JJMs interception

[purplefaithful]

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.

[JimmyinSD]

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.

[mblack]

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!

[PurplePorsche]

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.

[JimmyinSD]

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.

[JR44]

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.