Cynical

And I see what you are trying to do. You did not like or agree with the outcome. From your point of view, it doesn't make sense. So, create a conspiracy to explain it. And this is where you conspiracy theory falls apart ... Somebody somewhere knows whats going on. You implied it in your own conspiracy. Here's your post from earlier in the thread: 1. "Maybe WI threw the game so a Big Ten team could crack into the playoff". This benefits Wisconsin how? Who on the team is involved? Coaches, players, etc ...? Games just don't "throw" themselves. 2. "Maybe WI will get some kickback". Where's the money coming from? Who's manipulating this? Who's receiving the money? 3. "NCAA is friggan rigged, big money everywhere". You do realize the NCAA has very little control over FBS (f/k/a Div 1-A) post season football. The only thing the NCAA can do is bar a player or team from playing in the post season. Even then, they have to have a reason, even it's complete BS. The NCAA gains nothing from OSU playing in the post season.

I have my own issues, especially in regards to the corrupt POS known as the NCAA. But that's a rant for another thread. Well, you didn't answer this one. Again, who are the members of this conspiracy? You have implied the Selection Committee, the NCAA, the Big 10 conference, Ohio State University, and the University of Wisconsin. Anybody else? I'm just trying to figure out how big this thing is. Another non-answer. For each member of the conspiracy, what are their roles? You have implied Wisconsin purposely tanked a game. Were the players aware of this? Who's running the show and calling the shots? So, every member of the conspiracy gets money? Or just some of them? If they didn't get any money, what other benefit did they receive?

Now? When was the last time the Big12 was ever a bigger money maker than the Big10? All of this because OSU got in over TCU or Baylor? Why don't you come out and explain it. Who's a part of this conspiracy? What roles did they play? How does each conspiracy member benefit?

What? How could you forget about Levi Brown in 2010? He was the Bills first pick .... ... in the 7th round. But, hey, he was drafted, right? That's more than Tuel can say. But yeah, even if you do factor in Brown, that's still a WTF kind of moment.

My mistake. In his fourth year, 2004, yes he was. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, he was not. In fact, he was benched in 2003 because of poor play. In 2004, the Chargers drafted/acquired a new QB because Brees was beginning to look like a bust to them.

1. Drew Brees was drafted in the second round. 2. Brees was so spectacular his first 3 years, the Chargers drafted another QB looking to replace him. Does that mean every QB is a Drew Brees? No, but every QB is not an Andrew Luck either. The reality is a QB takes time to develop. How many Drew Brees will a team throw away in it's search for their Andrew Luck?

If Terry had to buy a minor league team to buy to stash the goalies, what minor league team can he buy/create to stash his QB's?

Well, in his defense, he can throw a mean interception just as good, or better, than other HOF QBs.

He needs to sit in a lead walled room while wearing a tin foil hat.

Agreed! First thing I noticed.

Read the rule. It was clearly a forward pass attempt. The rule does account for a forward pass landing behind the player. It's still an incomplete pass.

No, I do not always defend the ref's. But if you want to make that assumption based on two calls we disagree on, that's more of a reflection of you and your perceptions. I do not feel compelled to come on here and B word about every call or non-call I disagree with. Especially when the Bills win. Speaking of the Brady call, here's what I said, in case you have forgotten: "At the time, I hated it. However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call. I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct." I still hate the result. But is that result of the officiating or of the rule itself? For me, it's the way the rule was written. How anybody could determine that bringing a ball back to the body is still considered a part of the forward pass makes no sense. So, yes. It was a correct call of a badly written rule. Whatever. If being an apologist means I do not want the officials to look at a players reaction after a play as determination of what happened, or spend 10 minutes reviewing a play because they are trying to interpret the orientation of the ball and what that means, or analyzing the probabilities of a dropped elbow, then, yes, I am an apologist. It's a game, not quantum physics.

Nah, not really. I've read rules and seen the play. I think the call was correct. But the topic does seem it's very important to those that feel the need to validate the "We was robbed", the "NFL officials suck", and the "NFL is fixed" mentality that has permeated the board this year.

And I don't think it ever will. To many variables to take into account, and that could possibly end up with a rule book looking like a version of War & Peace. Not to mention the amount of time needed to review a play as the officials would have to run through all the different possibilities.

This is what I have been trying to say, before others started bringing up what JM said after the game and how JM reacted after the play was over. All of that is irrelevant in regards to how the play is called and reviewed. Based on the videos, and leaving out what JM said after the game, if you are the official looking at and reviewing that play, and you see the arm angle change and the elbow drop, is the QB trying to bring the ball back to his body, or is he trying to throw the ball into the ground to avoid the sack, or something else? Based on the video evidence only, I think the official can say JM was trying to do something, but what? I believe in the Blandino video there is a shot from the back. Also, IIRC, in the Johnny Football/Meetball thread there's a GIF. Yeah that's it. The NFL officials made up a rule on the spot, and the NFL modified the rule book to protect a certain QB. That completely ignores the fact the rule was cited and enforced in a game a year prior.

At the time, I hated it. However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call. I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct.

Whether or not Johnny felt it was fumble is irrelevant in determining if the play call is correct. Cause that what it appears you are implying. If Johnny says it was a fumble, then it must a fumble. Case closed. All those pesky incompetent officials are wrong. Yeah, we should believe how a "rookie" reacts to a play as a basis in determining the correct play call.

If the was no irrefutable evidence as the poster states (as many here are claiming), then the official could have just as easily stated the play stands as called. Ok, simple question. What made the official change the call?

So what? The officials are supposed to consider how the players react after the play when reviewing a call? Should the officials ask for the players opinion?

Um, because he was. That's what it looks like in the replay. We will agree to disagree on the first part. But to say it's beside the point is flat out wrong. It is THE point. It's what determines if the ball was fumbled or an incomplete pass. It is the basis of why the call was reversed. The NFL officials disagree with you.

And that has what (if anything) to do with how the play was called and reviewed?

Wow. That's one hell of a reach.

I have no idea where you got the NFL "official" position states the tuck has to be completed 100% in order to be a fumble. That was the old tuck rule. The new rule states, and as stated by Blandino in that clip, if the player attempts to pull it back, then it becomes a fumble. Yes. There is no doubt JM was attempting to pass the ball. He cocked his arm, and that arm and ball was moving forward before he got hit. The disagreement seems to be around whether or not JM was pulling the ball back towards him, or did KW's hit cause the motion that makes it appear JM was pulling the ball back. To me, it's clear. KW's hit caused it. That hit threw Johnny backwards and off balance, which in turn caused his arm to curl in like he was trying to pull the ball back in.

That absurd definition of a forward pass has been that way for years. How many football games have you watched where a QB gets a ball stripped, and the announcers focus on whether or not the arm was moving forward. What controversy? The one where you want it to be a fumble? Let's assume it is a controversy. It's a small one. Like I said before, this rule has been in place for years. You want to change it because of one little perceived hiccup? Let's look at your rule change: "the ball must go forward beyond the passer's body and the intended receiver should be obvious." You say you want to "negate any interpretation of intent", but then propose a change that does just that! Re-watch the replays. That arm/ball is moving forward before Kyle hits him. When Kyle hits Manziel, and throws Johnny completely off balance, that's when JM's arm/hands turns in, and smacks KW in the helmet with the ball. Like all sacks take place with the defender in the face of the QB. Not to mention, given the speed and time it takes for a play to happen, if a QB's instinct is to hammer the ball into a defender's helmet to avoid a sack, that QB will not be playing in the NFL for very long. Yet, your rule change would make some of those fumbles. That would never cause a problem, now would it?

Looking at the replay views in the Blandinos explanation, at about 2:10 and then again 2:30 marks, you can clearly see that happening. Whether we Bills fans like or not, it does appear the correct call was made.