Sorry Zombie I humbly disagree.
It is one thing to get the pick out in the flat or even across the middle while you are moving forward.
Up to half of the offense is going to be behind you or so far across the field they are out
of the play.

Sam caught the ball 7-8 yards deep in the end zone, fell down and then got back up.
EVERYONE except the receiver was between him and the other end zone 107 yards away.
He is fast but no one is that fast.
Even so you rarely see a receiver get very many yards when he is running east to west instead of north to south.
The reason for Sam's lateral movement was that EVEN HE COULD SEE HE HAD NO WHERE TO GO.
He was just running around hoping/waiting for the other Packers to suddenly become great these run blockers and knock the Rams to the ground.
It didn't happen.
He would have been better off taking a knew and letting the Aaron and the offense do what they get paid to do.
He already did what he is paid to do.

I made this point in the chat room yesterday, but you probably made it better than I did.

It's one thing if the interception occurs on a deep bomb or something like that.
The offense is spread out over the field, and the player who made the interception has a decent chance of getting at least past the 20, if not making solid field position.
But in this case, the play started inside the 10, if I remember correctly, and Shields was deep in the end zone.
He didn't have a chance of making it to the 20, so had he elected to take the ball out of the end zone, he would have put his offense in a bad position.

This defeat extended to 48 the Rams's streak of games without a 4th-quarter comeback win.
Their record over that span: 9-39.

Speaking of Shields INT, I always thought that if the player was actively trying to get out of the end zone, it would be a safety, not a touchback.

Wade;196561Speaking of Shields INT, I always thought that if the player was actively trying to get out of the end zone, it would be a safety, not a touchback.

Give them more ideas for more judgement rules. Great idea, genius! ;) [-x

Wade;196561Speaking of Shields INT, I always thought that if the player was actively trying to get out of the end zone, it would be a safety, not a touchback.

I've seen a number of you guys say this.
Where on earth did any of you get this idea?
Have none of you ever seen someone try to return a ball out of the endzone following a turnover only to get tackled before they can make it out?

mi_keys;196563I've seen a number of you guys say this.
Where on earth did any of you get this idea?
Have none of you ever seen someone try to return a ball out of the endzone following a turnover only to get tackled before they can make it out?

this guy's got it.

mi_keys;196563I've seen a number of you guys say this.
Where on earth did any of you get this idea?
Have none of you ever seen someone try to return a ball out of the endzone following a turnover only to get tackled before they can make it out?

Actually, no.

I've seen people *start* to return a ball.
But what I remember always happening is either (a) they make it out of the end zone or (b) they give up before they are touched.
Once they "take a knee", then the touchback rule is obvious (even to me).
I don't ever remember seeing a
return start and end in a tackle when the interceptor was still trying to get out of the end zone.

And I've seen hundreds of interceptions in the end zone.

Of course my memory could be selective.
I am a geezer after all. (shrug)

Wade;196573Actually, no.

I've seen people *start* to return a ball.
But what I remember always happening is either (a) they make it out of the end zone or (b) they give up before they are touched.
Once they "take a knee", then the touchback rule is obvious (even to me).
I don't ever remember seeing a
return start and end in a tackle when the interceptor was still trying to get out of the end zone.

And I've seen hundreds of interceptions in the end zone.

Of course my memory could be selective.
I am a geezer after all. (shrug)

I can remember a few.

Not specifically, but I remember seeing it. Usually they take a knee before they take a hit even if they started running around looking for a lane. If they are smart.

Wade;196573Actually, no.

I've seen people *start* to return a ball.
But what I remember always happening is either (a) they make it out of the end zone or (b) they give up before they are touched.
Once they "take a knee", then the touchback rule is obvious (even to me).
I don't ever remember seeing a
return start and end in a tackle when the interceptor was still trying to get out of the end zone.

And I've seen hundreds of interceptions in the end zone.

Of course my memory could be selective.
I am a geezer after all. (shrug)

Ditto. I don't recall ever seeing it either.

Possibly the rule is different on kick returns, although of course it would be rare for a player to get tackled in the end zone while trying to return a kick.