on the ball the only way he makes the pick is by going thru the body which would have been defensive pass interference? 

Well, Thompson could have been coming back for the ball - he could see that it was taking all day to get there.   Plus, if he's coming back, he's better able to break after the catch.   He can't box out the defender because he doesn't know where the defender is.   In hindsight it's easy to say he should have moved a half step to his right, but he has no way to know that.  

 

The better question is what the hell was Peterman doing throwing it there?   HE can see the receiver and the defender, so he can see that the ball has to be thrown to lead the receiver to the sideline.  Also, as someone has pointed out, the throw to the outside shoulder would lead Thompson out of bounds.   

 

Most importantly, Peterman showed on that play that he doesn't have an NFL arm.   That's perhaps the most important throw an NFL QB needs to make - a bullet to the sideline.   Peterman threw a lollipop.  

 

That play is not on the receiver.