Ginn's catch

[PantherJD]

Of all the possible things that play might have been, an interception was not one of them.

Actually, a fumble is the only thing it couldn't have been.  It could only have been a catch and down by contact or an interception.  I definitely agree that it didn't seem/look like an interception, and I think that goes back to the screwy rules about what is and isn't a catch.  To anyone with common sense, that play looked like a catch.  So, he should have been ruled down by contact.  Like they did with the tuck rule, the NFL needs to figure out this catch thing before they confuse everyone even more.

[ncmonzta]

 

but in the picture he has the ball in both hands as he's on the ground with the defender on him. How long does he have to be on the ground with the ball, is a better question 

[RealBitsOfPanther]

but didn't he take like 3 steps before being brought down? His hip hit the ground before the ball moved anyway, but if it was going to be a turnover, you'd think it would be a fumble.. I don't get it. 

[frash.exe]

fuging hated that call 

[CoastalCat]

Actually, a fumble is the only thing it couldn't have been.  It could only have been a catch and down by contact or an interception.  I definitely agree that it didn't seem/look like an interception, and I think that goes back to the screwy rules about what is and isn't a catch.  To anyone with common sense, that play looked like a catch.  So, he should have been ruled down by contact.  Like they did with the tuck rule, the NFL needs to figure out this catch thing before they confuse everyone even more.

I agree most with this. He caught the ball and took a step or two before going down. Ball coming out was pretty darn close though. But if it were me, it's a catch and down by contact all day.

[TheWiz]

To be fair... This is the same call that Peanut Tillman got in preseason. If the receiver doesn't come down with possession... then whoever comes up with the ball is who the possession goes to.

We still got the Dub.

[LinvilleGorge]

No one understands what is a catch or not a catch in the NFL.  Every single week there are controversial catch/no catch calls.  It's a serious issue.  I really thought the Dez Bryant playoff catch/no catch would've been the tipping point to get this fixed.

[Plewis]

I think the refs got the call right it's just that the NFL doesn't know what a catch is anymore.

[MHS831]

Seriously, it was a catch and down by contact.  I do not think you have to continue the catch if a defender strips the ball out after making the catch, taking a step or two, and your butt hitting the ground (I didn't hear Collinsworth say that, but if he did, he was wrong--your butt hits the ground, you are down). 

The correct call leads to a TD, and the game would have been essentially over.  You see, my conspiracy theory is this--the NFL wants larger market teams in the hunt.  A play that goes to NY for review gives them a chance to rule in favor of the team they want to help, assuming there is any basis for doing so.  What irks me is the fact that the announcers should have been outraged by the call--but they were babbling about something unrelated at the time. 

There is another out for the refs.  The call on the field "stands."  Was interception the "call on the field?"  I think they called it a fumble, but Collinsworth was droning on about something he just googled, so I may never know. 

 

 

[MHS831]

To be fair... This is the same call that Peanut Tillman got in preseason. If the receiver doesn't come down with possession... then whoever comes up with the ball is who the possession goes to.

We still got the Dub.

good point.  I thought we stole one then though.

[beastson]

Apparently he never had control of the ball

For them to later on allow Chip challenge a ruling that no other team can challenge showed they were trying to make the game closer. Which I'm sorry, I dont understand it and won't accept it.

[pantherclaw]

In my eyes, that is a catch. 

 

It's so bad that not even the retired players turned sports analysts, know what a catch is.

[Jase]

As usual, the NFL made things worse with it's explanation during the broadcast.  Al Michaels said that they heard from the league office in new york about the play and the league said that ginn was losing the ball before he went down.  Which is completely obvious that it's wrong.

[MHS831]

While I am on my soap box, how is it that the ball breaks the plane it is a touchdown, but on a punt you can save it by knocking it back? 

The ground can't cause a fumble, but if nobody touches you, you are still able to run. 

What about the stupid tuck rule? If it is not a fumble, it should be intentional grounding because there is no way to confirm an intended receiver.   If I were a qb, I would have used that rule every time a DL got his hands on me--or instead of getting out of the tackle box and throwing the ball away, I would do the tuck and act like it slipped. 

Are they making the rules so complicated so they can find ways to help large market teams win?  Makes me wonder.