The Minkah Theft - Question?

[bigK14094]

12 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Minkah never had full possession, as neither did Gabe until he ripped it back. If the run out back of endzome with both claiming ball I do wonder rule but at no point did either have ball fully till the end.

Old basketball player here.  It did my heart good to see Gabe rip the ball away.  That is how it is taught by the roundball coaches!!!

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, Chris from Rochester said:

Worst case its a simultaneous catch, and the offense would get the ball I believe anyway

 

I believe this to be accurate, but I don’t trust the refs to get that right. One of the worst calls I can remember was an interception where our TE made a catch, and it was curiously awarded to the defense. 

 

Regardless, Gabe and the ball first, and he had it LAST! Touchdown baby! That is as beautifully thrown pass as you will EVER see!

[Beck Water]

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

It could not have been a fumble as the ball never hit the ground.

 

The ball doesn't have to hit the ground with a fumble.  For example, a defender can rip the ball away from a runner who is still on his feet, tuck it away, and start running himself.

[Rocky Landing]

8 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

If they were still wrestling for it and went out of bounds I would imagine they would have ruled simultaneous possession and in that case the tie goes to the receiver, so it would have been a TD. 

 

Just my opinion, but obviously it could have gone either way including an incomplete pass I guess. Based on what happened against the Rams in 2020 when Kroft caught the ball and went to the ground with the Rams player and they were fighting for it and it was ruled an INT, better to not force the refs to decide.  

 

https://www.nfl.com/videos/john-johnson-iii-rips-jump-ball-from-tyler-kroft-for-critical-int

The Tyler Kroft fiasco was one of the first things I thought of. But IIRC, the NFL stated a couple days later that it should have been ruled a catch by Kroft? Or am I making that up in my head...?

 

EDIT:

I just looked it up, and I was making it up in my head:

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Rocky Landing

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said:

The Tyler Kroft fiasco was one of the first things I thought of. But IIRC, the NFL stated a couple days later that it should have been ruled a catch by Kroft? Or am I making that up in my head...?

 

I don't remember the NFL ever admitting that.

[MJS]

3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

It could not have been a fumble as the ball never hit the ground.

Well, I think once you have established possession and become a runner (which does not apply to this situation), if the ball is ripped out by another player and they take possession, that's a fumble, even if the ball doesn't hit the ground. It can't possibly be an interception after possession is already established. It would be a fumble.

[Rocky Landing]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

I don't remember the NFL ever admitting that.

Edited above. Still an awful call...

[MJS]

4 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

The Tyler Kroft fiasco was one of the first things I thought of. But IIRC, the NFL stated a couple days later that it should have been ruled a catch by Kroft? Or am I making that up in my head...?

 

EDIT:

I just looked it up, and I was making it up in my head:

 

Yeah, the NFL would take that to their grave. They would never admit they were wrong on something like that. The "clear and obvious" thing is stupid anyway, because it is pretty clear and obvious that he did AT LEAST have joint possession with the defender, which means the tie should go to the receiver. I don't know how much more clear and obvious it can be.

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

Dual possession goes to the offensive player.  In this case that didn't come into play because Davis took full possession of the ball.  The ball was never solely possessed by Fitzpatrick and therefore was never an interception.  Had he pulled it completely away from Davis, it would have been an interception.  Fitzpatrick knew all of this and therefore didn't complain to the official that called it a touchdown.  The ruling on the play was really pretty straightforward.

[1ManRaid]

6 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

It could not have been a fumble as the ball never hit the ground.

 

Lol what would you call suddenly losing possession of the ball in the field of play then?  I literally have no idea where you could get the idea that's not a possible fumble.  Possibly the worst demonstration of lack of football knowledge I've ever seen.  You've never seen a runner with possession after a handoff get hit, cough it up, and a defender catch it before it hits the ground?  You gonna call that an INT without a pass of something?

[Warcodered]

11 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

The Tyler Kroft fiasco was one of the first things I thought of. But IIRC, the NFL stated a couple days later that it should have been ruled a catch by Kroft? Or am I making that up in my head...?

 

EDIT:

I just looked it up, and I was making it up in my head:

 

Oh yeah I remember that.

 

 

[NewEra]

Even if Minkah had secured the catch and taken 5 steps, until he is down, the ball is live.  

[Big Turk]

4 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Lol what would you call suddenly losing possession of the ball in the field of play then?  I literally have no idea where you could get the idea that's not a possible fumble.  Possibly the worst demonstration of lack of football knowledge I've ever seen.  You've never seen a runner with possession after a handoff get hit, cough it up, and a defender catch it before it hits the ground?  You gonna call that an INT without a pass of something?

 

My fault, I thought he was saying two players wrestling for a ball without one of them having possession.

 

I missed the part where he was saying the defender already had possession of the ball.  It would be a fumble in that case...actually a play like that just happened in the Minnesota/Chicago game yesterday where Cameron Dantzler ripped the ball away from the Bears WR Nate Odomes against the Raiders style.

 

https://www.vikings.com/video/dantzler-delivers-game-sealing-takeaway-on-ex-teammate-smith-marsette

[LittleSammy]

Just be thankful TB12's best buddy, Jerome Boger and his gang of misfits, weren't our officiating crew for the game. The Bills would have gotten screwed for sure on that play.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1. Coaches can't challenge. It was a scoring play thus it would be a booth review

2. Yes you can fumble and have change of possession without the ball hitting the ground

3. I think most saw it the same way - Davis begins the catch with his right hand and begins to bring the ball to his body at which point Fitzpatrick and Davis both have their arms on the ball and Davis ultimately rips it away.  At no point did Fitzpatrick have sole possession of the ball.  Therefore at worst it was simultaneous possession of the ball which goes to Davis.  Heck of a play by both players and shows again just how close the plays are in the NFL.  Davis has a TD stripped against Miami and then finishes the catch this week against the Steelers.

[BoccesOnTransit]

IMO, it was an INT, followed by a strip

 

[Charles Romes]

Even if Minkah didn’t let go Bills would get the TD under the simultaneous possession rule.  This came up 5-7 years ago in a Green Bay game I believe where the receiver kind of grabbed on to the ball after it was intercepted and was awarded the TD. 
 

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Charles Romes

[eball]

Tie goes to the receiver.  Minkah never possessed the ball on his own.

 

You’ve been tormenting yourself way too much over this.

 

[JDubya76]

1 hour ago, Last Guy on the Bench said:

This dude:

 

And I saw a few people on a Steelers board.

 

Totally agree. I think it was correctly called all along. But even if it were called the other way - still our TD. With different stats, as you say.

What is a Ryan Clark?

[MAJBobby]

1 hour ago, Last Guy on the Bench said:

I've seen a few people online and on TV kvetching about the length of time Fitzpatrick seemed to have possession of Gabe's 2nd TD before Gabe ripped it back. Their argument is that Fitzpatrick had already intercepted it fully and it should have been ruled accordingly. I was wondering about this live, while I nervously waited for the extra point to be kicked before a red flag could be thrown.

 

But then I thought about it more. Even if Fitzpatrick had it and it was an interception, the ball is still live. If a defender has a ball in the end zone, it is live until he is tackled or gives himself up, right? Totally different than an offensive player - if an offensive player has or establishes full possession in the end zone, it's a TD and the play is over. But if a defender picks it and starts running around back there, an offensive player can still strip him of the ball and it's live. So seems to me that at worst, that play is an interception and then a fumble in the end zone recovered for a touchdown by Davis. Am I crazy? The one counterargument I can see is if Fitzpatrick had possession and they ruled he was down by forward progress - but that would be whack - he wasn't being pushed "backwards" - he was running full speed in that direction.

 

In any case. I don't think Minkah every really established full possession in the first place - they were wrestling for it, and Gabe won. But either way, it's a TD to my thinking.

 

Also, the reason Gabe caught it one-handed is that he had to because Minkah was holding his other arm - so it could also have been Pass Interference.

 

Strange and exhilarating play. Just want to make sure my reasoning is correct if I start arguing with a whiner.

Duel possession goes to Offense. So it was a TD even before Gabe ripped it out.