Jump to content

The interception call...


Tolstoy

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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. 

BS.png

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...