Pats interception not an interception?

[Lanky Livingston]

Via Dan Hellie, The Patriots INT was not an INT after all. Just another in the long list of terrible calls this season. Just awful.

 

[Goaldeje]

I didn't fault the refs on that one, assuming they had the same camera angles CBS had, cause there wasn't enough visual evidence to overturn.

But that sucks.

 

[Boone]

I'm not sure the ball hitting the turf automatically means it can't be ruled an INT...he has his hand under it (at least partially) and controlled the ball as he rolled. I saw that it looked like it touched the ground on the immediate replay, but it still looked like a legitimate pick to me.

 

[burgold]

I remember seeing that on the Jumbotron at the stadium and thinking that it could be overturned, but I really didn't think that the refs should or could. I like complaining about the refs... that's one call I don't think they blew.

 

[Canadian Hog]

I think that these are the types of plays and bad breaks that come with the territory when you are a 4-9 team.

When and if this team ever does get things right and turns the corner, you will notice that we will be on the favourable end of these kinds of plays more often than not.

 

[Elephant]

I'm not sure the ball hitting the turf automatically means it can't be ruled an INT...he has his hand under it (at least partially) and controlled the ball as he rolled. I saw that it looked like it touched the ground on the immediate replay, but it still looked like a legitimate pick to me.

This. ^^^



I was listening to someone a few games ago discussing the rule and if I heard it correctly, the tip of the ball can hit the ground as long as there is obvious possession of the ball in every other aspect of the play.

I will not swear by this, and I am too lazy to look it up but I am pretty sure that is what I heard about the rule.

But **** the refs, the Santana push off was not a push off and they took the game tying TD away from us!

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

this rule doesnt bother me nearly as much as the stupid calvin johnson rule. I think we need to simplify the rules not make them more complex. pretty soon we will need lawyers for team captains

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I'm not sure the ball hitting the turf automatically means it can't be ruled an INT...he has his hand under it (at least partially) and controlled the ball as he rolled. I saw that it looked like it touched the ground on the immediate replay, but it still looked like a legitimate pick to me.

The ball can't be moving at all when it hits the ground, or its incomplete. This is the Keyshawn rule. But a hand under the ball isn't the final determinant IIRC - its control of the ball, which you can't see from a still photo. I wasn't able to watch the game, so I don't know if he had control or not.