#22 Rogers!

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I have a curiosity about the play where Carlos missed on the interception. It would appear from the replay that Carlos actually caught the ball and his off-balance momentum carried him to the ground on his backside. When he hit the ground the ball came lose and the ruling on the field was incomplete, because the rule states the player must maintain possession throughout the process, even after hitting the ground.

Now this is what I'm curious about: The Colts challenged the play saying that Rogers caught the ball and the play should have been ruled an interception and fumble, recoverered by the Colts. Had the official actually reversed the ruling on the field and found that Rogers did indeed catch the ball and fumbled it after hitting the ground, then the results of the Colts challenge would have presented an interesting dilema.

The ruling is, the ground can't cause a fumble. When Carlos went to the ground he wasn't down by contact. I'm curious about what would have been the outcome of the challenge had the replay official actually agreed with the Colts initial contention that Rogers caught the ball and then fumbled it.....A challenge by the Colts that would have actually worked to the benefit of the Redskins?

The NFL introduced this flukey rule in the last 10 years that a receiver or a defender must maintain possession even after hitting the ground when falling to the ground as a single act following the catch. By this new definition of what constitutes a catch, Butch Johnson's TD in Super Bowl XIII would have been an incompletion. That said, if a receiver or defender makes a 2nd act after the catch, tucking the ball away, cutting upfield, tripping on his own, falling, then fumbling, then the ground can most certainly cause a fumble.