Did anyone else notice Reggie Corners elbow come down?

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

Did anyone else happen to see Reggie Corners elbow on his called back interception in the endzone? Reggie made a nice grab with a Balltimore receiver draped all over his arm, but his right foot clearly did not hit the turf but rather the baltimore player when it came down. The interesting thing that I watched was his right elbow. It looked to me like his left foot came down in bounds and then his right elbow. Did anyone else witness this because the commentators just focussed on the right foot and never mentioned the elbow? I'd like to know if anyone at home froze that up on their DVR and got a better look. I know it can't do anything for us now but I just thought it was interesting take on the play.

[The Big Cat]

Did anyone else happen to see Reggie Corners elbow on his called back interception in the endzone? Reggie made a nice grab with a Balltimore receiver draped all over his arm, but his right foot clearly did not hit the turf but rather the baltimore player when it came down. The interesting thing that I watched was his right elbow. It looked to me like his left foot came down in bounds and then his right elbow. Did anyone else witness this because the commentators just focussed on the right foot and never mentioned the elbow? I'd like to know if anyone at home froze that up on their DVR and got a better look. I know it can't do anything for us now but I just thought it was interesting take on the play.

 

The problem is, it needed to be overturned--i.e., there needed to be irrefutable evidence to change the call. Yes, I saw the elbow come down, but I did NOT see that his elbow came down first, before his tricep, before his shoulder, back, etc.

 

There was simply not enough evidence to say, definitively, that his elbow was the FIRST part of his upper body to touch the ground.

[Phil Hansen Forever]

You're right, his right elbow did come in contact with the turf, but I couldn't tell if he was in bounds or not. The angle looked like it was in bounds, but I got to agree with the refs, there was no absolute proof he made contact.

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

You're right, his right elbow did come in contact with the turf, but I couldn't tell if he was in bounds or not. The angle looked like it was in bounds, but I got to agree with the refs, there was no absolute proof he made contact.

Do the officials see the same replays we do at home or do they have other angles to look at?

[PDaDdy]

Did anyone else happen to see Reggie Corners elbow on his called back interception in the endzone?...It looked to me like his left foot came down in bounds and then his right elbow.

 

 

YES

Edited October 27, 2010 by PDaDdy

[infernus]

While there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call, in my opinion it should have been the other way around.. the ref should have given the benefit of the doubt on the call INITIALLY.. then look at the technicalities later on in the booth review.. at first glance it totally looks like a catch, on second it looks even more like offensive PI

 

had the ref ruled it a catch to begin with, there wouldnt be enough evidence to overturn it into an incompletion ... although wouldnt be surprised if they had anyway.

[pkwwjd]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

[kdub]

While there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call, in my opinion it should have been the other way around.. the ref should have given the benefit of the doubt on the call INITIALLY.. then look at the technicalities later on in the booth review.. at first glance it totally looks like a catch, on second it looks even more like offensive PI

 

had the ref ruled it a catch to begin with, there wouldnt be enough evidence to overturn it into an incompletion ... although wouldnt be surprised if they had anyway.

 

I agree with you on this. I don't know how the refs could have called that an incompletion initially. It was obvious to almost everybody (refs not included) that it was a catch. Even the announcers were on board with it being an interception (even though they did not mention the elbow). If they had called it an interception, I'm not sure that the ref would not have reversed the call anyway due to his foot not being down. I doubt the ref even recognized the elbow being down in the replays.

 

We've seen this situation over and over again though, where the ref gets the initial call wrong, and it completely screws over the *should be benefiting* team. As evidence, the Steelers and Phins game this week, and the Broncos-Chargers came a couple years back that Hochuli botched. It happens.

[Big Hurt]

They didn't know elbow counts.

[jo39416]

I agree with the previous poster that says it wasnt conclusive. However, I also think it may be time to move on.

[PromoTheRobot]

Who's to say the refs even looked at his elbow? Criqui and Buerlein didn't even notice it.

 

PTR

[l< j]

Hypothetical situation: Say I am the last man back on a return, in all my 162 lbs of glory, and the returner has broken free along the sidelines. Why would I try to tackle him? Just put one foot out of bounds and touch him as he speeds by. Wouldn't he be out of bounds by rule?

 

And I get credit for the tackle, inching closer to the escalators in my contract without risking injury. And the team carries me off the field on their shoulders...

 

Seriously, wouldn't that be the case? (The out of bounds part, not the rest.)

 

kj

[Wooderson]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

 

Exactly. That's the rule.

[Fezmid]

Exactly. That's the rule.

 

I don't think that's actually true though... I think that's just for a loose ball. The Patriots game, for example -- the ball was on the ground, the unconscious player's toe was out of bounds and he touched the ball. That makes the ball out of bounds. I don't think the same is true with player touching player though. Otherwise an out pattern would be a lot harder to complete -- player jumps to make the catch, defender steps out of bounds and touches the receiver, he's out of bounds. Don't think it works that way.

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

Thanks for that breakdown; never thought of that...

[Talley56]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

Yes, I was thinking the same thing but wasn't sure if that was the rule. Since it sounds like it is the rule, it appears the no-int was the correct call. What bothered me more about the play was the no-call on obvious offensive pass interference.

[Wraith]

Exactly. That's the rule.

No that is definitely not the rule.

 

An offensive player touched by a defensive player out of bounds is not out of bounds himself. That rule only applies to a the ball touching a player out of bounds.

[Armchair GM]

The problem is, it needed to be overturned--i.e., there needed to be irrefutable evidence to change the call. Yes, I saw the elbow come down, but I did NOT see that his elbow came down first, before his tricep, before his shoulder, back, etc.

 

There was simply not enough evidence to say, definitively, that his elbow was the FIRST part of his upper body to touch the ground.

 

Really? I watched the play more than a couple times and the rest of his upper body was ON TOP OF Boldin...So, yes, his elbow was the first part of his upper body to hit the ground. That being said, they kept replaying the same angle, so who knows if it wa in or out, though it looked to be in the field of play.

[Wagon Circler]

To me, this play epitomizes exactly what being a Bills fan is all about.

The guy makes one of the all time interceptions, a one-hander while being interfered with

and it is negated because one foot happens to come down on the other player.

Our kicker hits a 50 yarder on the last play to force overtime, we fumble on our first possession. Honey, where's the Pepto-bismol?

[PromoTheRobot]

Coach Sal "Bills Now" podcast

 

Sal addresses this in his "Bills Now" show. He makes an excellent case that Boldin carried Corner out of bounds,and by the NFL's own rules, that would have made the INT legit. The NFL rules on catches in bounds say you can be forced out UNLESS you are carried out by a tackler! Sal makes the case that Corner was carried. What say you? Cue podcast to the 43 minute mark to get to that discussion.

 

PTR