Packers v Vikings - incomplete pass reviewed

[Dakota]

This is NOT a fanboy question... I have no rooting interest in either team.

Did anyone see the incomplete pass by the Vikings that was reviewed? The call on the play stood (incomplete pass).

The slow motion instant replay showed on the broadcast showed (to my non-football official eye) that the Viking player caught the pass, had it cradled in his arms (apparently in control), he was hit (hard) by the defender, he went down (not a tackle - he was knocked to the ground by the hit), and the ball came loose upon contact with the ground.

Why was this an incomplete pass?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is NOT a fanboy question... I have no rooting interest in either team.

Did anyone see the incomplete pass by the Vikings that was reviewed? The call on the play stood (incomplete pass).

The slow motion instant replay showed on the broadcast showed (to my non-football official eye) that the Viking player caught the pass, had it cradled in his arms (apparently in control), he was hit (hard) by the defender, he went down (not a tackle - he was knocked to the ground by the hit), and the ball came loose upon contact with the ground.

Why was this an incomplete pass?

I did not see the play but based on what you described if you cannot display control after hitting the ground it is not a completion. This is a common interpretation so you do not award a cheap fumble. I have no idea if this was the right call. I am just explaining what is usually called.

Peace

[grantsrc]

Didn't see it, but the prevailing philosophy in the NFL, and now the NCAA, is that a player must maintain possession the entire time, including after hitting the ground or being contacted by another player.

[verticalStripes]

The ground can't cause a fumble, however, the ground could cause an incomplete pass.

[MJT]

The NFL has more guidelines than even the NCAA about maintaining possession after contacting the ground. It was the correct call, unfortunately for Viking fans.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not see the play but based on what you described if you cannot display control after hitting the ground it is not a completion. This is a common interpretation so you do not award a cheap fumble. I have no idea if this was the right call. I am just explaining what is usually called.

Peace

Yep it was the right call for the exact reason you stated.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by verticalStripes

The ground can't cause a fumble, however, the ground could cause an incomplete pass.

That's it. And this is consistent with the previous poster's remark of avoiding "cheap fumbles."