JJMs interception

I saw and felt the same way, though it did seem arguably "incomplete" when the players both went to the ground. I also thought that it was interesting how Nailor did seem to keep at least one hand firmly on the ball most or all of the way, and the receiver is supposed to win a "tie"...but, the kittens got the call.

I chalked it up to "home cookin' officiating" when all was said and done.

The apology letter is in the mail

I’m actually sort of fine with this call. It’d didn’t really feal like Nailor “really” had control of it as he was just sort of pressing it against his leg. Then the defender controlled it “first”, before Nailor controlled it. I get the discussion, and who really “caught” it first as Nailor clearly had a hand on it first?

I just have trouble getting too worked up over something where I have to dig deep into the semantics of what a catch is.

medaille wrote:
I’m actually sort of fine with this call.  It’d didn’t really feal like Nailor “really” had control of it as he was just sort of pressing it against his leg.  Then the defender controlled it “first”, before Nailor controlled it.  I get the discussion, and who really “caught” it first as Nailor clearly had a hand on it first?

I just have trouble getting too worked up over something where I have to dig deep into the semantics of what a catch is.

Same.  When the rolled, Nailor lost control to the defender.  He pulled back, but the ball was more likely possessed by the defender as they rolled.  I liked how the handled that, they went to the discussion right away on a tough call.

I was more upset at reversing that catch by Jets.  It might have been a bobble, but was called a catch on the field and then they went to review and overturned it.  Didn't see that being overturned except that NY seems to overturn most catches for the Vikes this year.

Does anybody really know what a catch is anymore, what plays are reviewable, or even what plays can be challenged. Seems it all changes depending on what teams are playing and which team it benefits at the time.

so i wasnt THAT DRUNK I guess. glad others saw it the same way.

greediron wrote:

Same.  When the rolled, Nailor lost control to the defender.  He pulled back, but the ball was more likely possessed by the defender as they rolled.  I liked how the handled that, they went to the discussion right away on a tough call.

I was more upset at reversing that catch by Jets.  It might have been a bobble, but was called a catch on the field and then they went to review and overturned it.  Didn't see that being overturned except that NY seems to overturn most catches for the Vikes this year.

when whats his  name was given a catch with the ball trapped against his helmet/shoulder pad for the Giants some years ago... by that same definition,  this was a catch and possession by Nailor IMO.

JimmyinSD wrote:

when whats his  name was given a catch with the ball trapped against his helmet/shoulder pad for the Giants some years ago... by that same definition,  this was a catch and possession by Nailor IMO.

IMO it would have been a catch, but at one point the ball was in the defenders gut with 2 hands.  Nailor only had one hand on it and at that point it was out of his possession.

StickierBuns wrote:
It was a bullshit call, at the very least it was joint possession which goes to the offense.

Bottom line: JJ needs to make a little better throw there. Learning moment.

Yup, missed opportunity and an inaccurate throw. Way too behind.

greediron wrote:

IMO it would have been a catch, but at one point the ball was in the defenders gut with 2 hands.  Nailor only had one hand on it and at that point it was out of his possession.

Nailor had possession when he was driven to the ground,  end of play as long as he didnt lose the ball, and since he still had the ball, and was touched/tackled down, he never lost possession before the end of the play.  I think it was a bull shit call, especially when they had the chance to review it and to not fix it... if we had lost i am sure that would be a major talker today.

greediron wrote:

Same.  When the rolled, Nailor lost control to the defender.  He pulled back, but the ball was more likely possessed by the defender as they rolled.  I liked how the handled that, they went to the discussion right away on a tough call.

I was more upset at reversing that catch by Jets.  It might have been a bobble, but was called a catch on the field and then they went to review and overturned it.  Didn't see that being overturned except that NY seems to overturn most catches for the Vikes this year.

The ball also moved when the defender hit the ground. Somehow that was a catch but the JJ pass on third down was not. What is a FREAKING catch!

I think Jimmy has it correct -- none of the talking heads (including the former NFL referee) seemed to grasp this. If Nailor had possession (he did) and his knee touched down while in contact with the defender (it did) -- it's a catch and down by contact. The fact that the defender also had a hand on the ball and eventually pulled it away (with the assistance of the ground?) would seem to be irrelevant -- like a linebacker pulling the ball from a running back after he is down.

PurplePorsche wrote:
I think Jimmy has it correct -- none of the talking heads (including the former NFL referee) seemed to grasp this.  If Nailor had possession (he did) and his knee touched down while in contact with the defender (it did) -- it's a catch and down by contact.  The fact that the defender also had a hand on the ball and eventually pulled it away (with the assistance of the ground?) would seem to be irrelevant -- like a linebacker pulling the ball from a running back after he is down.

Thank you.

JimmyinSD wrote:

Nailor had possession when he was driven to the ground,  end of play as long as he didnt lose the ball, and since he still had the ball, and was touched/tackled down, he never lost possession before the end of the play. 

Agree, his knee was down and he had possession of the ball, based on how they called that it would mean a defender can just go up to the WR after they are tackled and rip the ball out, no one ever made the comment during the game on how he was down.

JimmyinSD wrote:

Nailor had possession when he was driven to the ground,  end of play as long as he didnt lose the ball, and since he still had the ball, and was touched/tackled down, he never lost possession before the end of the play.  I think it was a bull shit call, especially when they had the chance to review it and to not fix it... if we had lost i am sure that would be a major talker today.

The ruling was that Nailor didn't have possession (as defined in the rules) when he was on the ground but the ball had not touched the ground so it was still a live play until the Detroit defender secured the ball.

Greylock wrote:
Does anybody really know what a catch is anymore, what plays are reviewable, or even what plays can be challenged.  Seems it all changes depending on what teams are playing and which team it benefits at the time.

I do, at least this year.  When in doubt, if the Vikings are the recipient of a close-call catch, it's either not a catch or it will be overturned to make it not a catch.

badgervike wrote:

The ruling was that Nailor didn't have possession (as defined in the rules) when he was on the ground but the ball had not touched the ground so it was still a live play until the Detroit defender secured the ball.

But Nailor did have possession the entire way to the ground and then was touched down before the defender took it away.  So if the ruling was that he didn't have possession, that should have been overturned with the video review and therefore determined a catch as he was touched down (already making the football move, which is still a gray area apparently) by the defender.

At that point, you cannot wrestle the ball away while on the ground to make it your possession.

badgervike wrote:

The ruling was that Nailor didn't have possession (as defined in the rules) when he was on the ground but the ball had not touched the ground so it was still a live play until the Detroit defender secured the ball.

I think the NFL has not followed that point many times in making rulings.  I have seen several touchdowns and plays on the sidelines called completions where the ball is not tucked away it is merely possessed and the act of touching out of bounds or being "down by contact" has made it a completion.  Was it Theilen that had a TD that he trapped against the defenders back in the endzone as they went to the ground that was ruled a catch.   I think the league knew that place would lose its shit if the 1.  took away the incorrectly called INT and 2. turned around and made it a completion for MN.  they got to help those cinderella stories,  think I'm wrong,  09 championship game comes to mind.

JimmyinSD wrote:

I think the NFL has not followed that point many times in making rulings.  I have seen several touchdowns and plays on the sidelines called completions where the ball is not tucked away it is merely possessed and the act of touching out of bounds or being "down by contact" has made it a completion.  Was it Theilen that had a TD that he trapped against the defenders back in the endzone as they went to the ground that was ruled a catch.   I think the league knew that place would lose its shit if the 1.  took away the incorrectly called INT and 2. turned around and made it a completion for MN.  they got to help those cinderella stories,  think I'm wrong,  09 championship game comes to mind.

I get it Jim...but going out of bounds ends the play.  They can then determine whether sufficient possession was achieved.  I think the difference here is that it was still a live play in the NFL's view and could have still gone either way (possession, drop).  The play was still on-going when the defender wrestled it out.

badgervike wrote:

I get it Jim...but going out of bounds ends the play.  They can then determine whether sufficient possession was achieved.  I think the difference here is that it was still a live play in the NFL's view and could have still gone either way (possession, drop).  The play was still on-going when the defender wrestled it out.

probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I think it was a screw job.   think of it this way,  if that receiver had a preferred logo on his helmet,  is it still an INT or is it a catch and down by contact?

In the NFL, "possession by a receiver" refers to the legal and complete act of a player catching a pass, which requires securing control of the ball with his hands or arms, making sure he has two feet or another body part on the ground inbounds, and then maintaining control long enough to become a runner. A player also demonstrates possession by performing an act common to the game, such as tucking the ball, taking another step, or turning upfield after meeting the first two criteria.