Quote:
Originally posted by Turtle Burger
In the 1st quarter of the Vikings-Packers game yesterday, a Vikings defender appeared to intercept a pass, then fumble it, and it was recovered by a Green Bay player. The call on the field was that it was an incomplete pass. I thought it would be wise for the Minnesota coach to challenge this play, since if the play was overturned, the Vikings would get to keep the interception while the subsequent fumble recovery would have been unreviewable (the play was ruled dead at that point). Am I correct in this analysis?
|
Interesting thought. The only way that may have benifited the Vikes is if Tice had had a conversation like this with the R. "Can we challenge the fact that we had the interception, then when it was fumbled, the whistle blew, killing the play, so since we last had team possession of the ball, it is ours." If the R would say yes, then it would have been a good challenge. I think Tice never thought of this, since after the fumble, the Packers recovered and would have had a 1st down. He did seem to get a foot, maybe two down, but the ball was not totally secured, so I don'think it would have been overturned. My thought is the Vikes never thought of how the timing of the whistle may have only benifited them. I am a Viking fan, who knows the rules probably better than Tice, and didn't think of that option.