Tolstoy Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stank_Nasty Posted September 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 28, 2020 He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 45 16 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Kroft DID have possession of the ball. He caught it and as he went to the ground the defender grabbed it. While they were both on the ground (when the play should have been dead) the defender slightly wrestled it away, but Kroft eventually took it back. At worst it was a tie, which by rule should be a Kroft catch. 14 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Kroft and the defender both had possession at the end of the play. That is supposed to go to the receiver. 6 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Complete, and called back due to OPI. 12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do The Reich Thing Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. Bro I appreciate the optimism, but this is a terrible take. It was mutual possession at the absolute worst and tie goes to the offense. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Returntoglory Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Not for nothing BUT the league can rule it was a blown call and take away the Int. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Let's not forget even if it was ruled a catch, the offensive pass interference on Kroft brings it all back. It would've been I think 1st and 28 on the Bills 11. Either way the play changed the momentum of the whole game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. I have not seen one shot where the defender had possession of the ball. I see Kroft make a catch and go down on his knees - the defender at hat point doesn’t have the ball. I see Kroft fall on top of the defender and the 2 of them fighting for the ball, but in no shot can they show the defender with sole possession of the ball. This was an easy play that the Refs blew and NY was to stupid and rigid to accept it was a blown call on the field and call it correctly. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Can someone post a link with a replay of the “interception”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Bills Fan Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. You’re either trolling or you don’t know anything about football. Croft made the catch so when he hits the ground the play is over. If the defender grabbed the ball it’s a simultaneous possession and the offense’s ball. Never an interception. Edited September 28, 2020 by Southern Bills Fan 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted Simple. Couldn't believe the call wasn't reversed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Nasty Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Just now, Shaw66 said: Simple. Couldn't believe the call wasn't reversed. The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk71 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 The play is over when he hits the ground. There is no wrestling the ball away while on the ground, that's ridiculous. The play is over when he hits the ground, period. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaronthebaron Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 10 minutes ago, Returntoglory said: Not for nothing BUT the league can rule it was a blown call and take away the Int. Is that true? I wasn’t aware of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloButt Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 18 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. Kroft caught it and came down with it, then the defender got his hands on it for simultaneous at best. Simultaneous=Offese ball and a catch! Ref's blew this one just so thankful we have Ice Man Allen to pull out the win inspite of the blown call!! Go Bills! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 20 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 18 minutes ago, HurlyBurly51 said: Complete, and called back due to OPI. 7 minutes ago, Turk71 said: The play is over when he hits the ground. There is no wrestling the ball away while on the ground, that's ridiculous. The play is over when he hits the ground, period. This is how I see it. Play is over when his back hits the ground. Bills ball. Penalty for OPI, but still Bills ball. Which I would much rather have had. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BfloBillsFan Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 23 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted This is how I look at the play. Kroft never lost possession of the ball 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan in Cleveland Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 OP premise is incorrect as Kroft had possession of the ball. Perera pointed that out and it was just a bad call. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not at the table Karlos Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 26 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. I stopped reading at “rams player had possession of the ball on the ground” if you’re gonna make a post about it at least watch the play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 I anticipate the NFL apologizing this week. 8 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 16 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable "Oh it's ok to have a skate in the crease if it's not near the goalie, here have a Stanley Cup" This is the level you're operating at, NFL. Think about if that's what you want. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 26 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. Yes, you are. Specifically your explanation for why a Kroft catch is impossible. At no point did he lose possession. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 There was a secret memo changing the rules and allowing the defender to have his foot in the crease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not at the table Karlos Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 21 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable What did they say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Not at the table Karlos said: What did they say? Their typical response whenever the Refs blow it against the Bills... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 23 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable Have they? I’d love to see their explanation on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 35 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. simultaneous possession at the very least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 That was the worst call since the Saints got screwed out of a Super Bowl appearance. Period. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Mueller Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 45 minutes ago, Tolstoy said: I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4: (1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground. (2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play. (3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is. (4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives! Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made. Just apply the penalty for the receiver's push off... that's what should have been done. Cancels the catch... still Bill's ball. LA player got the ball after both players were on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsbackto81 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, SDS said: I anticipate the NFL apologizing this week. Nope! 13 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said: What did they say? Go to 19:00 and listen to Ryan Talbot talk about it. He mentions that NFL refs tweeted about it and justified it. Absolutely mind numbing that they would stick up for that awful call. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharky7337 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said: Have they? I’d love to see their explanation on this one. There explanation was that since the ruling on the field was the receiver did not complete the catch process he didnt have possession so they couldn't over turn it..... it was a BS explanation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerlyofCtown Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 The reality of it is the league can't afford to have the Bills blow out the LA Rams with the Lakers doing well in the playoffs at the same time. The NFL is a business. They pretend to have morals and support things but in the end all they care about is their brand and $$$$ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 45 minutes ago, HurlyBurly51 said: Complete, and called back due to OPI. They declined teh penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerlyofCtown Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Sharky7337 said: There explanation was that since the ruling on the field was the receiver did not complete the catch process he didnt have possession so they couldn't over turn it..... it was a BS explanation It's just a flat out lie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharky7337 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Just now, formerlyofCtown said: It's just a flat out lie. It isn't a coincidence that penalties and bad calls come just in time to keep games close for teams that need success in large markets. However we got a call in our favor in the end so karma is a mofo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 41 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable ...and what is it? Did you see it, or just heard the league put something out about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not at the table Karlos Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCBillsBeliever Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 THIS is the headline on E-Sucks-to-be-a-joke-and-a-Bob-Kraft-disciple-PN... They patently ignore the fake interception, and use BS calls to make it seem like the Bills stumbled into a win... The narrative SHOULD be that the National media stumbled into reporting, when it comes to the Bills. They flat out INVENT $#!t to keep their fat, stupid trolls happy about their HOT takes from the 2018 draft... Hope you, National FLEAdia, enjoy the FACT that the MF Buffalo Bills are 3-0, despite your BS narratives, invented calls, and $#!T excuses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts