Fitzgerald Incompletion = Goldson Interception

NFL rules state that if the pass catcher is contacted in midair, he must come down with the ball in full possession all the way through the catch.

Fitz made the initial catch, but coming down the ball rattled out of his hands due to Goldsons arm being between the ball and his chest, and the impact of the ground. it looked like a catch, then downed by contact, then a strip all in a couple seconds of time, but the rule i mentioned prevented the catch. the ball touched the ground after Goldson had taken it from Fitz, but he couldnt quite hang on.

thus, incomplete pass. we got very lucky on that one, Fitz almost came down with an amazing triple coverage catch on the 1. at that point in the game, they couldve scored again and made it alot closer than it was.

forcing 7 turnovers and playing D like we did, we technically should have made this blowout bigger, but were just not there yet as an offense. if it were the saints that got that defensive game instead of us, theyd have scored like 56 pts.

still, i like that we turned 4 of the 7 turnovers into pts. its a start. our offense will get better and better as they mature and play in the same unit and system more.

[ Edited by Niners99 on Dec 16, 2009 at 13:04:49 ]

amazing same thing basically happened to crabtree and there were threads for weeks saying it was a catch. happens to Fitz and it's a good call by the refs.

fitzgerald incompletion is gold son !

Originally posted by YuNGaCE:
fitzgerald incompletion is gold son !

Originally posted by redrathman:

Originally posted by YuNGaCE:
fitzgerald incompletion is gold son !

LMFAO. i was waiting for a pic like this to come up. i was going to make one myself haha

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
The ball absolutely, unequivocally hit the ground.

I'll also be the first one to say it:

We got a break on that call. Fitz had possession and was down before Goldson swatted the ball out.

I agree I thought it was a catch by Fitz marking him down at the goal line. We got away with that one.

Am I the only one that hates when coaches challenge that call, because obviously fitz didn't have control all the way through the catch, that's the rule and if the receiver doesn't have the ball when he is down on the ground lying still then it isn't a catch.

The only possible outcome of the challenge would be an interception for us, which would have been hilarious if the cards challenged that it was a catch and it was overturned to an interception.

The same thing goes for the crabtree catch that singletary challenged, how can you after 2 years not know the rule?

I see it in almost every game I watch some coach thinks it's a catch but the receiver doesn't have control all the way through.

[ Edited by Bille on Dec 16, 2009 at 14:02:15 ]

Originally posted by BETTERDAYZ9ERS:

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
The ball absolutely, unequivocally hit the ground.

I'll also be the first one to say it:

We got a break on that call. Fitz had possession and was down before Goldson swatted the ball out.

I agree I thought it was a catch by Fitz marking him down at the goal line. We got away with that one.

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
The ball hit the ground billy.

Even if it didn't the refs can only overturn what is being challengeg, weather Fitz madet he grab.

We had to challenge again to see if Goldston caught it. But we were out of challenges anyways. Sing prolly would of blew a challenge if we had one on that play.

Pretty sure that is false. If it was an int the ref could have reversed it using Cards challenge. They review the entire play.

But the Officials whistled the play dead.

I wasn't happy about that myself. But he DID have it.

In any case that took seven off their side of the board. And I was happy with that in and of itself. Cause that was just a SICK pass Defensed. I've never seen anything like it.For a guy to have his hand CLEARLY not on the ball but on Pad while he is up in the air one moment and then on his back wrestling the ball away the next is just... wow with the entire dictionary at my disposal I'm having a hard time finding the right word to use here... It was that good.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Niners99:
NFL rules state that if the pass catcher is contacted in midair, he must come down with the ball in full possession all the way through the catch.

Fitz made the initial catch, but coming down the ball rattled out of his hands due to Goldsons arm being between the ball and his chest, and the impact of the ground. it looked like a catch, then downed by contact, then a strip all in a couple seconds of time, but the rule i mentioned prevented the catch. the ball touched the ground after Goldson had taken it from Fitz, but he couldnt quite hang on.

thus, incomplete pass. we got very lucky on that one, Fitz almost came down with an amazing triple coverage catch on the 1. at that point in the game, they couldve scored again and made it alot closer than it was.

forcing 7 turnovers and playing D like we did, we technically should have made this blowout bigger, but were just not there yet as an offense. if it were the saints that got that defensive game instead of us, theyd have scored like 56 pts.

still, i like that we turned 4 of the 7 turnovers into pts. its a start. our offense will get better and better as they mature and play in the same unit and system more.

Saints would have scored more than 56 N99. Gotta remember we had several possessions that were not related to the turnovers.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Niners99:
NFL rules state that if the pass catcher is contacted in midair, he must come down with the ball in full possession all the way through the catch.

Fitz made the initial catch, but coming down the ball rattled out of his hands due to Goldsons arm being between the ball and his chest, and the impact of the ground. it looked like a catch, then downed by contact, then a strip all in a couple seconds of time, but the rule i mentioned prevented the catch. the ball touched the ground after Goldson had taken it from Fitz, but he couldnt quite hang on.

thus, incomplete pass. we got very lucky on that one, Fitz almost came down with an amazing triple coverage catch on the 1. at that point in the game, they couldve scored again and made it alot closer than it was.

forcing 7 turnovers and playing D like we did, we technically should have made this blowout bigger, but were just not there yet as an offense. if it were the saints that got that defensive game instead of us, theyd have scored like 56 pts.

still, i like that we turned 4 of the 7 turnovers into pts. its a start. our offense will get better and better as they mature and play in the same unit and system more.

Saints would have scored more than 56 N99. Gotta remember we had several possessions that were not related to the turnovers.

~Ceadder

man f**k the saints

^^^ Agreed, but you can't pay me enough to try.^^^

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
The ball hit the ground billy.

Even if it didn't the refs can only overturn what is being challengeg, weather Fitz madet he grab.

We had to challenge again to see if Goldston caught it. But we were out of challenges anyways. Sing prolly would of blew a challenge if we had one on that play.

Pretty sure that is false. If it was an int the ref could have reversed it using Cards challenge. They review the entire play.

Correct.

Ditto.

~Ceadder

[ Edited by Ceadderman on Dec 16, 2009 at 14:15:17 ]

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
The ball hit the ground billy.

Even if it didn't the refs can only overturn what is being challengeg, weather Fitz madet he grab.

We had to challenge again to see if Goldston caught it. But we were out of challenges anyways. Sing prolly would of blew a challenge if we had one on that play.

Pretty sure that is false. If it was an int the ref could have reversed it using Cards challenge. They review the entire play.

No sir. That would be very unfair to the challenger plus would take way to long. Each play has several things that can be addressed. The refs would have to look into multiple rulings and effects of those rulings.

Its too confusing to look at the entire play.

Originally posted by redrathman:

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
most here are saying it hit the ground.

the ref said it hit the ground.


the MNF crew said it hit the ground.

and the replay showed it hit the ground.

So for the Niner Talkers scoring this at home, the ball NEVER hit the ground, the refs screwed us and if it wasn't for this blatant f**k up we'd be in the playoffs this year.

And we would have drafted DeSean Jackson instead of Kentwan Balmer in 2008. Interceptions like that have time traveling properties, obviously.

WE SHOULD HAVE DRAFTED VINCE WILFORK INSTEAD OF RASHAUN WOODS!!!!!!

then it would have been an INT

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by BETTERDAYZ9ERS:

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
The ball absolutely, unequivocally hit the ground.

I'll also be the first one to say it:

We got a break on that call. Fitz had possession and was down before Goldson swatted the ball out.

I agree I thought it was a catch by Fitz marking him down at the goal line. We got away with that one.

Know the new rule guys. A player must come down with the ball and remain in possession. When Fitz fell the ball was ripped out meaning no completion.

A few years ago that would have been a catch. The league took the guesswork out of the refs hands as to when the player lost control: Before or after he maintained possession?

Now the refs simply have see if the ball came out.