1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Interceptions?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Packman Chant, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. Packman Chant

    Packman Chant Lambeau West

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    242
    Ratings:
    +22
    Just watched a highlight video from game against the jets and the commentators were talkin about Woodsons pick, saying it was a terrible call and so on. i dont know if yall discussed this, not like it matters since we won =] but i was just wondering what yall though, good call, bad call...to close to call or what. Im stickin with it being a pick receiver should have held on to it rather then gettin it taken like candy from a baby and they're wouldn't have been an issue right? lol.
     
  2. Murgen

    Murgen MechaPackzilla

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,288
    Ratings:
    +585
    It was a bad call as the receiver was down BEFORE the ball was stripped, but in the full speed of the game Refs can't see everything. The Jets blew their challenges early and it came back to bite them in the a**. That's football. Thankfully it happened outside of two minutes so no official review.
     
  3. aaronqb

    aaronqb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    583
    Ratings:
    +73
    retired
     
  4. GreenBayTheOnlyWay

    GreenBayTheOnlyWay Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    33
    Ratings:
    +2
    After the Woodson interception? I texted my friend and brother in all caps laughing about how Ryan is an idiot for blowing his two challenges already. I thought it was a bad call on the first replay i saw.
     
  5. Big Dan

    Big Dan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +47
    The calls were right. What you guys, and all of New York, are missing is that in both cases the DB had his hands on the ball the whole time. The first one was more clear-cut, but both were the same by rule. The receiver and the DB both had ahold of the ball as they went to the ground, and the DB came up with it. The DB "completed the catch" while the receiver did not.

    If the DB didn't have hands on the ball and just ripped it from the receiver on the ground, it would be different; but the DB did have hands on the ball. The defender has just as much right to the ball as the receiver does.
     
  6. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    I don't know if it was the right call. I think, if reviewed, the receiver could've been down by contact. But I can't affirm it, and anyone who says they know it by seeing just the replay the networks are showing is BSing. From what I can see, the TE lands on his butt, but the ball is bobling, and Woodson is right there.

    The first one, Tramon's one, I believe was mutual possession, but I would not have gotten upset if it was declared O's ball...
     
  7. Big Dan

    Big Dan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +47
    "Down by contact" is the one thing that it absolutely cannot be. As you say, the ball was bobbling when his butt hit the ground. The receiver must maintain posession through the ground for it to be a catch. He didn't. So, it definitely was not a catch and down by contact.

    It also cannot be an incomplete pass, because the ball never hit the ground. It's a live ball until it hits the ground, or is touched by a player that is out of bounds. Neither of those things happened. So, it was indeed a live ball and could not have been an incomplete pass.

    It wasn't a catch. It wasn't an incomplete pass. There's only one more thing it could possibly have been, and that one thing is an interception. The calls were right.
     
  8. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Yeah, I agree, I think that's what happened.
    But that's from highlights. If there was a challenge, and the refs could view it slow mo, I can't rule out that it would be called the other way.
     
  9. gatorpack

    gatorpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +171
    dude rewatch the woodson pick again no way that was a catch. watch it in full speed as well. I think the woodson pick was the easier one of the two. We also droped 4 balls that could have been ints.
     
  10. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    I agree the Woodson pick was the easier one to call to me. Both players appeared to have possession of the ball, and you can see the receiver bobbling the ball on the way down to the ground, signifying a lack of possession.
     
  11. SCpackerfan

    SCpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    329
    Ratings:
    +21
    Woodsons was more iffy than Tramons imo. Tramon was already ripping the ball out as they were hitting the ground, resulting in the pick. In Woodsons case, both him and the receiver had possession as they hit the ground. By rule, the ball should have gone to the receiver, just as in baseball the tie goes to the runner, but we got the pick and thats all that matters.
     

Share This Page