That's hilarious! Hard case, eh? I've watched it full speed, slow motion, frame by frame (at least as close to that as possible with the quality of the video) and the first contact isn't with the helmets. That's the point! If a player hits a guy in the chest and then their helmets collide you can't call that targeting the head—point of contact should determine target area, should it not? The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to believe it wasn't worthy of an ejection. I don't see the guy leaving his feet and leading with his helmet toward the neck or head area...I see forearms and a hit a little above the numbers. This seems to be nothing more than two fans looking at the same play and interpreting it differently.
Dude, there is nothing in the rule that says the helmet to helmet contact must be the first contact. Moreover it looks to me like his hands hit the player at the same time as his helmet. The receiver certainly didn't react to being pushed. He reacted by having his head snap back after a helmet hit. The player was OBVIOUSLY hit high. The player was defenseless and looking at the ball knowing the rules protected him from an early hit. They call it targeting and it rates an ejection. If you have your hands on the players body while you are smacking his head with your helmet, it is a foul! Period! End of story!
Possession can't be established by a player in the air. I'll agree that he appears to have a grasp on the ball, but that alone is not worthy enough to call it a catch. He had to finish the catch to the ground, something he simply didn't do. Too bad neither of these two photos show Williams' left foot touching the turf, it would help your argument. However, it would be impossible to produce a conclusive photo that shows such. Every Gump argument I have seen on the internet show only inconclusive photos and video stills. Why don't you point to some video that proves any of your assertions? Because they don't exist. Do us both a favor Terry, admit that you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules in regard to this play. I am 100% confident in my understanding of what the rule book states is a catch and though Williams was well on his way to catching it, he blew the final part. Video viewed through objective eyes will show that the call was correct on the field and in the replay booth. Plain and simple way of putting it is: Though the ground can't cause a fumble, it can cause an incomplete pass...or in this case the incompletion became an interception.
