[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted this in another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
It was a good call on the INT. The receiver never established possession by getting a second foot down before getting knocked to the ground, in which case he must maintain possession when he hits the ground in order for it to be ruled a catch.

[/ QUOTE ]