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?

Depends entirely on when the whistle blew.

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.

REPLY: One of the principles that the NFL operates under is "no cheap turnovers." If a player appears to intercept a pass, he better demonstrate full possession and control before losing possession. Otherwise, he'll not be given the interception. Likewise for a receiver who appears to catch a pass and gets hit immediately afterwards and loses possession. This will also inevitably be ruled an incomplete pass unless the official feels that the receiver had demonstrated full control and possession of the pass prior to the hit.

From looking at the replay challenge rules, I was under the impression that a non-fumble recovery can never be changed into a fumble recovery on review, regardless of when the whistle is blown. I may have missed that part though. In addition, it seemed the Green Bay coach attempted to challenge the play and was told that he could not benefit from a challenge.

Not true. If no one blew a whistle until after the fumble was recovered, the "IW" would have occurred AFTER the recovery and technically the options would be given to the recovering team.

I think in that play the whistle blew before the ball was recovered, and the linesman was signaling incomplete.

I ask this out of pure curiosity, because I have no clue on these matters...if a replay shows that the play should have remained 'alive' (such as a whistle blows to indicate an incomplete pass, when in reality the pass was caught), is that whistle an IW? Thanks in advance for the replies.

If the replay shows an INT, then fumble and whistle, then it is an IW and the intercepting team would retain the right to the ball at the location of the ball at the time of the IW. The IW whistle is handled differently in the NFL, than NCAA or NF.