[Misleading Title]Conclusive evidence it was not a catch.

[WhoTom]

On 12/25/2017 at 2:01 PM, Bash_Gash said:

 #sarcastic. ..how u can tell his foot off ground is beyond me...NFL is a joke

 

 

 

See if they can slide a piece of paper between his foot and the ground. Works for first down measurements.

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by WhoTom

[Paul Costa]

21 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

Right. The 4th and 1 was the salt to the wound. 2 plays that directly affected points on the scoreboard during a one score game.

 

no point wonder what if. But 2 calls that could have made the outcome look quite a bit different. 

 

The frustrating part is when you have such a flawed team you basically need the perfect game to get it done in foxboro. And then when it’s even slightly trending in that direction and as if the pats weren’t good enough already.... you have to Contend with blatantly flawed officiating that is DIRECTLY altering the scoreboard. And you can’t convince me that’s not wearing on an underdogs psyche during the course of a game. 

?AGREE 

[Xwnyer]

On 12/25/2017 at 4:50 PM, Jigsaw2112 said:

If that play is Brady to any Pats receiver its a TD all day....

Its called aTD for Cheats even if the foot didnt dig up some tires the OLD Give it to em

[Shaw66]

6 minutes ago, Xwnyer said:

Its called aTD for Cheats even if the foot didnt dig up some tires the OLD Give it to em

I do have to say this in defense of all the people who make these decisions.   There is a clear, and I think natural, bias in favor of the good team over the bad team.   There is an assumption in the back of everyone's head that the players on the good teams make the plays and the players on the bad teams don't.   So if maybe it's interference, Cooks gets the call and Hyde doesn't.   

 

I think it's a natural, unconscious decision.   These are the Bills so that pass to Benjamin must have been incomplete.   These are the Patriots, so that 4th down play must have been successful.   

 

It's another reason why the evidence to overturn a call has to be conclusive. 

[GoBills808]

Phantom PI that went for 40 yards was the most egregious bad call IMO. As soon as Brady let go of it I said ‘under thrown’ and not intentionally either by how it fluttered...it was just a bad pass that should 10/10 times NOT be called PI ESPECIALLY if the WR has both arms around the DB because he knows it’s short and going to be a pick if he doesn’t commit OPI. Horrible.

[nedboy7]

22 hours ago, Sweats said:

And?...........the game is over, we lost, the Pats won and tomorrow is just another day.

 

Does it really matter at this point if it was a catch or not?

 

Really?..........its Christmas, for Christs sakes and we're patting ourselves on the back because we have irrefutable proof that it "could" have been a catch, it "may" have been a catch and it was "probably" a catch.

 

Wow...........enjoy your holidays, boys.

 

Yea it matters. Make sure you enjoy yours too. 

Remember boys it’s never the refs. Always TT. 

25 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I do have to say this in defense of all the people who make these decisions.   There is a clear, and I think natural, bias in favor of the good team over the bad team.   There is an assumption in the back of everyone's head that the players on the good teams make the plays and the players on the bad teams don't.   So if maybe it's interference, Cooks gets the call and Hyde doesn't.   

 

I think it's a natural, unconscious decision.   These are the Bills so that pass to Benjamin must have been incomplete.   These are the Patriots, so that 4th down play must have been successful.   

 

It's another reason why the evidence to overturn a call has to be conclusive. 

 

I think it’s a little more complicated than that 

Edited December 26, 2017 by nedboy7

[BobbyC81]

On December 25, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jigsaw2112 said:

If that play is Brady to any Pats receiver its a TD all day....

 

Lol!   Is there any doubt that if these Patriots had a Scott Norwood like FG miss in the Super Bowl that there would be a phantom call on the defense to allow for a rekick?

[stevewin]

2 hours ago, thunderingsquid said:

https://streamable.com/6t41z. Hitler agrees.

That was actually a pretty good one in the hitler genre

[NoSaint]

6 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

The fact that you're guessing why the call was overturned reinforces what a BS call that was. 

 

 

Well I’ll I didn’t see it live and only caught a little of the explanation 

 

when i I watched it initially I thought that his foot came up and then went back down based on that justification. I’d assume that’s what the ref saw too but I’m not promising that’s the same process they used.

 

i probably wouldn’t have overturned it but based on the replay I thought that it most likely came up 

[Shaw66]

42 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I think it’s a little more complicated than that 

Of course it's more complicated.   But I'm sure it's a factor.   NBA stars get favorable calls - it's almost like the ref is thinking "if it didn't go in, Durant must have been fouled, because he makes them all."   

 

[cba fan]

5 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Not saying anything leads officials to be less careful about botching the next one. Or Kraft a little more cautious about exerting control over the league office maybe.

 

Either way silence does nothing.

 

What is the 4th and 1 rule? Lay it out for me. 

short answer.

Bills player was making contact with Patriot but his knees were not down when he stretched the ball forward and maybe hit the line to gain.(not obvious as he had a finger on the forward tip of the ball)

He then pulled it back into his body and then his knees touched down. At that time he was short of the line to gain. That is where the ball is always spotted unless it is a break the goal line plane situation.

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 6:51 PM, Shaw66 said:

I saw what you saw, but the right call there was to conclude that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.  When he did secure the ball, it still wasn't clear that Benjamin's foot was off the ground.  It was really close, and if I had to bet my life I'd say his foot was off the ground.  But there was not a clear look that showed conclusively that his foot WAS off the ground, and without clear evidence, they're required to up hold the call on the field.  

You should not bet your life on it, due to the following.

 

When he had full control is a complete judgement call.

Edited December 27, 2017 by cba fan

[billsbackto81]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 3:24 PM, CookieG said:

That wasn't a catch, Beatrice.

The line in the turf you saw was swamp gas from a weather balloon,  trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

What!!! Get your big butt back in the house!!

[Shaw66]

23 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

 

Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.  

 

Turns out I was wrong about this.  In the 4th and 1 thread there's a video from the sideline.   It's clear that he reached the ball out to or past the line to gain.  It's also clear that just as he got fully extended his helmet starts moving back - it moved back at least a foot.  After he started moving back, he bends his elbows, the ball elevates as he's pulling it back to his body.   

 

Since the retreat of the ball was caused by a Bill, he gets his forward progress, which is at or over the line to gain.  First down. 

[Chris66]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Turns out I was wrong about this.  In the 4th and 1 thread there's a video from the sideline.   It's clear that he reached the ball out to or past the line to gain.  It's also clear that just as he got fully extended his helmet starts moving back - it moved back at least a foot.  After he started moving back, he bends his elbows, the ball elevates as he's pulling it back to his body.   

 

Since the retreat of the ball was caused by a Bill, he gets his forward progress, which is at or over the line to gain.  First down. 

Agreed, he is fully extended and being pulled back by #22 . You see this clearly as #60 Andrews moves out of the way.

[3rdand12]

On 12/26/2017 at 5:14 PM, Shaw66 said:

Here are some things from the NFL rules:

 

 

Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.  

 

thank you for all you have added to the quality of the Forum in a this particular posting. just a fine read from quite few here.

 Thanks Gents 

Edited December 29, 2017 by 3rdand12

[3rdand12]

On 12/27/2017 at 4:26 PM, Shaw66 said:

Turns out I was wrong about this.  In the 4th and 1 thread there's a video from the sideline.   It's clear that he reached the ball out to or past the line to gain.  It's also clear that just as he got fully extended his helmet starts moving back - it moved back at least a foot.  After he started moving back, he bends his elbows, the ball elevates as he's pulling it back to his body.   

 

Since the retreat of the ball was caused by a Bill, he gets his forward progress, which is at or over the line to gain.  First down. 

still, i learned a rather good bit of detail today .

Dialogue is much more engaging than reaching  the conclusion IMO anyways.

[Green Lightning]

On 12/25/2017 at 3:24 PM, CookieG said:

That wasn't a catch, Beatrice.

The line in the turf you saw was swamp gas from a weather balloon,  trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

 

Oh get real. Venus wasn't in the horizon at that time. Balloon in a thermal pocket, yeah, but reflected light from Venus? C'mon. Unless Venus, along with the refs are in the Cheats back pocket....hmmm.

[SDS]

[This is an automated response]The topic title is potentially misleading. Accurate titles help the community find topics relevant to their interests and avoids reader frustration. Please change the topic title to more accurately reflect content of the original post.The topic starter can edit the topic title line to make it more appropriate.Thank you.