Fitzgerald Incompletion = Goldson Interception

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.

Originally posted by TheFunkyChicken:
Actually when Goldson rolls over with the ball in his hands the ball ends up touching the ground a lot.

It's a tricky play to figure out, but I think they got it right.

Agree. Hell of a try by Goldson on the play!

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.

No. He had to have control all the way to the ground because he was contacted in the air. They got the call right.

I watched the play a few times DVR's are a wonder. The tip of the ball clearly hit the ground as Goldson was rolling over. It's a good thing it did too because if it hadn't it likely would have been counted as a touchdown rather than an incomplete pass, as it was in the end zone when it touched. It was only because Fitz never controlled possession all the way to the ground that it wasn't ruled a TD. Had he had control then got stripped it would have played out different, I believe.

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.

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.

Originally posted by DJD:
I watched the play a few times DVR's are a wonder. The tip of the ball clearly hit the ground as Goldson was rolling over. It's a good thing it did too because if it hadn't it likely would have been counted as a touchdown rather than an incomplete pass, as it was in the end zone when it touched. It was only because Fitz never controlled possession all the way to the ground that it wasn't ruled a TD. Had he had control then got stripped it would have played out different, I believe.

If the ball didn't hit the ground it was an int.

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 definitely think it could have went either way. I wouldn't have been mad if they gave it to him.

My buddy, also a 9er fan kept saying they was going to and should give it to him. I didn't think they would but could have understood if they did.

Originally posted by 9erReign:

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.

No. He had to have control all the way to the ground because he was contacted in the air. They got the call right.

Correct.

Fitz needed to hold the ball all the way through the catch.

Its the same reason the Crabtree catch long the sidelines was ruled incomplete against the Bears.

Originally posted by 9erReign:

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.

No. He had to have control all the way to the ground because he was contacted in the air. They got the call right.

the right call was made

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
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.

You're the first one to say it because you're wrong.

The receiver must come down in the end zone with possession, according to NFL rules.

See the Chargers vs. Raiders 9/14 Monday Night Game.

Originally posted by 9erReign:

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.

No. He had to have control all the way to the ground because he was contacted in the air. They got the call right.

Yeah, I understand the rules. What I'm saying is that on repeated viewing I thought he had control and had both knees and his hip down before the ball came out.

It was a VERY CLOSE play. I'd guess that if it had been ruled a catch and down by contact a challenge wouldn't have overturned it that way either. It was really close, but I think we were fortunate there.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by 9erReign:

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.

No. He had to have control all the way to the ground because he was contacted in the air. They got the call right.

Correct.

Fitz needed to hold the ball all the way through the catch.

Its the same reason the Crabtree catch long the sidelines was ruled incomplete against the Bears.

False! 1st Fitz did have control all the way to the ground. even slid 2-3 yards after contact before it was ripped out.

2nd. Crabs play was incomplete because he left knee hit out of bounds before his foot came down.

This incompletion/interception brings up a replay question that I've always wondered how it would play out, but have never seen the right scenario.

Say after Goldson takes the ball from Fitz, the ball doesn't touch the ground, but the official rules it an incompletion.

Then Arizona challenges the play wanting a Fitzgerald catch, but replay confirms Goldson actually catches it.

What does the replay official actually call there? Does anyone know for sure, or have an example of similar situation?

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by Negrodamus:

Originally posted by Chief:
The ball did hit the ground.

/thread

wtach the replay carefully again

i did, and it still hit the ground

After stripping the ball from Fitz, Goldson rolled into a sitting position (without clear control of the ball yet) and the nose of the ball was clearly on the ground.