The interception call...

[Tolstoy]

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

[Stank_Nasty]

He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 

[MJS]

Kroft DID have possession of the ball. He caught it and as he went to the ground the defender grabbed it. While they were both on the ground (when the play should have been dead) the defender slightly wrestled it away, but Kroft eventually took it back. At worst it was a tie, which by rule should be a Kroft catch.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Kroft and the defender both had possession at the end of the play. That is supposed to go to the receiver. 

[HurlyBurly51]

Complete, and called back due to OPI.

[Do The Reich Thing]

3 minutes ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Bro I appreciate the optimism, but this is a terrible take. It was  mutual possession at the absolute worst and tie goes to the offense. 

[Returntoglory]

Not for nothing BUT the league can rule it was a blown call and take away the Int. 

[LABILLBACKER]

Let's not forget even if it was ruled a catch, the offensive pass interference on Kroft brings it all back. It would've been I think 1st and 28 on the Bills 11. Either way the play changed the momentum of the whole game. 

[Rochesterfan]

5 minutes ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

 

I have not seen one shot where the defender had possession of the ball.  
 

I see Kroft make a catch and go down on his knees - the defender at hat point doesn’t have the ball.

 

I see Kroft fall on top of the defender and the 2 of them fighting for the ball, but in no shot can they show the defender with sole possession of the ball.

 

This was an easy play that the Refs blew and NY was to stupid and rigid to accept it was a blown call on the field and call it correctly.

[mannc]

Can someone post a link with a replay of the “interception”?

[Southern Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

You’re either trolling or you don’t know anything about football. Croft made the catch so when he hits the ground the play is over. If the defender grabbed the ball it’s a simultaneous possession and the offense’s ball. Never an interception. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Southern Bills Fan

[Shaw66]

7 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 

Simple.

 

Couldn't believe the call wasn't reversed.

[Stank_Nasty]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Simple.

 

Couldn't believe the call wasn't reversed.

The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable 

[Turk71]

The play is over when he hits the ground. There is no wrestling the ball away while on the ground, that's ridiculous. The play is over when he hits the ground, period.

[Aaronthebaron]

10 minutes ago, Returntoglory said:

Not for nothing BUT the league can rule it was a blown call and take away the Int. 

Is that true? I wasn’t aware of that.

[TigerJ]

17 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 

This.

[BuffaloButt]

18 minutes ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Kroft caught it and came down with it, then the defender got his hands on it for simultaneous at best.  Simultaneous=Offese ball and a catch!  Ref's blew this one just so thankful we have Ice Man Allen to pull out the win inspite of the blown call!!

 

Go Bills!

[DrDawkinstein]

20 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 

 

18 minutes ago, HurlyBurly51 said:

Complete, and called back due to OPI.

 

7 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

The play is over when he hits the ground. There is no wrestling the ball away while on the ground, that's ridiculous. The play is over when he hits the ground, period.

 

This is how I see it. Play is over when his back hits the ground. Bills ball. Penalty for OPI, but still Bills ball.

 

Which I would much rather have had.

[BfloBillsFan]

23 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 

This is how I look at the play.  Kroft never lost possession of the ball

[Ethan in Cleveland]

OP premise is incorrect as Kroft had possession of the ball. Perera pointed that out and it was just a bad call.