The overturned calls?

[bbb]

You need to have control of the ball for it to be possession, not necessarily have 2 hands on it. He had it pinned securely against his shoulder with both feet in-bounds and then put his other hand on it when he was out of bounds.

 

That's how it looked on the scoreboard.

[Kelly the Dog]

You need to have control of the ball for it to be possession, not necessarily have 2 hands on it. He had it pinned securely against his shoulder with both feet in-bounds and then put his other hand on it when he was out of bounds.

It went from one hand to the other before he had possession or control. In that time, it went from two feet in to one foot in. He didnt have control at all for some time after it hit his hands. I agree you dont have to have two hands on it for control or possession. But he didnt have either for more than one step.

[bbb]

Eh, Bogar is a Ravens fan. One or two were inconclusive. He got the last one right. Bigger problem is the NFL rules. It's a fast, hard hitting sport. They nitpick this stuff to death. Kills a lot of big plays and points.

 

It also takes away fan enthusiasm. The crowd should have been going ape **** after Kiko's interception at the end, but there was definitely something held back because we all knew it would be reviewed.

 

I've hated instant reply since Day One.

[2003Contenders]

That was one of the things (to me) that was most impressive about this victory. The Bills had several close calls go against them -- but managed to perservere and not give up. I do believe that all of the reviews were, unfortunately, correct. The only plays that I recall disagreeing with were both on Glenn. The unnecessary roughness call, I thought, was ticky-tack. Also, he was called for a hold on Suggs on a play that looked very clean to me.

[dave mcbride]

The Woods play was definitely not a catch. He never secured it until he was out. It was clear as day on the replay.

Edited September 30, 2013 by dave mcbride

[justnzane]

The reception and fumble was truly incomplete

 

Chandlers one foot landed on the other foot and not on turf. This to me is questionable as it could be interpreted as the first foot is part of the field of play and thus the second would be on the field of play.

 

The Woods call is questionable, I thought he trapped the ball against his bicep as he left foot was taking off the ground (i super slow mo'd it).

 

The scoreboard dept and Boger both did the crowd a disservice. Scoreboard could have gave the replays that CBS was giving the viewers, and Boger did a crap job explaining to the crowd why the calls were overturned (minus the Chandler call).

 

The call on Leonhard was dubious, and the Glenn holding call was not as bad as some of the ones that weren't called on Baltimore. I question the personal foul call on Glenn as well, as I thought you are allowed to pin a defender down.

[Kelly the Dog]

That was one of the things (to me) that was most impressive about this victory. The Bills had several close calls go against them -- but managed to perservere and not give up. I do believe that all of the reviews were, unfortunately, correct. The only plays that I recall disagreeing with were both on Glenn. The unnecessary roughness call, I thought, was ticky-tack. Also, he was called for a hold on Suggs on a play that looked very clean to me.

I thought that was a good call too. Glenn was beat, and he kicked his foot out. It was either kicking or tripping because the defender went down from the trip.

[bbb]

The reception and fumble was truly incomplete

 

Chandlers one foot landed on the other foot and not on turf. This to me is questionable as it could be interpreted as the first foot is part of the field of play and thus the second would be on the field of play.

 

The Woods call is questionable, I thought he trapped the ball against his bicep as he left foot was taking off the ground (i super slow mo'd it).

 

The scoreboard dept and Boger both did the crowd a disservice. Scoreboard could have gave the replays that CBS was giving the viewers, and Boger did a crap job explaining to the crowd why the calls were overturned (minus the Chandler call).

 

I don't think anybody in the crowd would hear anyway, because as soon as you here that it's going against you, the whole crowd just boos like crazy! LOL

[justnzane]

I don't think anybody in the crowd would hear anyway, because as soon as you here that it's going against you, the whole crowd just boos like crazy! LOL

 

He still owes it to the viewers and the crowd. The crowd will boo him but that is part of the job. If he can't deal with it, he shouldn't be in the job.

[bbb]

True

[enlightener]

im glad that the amazing lack of luck we had on those replays all resulted in a W anyway for Blo, can the officials be any f*#^$ing slower on the reviews though? idiots

[vincec]

Just back from the game and again forgot to DVR.

 

In the stands, all those calls that got overturned against the Bills seemed inconclusive at best.........What was the consensus here, and on TV? Wasn't it three that got overturned? I can't remember the first one, but the Chandler first down and the Woods touchdown looked good to everybody where we were sitting. And, there certainly didn't look to be enough evidence to overturn.

Chandler was a clear no catch.

I thought Woods had a TD. Yes, the ball moved but he never lost control. The ball can move if the receiver maintains control.

 

That's ok, the refs paid us back when they upheld Alonso's pick at the end, which was questionable.

Edited September 30, 2013 by vincec

[NDBUFFCUSEFAN]

im glad that the amazing lack of luck we had on those replays all resulted in a W anyway for Blo, can the officials be any f*#^$ing slower on the reviews though? idiots

 

They got all three correct, yes they went against the Bills but they were all right.

[Doc]

Alonso's pick was legit. He had both his hands under it.

[KOKBILLS]

Man, you definitely get a biased opinion in the stands, LOL.........I thought Woods had the ball, kind of Tyree style. It didn't seem to move.........We thought Chandler's butt even landed before a 2nd foot had to.

 

Oh well - then what was said about the call on Leonard? That didn't seem to be anything but a good tackle when they showed the replay.

 

Both plays were very close...The Woods play especially...I think Chandlers hip hit half on the line, half off...The Woods play looked like the right call to me...Then they showed the last replay angle, the shot coming right at him, and it looked like a good catch...Both were close for sure. But neither final call could be argued as wrong I guess...

[CountryCletus]

This just in... WE WON THE GAME!!! None of the over turned calls were horrible officiating!!!

[ganesh]

Calls were correct. I thought they may have said Chandler's calf hit the ground before he was out. Definately did not get second foot down. If Woods holds onto ball instead of dropping it at the wall maybe they give it to him.

Phantom holding call on Wood was really bad. Personal foul on Leonhard was questionable though they let Seacy get away with a defenseless reciver call. He hit with his shoulder but my hunch is he gets a small fine.

The rest of the calls were correct. Including Kiko's second INT.

 

When they kept showing the replay on Kiko's INT, I thought this crew will overturn that with our wretched luck with all of that. For a change, I think the Refs got all the calls correct (at least the critical ones).

 

Both plays were very close...The Woods play especially...I think Chandlers hip hit half on the line, half off...The Woods play looked like the right call to me...Then they showed the last replay angle, the shot coming right at him, and it looked like a good catch...Both were close for sure. But neither final call could be argued as wrong I guess...

I think the OP's premise is that if there is not enough conclusive evidence, the call *must* not be overturned.

[djp14150]

On the chandler call..... I wonder about the rule exact wording. Based on this logic if a receiver has one foot in and second foot steps on another player and not in bounds would he be ruled in bounds because the foot is all in bounds

 

On the Woods non TD call....that was a pure judgement call. Under the rules it has to be indisputable video evidence and their wasnt that. It was a play that has to go with the way it was called on the field.

[Jim in Anchorage]

You guys that endlessly complain about the calls have got to be a blast to watch the game with.

[bbb]

I think the OP's premise is that if there is not enough conclusive evidence, the call *must* not be overturned.

 

Yeah, that was it. They were all so close, and usually when they are so questionable, the call on the field stands.

[Dan]

It went from one hand to the other before he had possession or control. In that time, it went from two feet in to one foot in. He didnt have control at all for some time after it hit his hands. I agree you dont have to have two hands on it for control or possession. But he didnt have either for more than one step.

I can see how you and others and the refs called that a noncatch. But, for me, that's exactly what I saw. He shifted the ball from his right to his left to avoid the DB knocking it out. But, he never bobbled it. He never didn't have control. In fact, being able to repostion the ball from one hand to the other would seem to indicate he had control of it. Did the ball move? Yes. But, because ...he moved it. I just don't see how you can catch a ball and move it away from a defender without the ball moving and without having control of it.

 

 

On the Leonard play... I thought the call was because it was a head to head hit? Am I thinking of a different play? Granted, I think its a BS call that gets called all the time. The defender can't control if the guy lowers his head to brace for a hit and that causes thieirnheads to hit. But that's the NFL we live with now, unfortunately.

[bowery4]

I think they NFL needs to change their catch rule. Both the Woods TD and the Fumble that Leonard recovered, are catches in every facet of life except the NFL.

 

Woods caught the ball, then the D player punched the ball forcing it to move in his grasp, BUT HE NEVER EVEN REMOTELY LOST CONTROL. But since it moved, it is considered that they don't have complete control. Woods had complete control of that football. I think the rule needs to be changed to reflect that. The Fumble that wasn't was very similar, the guy caught the ball, turned up field, tucked the ball and ducked his head. He had the ball, he had it controlled, but it was getting forced out by a defender at the same time he was getting his two feet down. Neither player lost the ball before getting their 2nd foot down.

 

The way they call it these days, a WR can't even switch hands with the football too quickly after catching it bc it will be ruled he never had complete control. I think the rule needs to be changed.

The way the rules are about catches these days is just bad. Thing were different and better a few years ago.

[bbb]

I can see how you and others and the refs called that a noncatch. But, for me, that's exactly what I saw. He shifted the ball from his right to his left to avoid the DB knocking it out. But, he never bobbled it. He never didn't have control. In fact, being able to repostion the ball from one hand to the other would seem to indicate he had control of it. Did the ball move? Yes. But, because ...he moved it. I just don't see how you can catch a ball and move it away from a defender without the ball moving and without having control of it.

 

 

On the Leonard play... I thought the call was because it was a head to head hit? Am I thinking of a different play? Granted, I think its a BS call that gets called all the time. The defender can't control if the guy lowers his head to brace for a hit and that causes thieirnheads to hit. But that's the NFL we live with now, unfortunately.

 

I thought he had control the whole time, too. I never saw a loss of control.

 

As for the Leonard play, when they showed the replay on the scoreboard, it looked like it was shoulder to shoulder. No heads involved..........He lined him up perfectly. You could see it coming, and the flag, from miles away............It looked like it was probably helmet to helmet but it wasn't. These things are too fast to really see for the refs.

[bbb]

You guys that endlessly complain about the calls have got to be a blast to watch the game with.

 

Yup, all 70,000 of us. We suck.