Ravens-Colts had one of the most mystifying challenge reversals I have ever witnessed. Mind boggling...

[Big Turk]

This was initially ruled Incomplete on the field which was clear and obvious to anyone watching this game or replay in this case.

 

Somehow on a challenge, the replay review determined it was and INT. This is beyond mind boggling how they overturn something so obviously incomplete but allow obvious reversals in so many other situations to stand.

 

It's almost like Riveron stepped out for a few minutes and someone else made the call to try and use some crazy twisted logic to show how smart they were and impress Riveron when he got back...

 

Just absolutely mind boggling how this could be ruled and INT especially when it was called incomplete on the field...

 

https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/1325529137084321794?s=20

Edited November 9, 2020 by matter2003

[djp14150]

This was mot an INT.

 

if this was then the Chargers won the game against the raiders.

[Xwnyer]

2 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

This was mot an INT.

 

if this was then the Chargers won the game against the raiders.

I was watching that game and Bills at same time.   When I saw challenge flag come out first reaction was who is that stupid to challenge that the guy NEVER had control of ball.   Replay showed same and than when they came back and said reversed I texted my Colts buddy and said you just got screwed major.   worst than just give it to them1

 

[Brand J]

At least there’s somewhat of an argument for a completed pass - he did have control for 3 steps before the ball was raked out. In real time it looks like an obvious incomplete pass, in slo mo it looks complete given the rules of the game.

I think the non reversal on the Kroft “interception” was far worse than this call. There’s no argument for that one.

[Virgil]

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.  I'd be losing my mind as a Colts fan.  If the updated rules translate this into an interception, then the rules need to be changed

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

This was initially ruled Incomplete on the field which was clear and obvious to anyone watching this game or replay in this case.

 

Somehow on a challenge, the replay review determined it was and INT. This is beyond mind boggling how they overturn something so obviously incomplete but allow obvious reversals in so many other situations to stand.

 

It's almost like Riveron stepped out for a few minutes and someone else made the call to try and use some crazy twisted logic to show how smart they were and impress Riveron when he got back...

 

Just absolutely mind boggling how this could be ruled and INT especially when it was called incomplete on the field...

 

https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/1325529137084321794?s=20

 

That's ridiculous.  As ridiculous as the Kroft INT, except at least that one had the "conclusive evidence needed to over turn" going for it.

 

There have been some mind-boggling bad calls that affect games this year.

[mannc]

Of course it wasn’t an int, but on top of that, even if it was, Peters fumbled it and I’m sure the whistle blew, so how do they give the ball to the Ravens?

[GunnerBill]

The reason for this is because fans have been outraged for years about the "Calvin Johnson" completing the process to the ground thing. So they have got rid of the need to survive the ground rule. As a result I am guessing the ruling was Peters had control took the sufficient number of steps and therefore had established possession. When it then got knocked out it then becomes a fumble. I haven't seen it but my guess is a Raven picked it up? If so then under the rule as it stands that is an INT, a fumble, a successful recovery by Baltimore and Baltimore ball.

 

Of course it is nonsense. But the complete the process to the ground thing did make sense even if it at times gave you tough outcomes. People moaning about it has made the rule worse IMO. As a defender of the "complete the process to the ground" rule all I have to say is "I told you so."

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

39 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

This was initially ruled Incomplete on the field which was clear and obvious to anyone watching this game or replay in this case.

 

Somehow on a challenge, the replay review determined it was and INT. This is beyond mind boggling how they overturn something so obviously incomplete but allow obvious reversals in so many other situations to stand.

 

It's almost like Riveron stepped out for a few minutes and someone else made the call to try and use some crazy twisted logic to show how smart they were and impress Riveron when he got back...

 

Just absolutely mind boggling how this could be ruled and INT especially when it was called incomplete on the field...

 

https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/1325529137084321794?s=20

Agree with everything except this part, I think most bad calls are when Al gets involved... check my screenname underneath!

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

Of course it wasn’t an int, but on top of that, even if it was, Peters fumbled it and I’m sure the whistle blew, so how do they give the ball to the Ravens?

 

My guess is that is exactly what was called, an INT, a fumble and a Ravens recovery.

[Coach Tuesday]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

My guess is that is exactly what was called, an INT, a fumble and a Ravens recovery.

 

That is how it was called.

 

NFL officials, including those in NY, are just not bright enough to officiate the modern, TV-focused sport.

[JerseyBills]

I saw that on Redzone live. 

I stream the Bills on my laptop and watch Redzone too. 

Ya it was mind boggling for sure and a huge reason they won as well.  

Ravens don't look that good imo

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

I think my favorite part is that the defender making the play (Peters) didn't act like he had intercepted it. He knew he didn't catch the ball. Only one defender even went half heartedly after the loose ball. 

 

This call really is mind boggling. If the initial call on the field had been an INT, I think there's conclusive evidence that the call should be overturned and called an incompletion. 

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

My guess is that is exactly what was called, an INT, a fumble and a Ravens recovery.

But the whistle had clearly blown and the players on the field assumed it was an incompletion and just ignored the ball. Calling that a Ravens’ recovery is insane.  But that seems to be what they did..

[mikemac2001]

He didn’t follow the process of the catch to the ground. Right ? 
 

I get the 3 steps but he’s being tackled during that so he has to maintain possession 

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

5 minutes ago, mannc said:

Of course it wasn’t an int, but on top of that, even if it was, Peters fumbled it and I’m sure the whistle blew, so how do they give the ball to the Ravens?

 

The official rule is if there's a clear recovery of a loose ball after an early whistle that team will be given possession.

 

In this replay you can see #36 pick the ball up right before the camera cuts to Peters celebration. 

[NewEra]

After watching that, how can one say there is zero collusion going on between the replay official and the NFL?  

 

How can McDs challenge record be 3-27 or w/e it is?  I agree that McD has made some terrible challenge attempts in the past (like some REALLY bad challenges), but his record on challenges just doesn’t make sense considering some of the challenges we’ve seen not get reversed.  I feel as if challenging is just a waste of a TO for us at this point.  Like on Gabe’s should’ve been TD.  The announcers and the studio ref all said it should’ve been a Td, but if we would’ve challenged it, I have no doubt that it would’ve ended with the ball out at the 1.  The pick vs the Rams was obviously not an interception, yet McD loses the challenge.  Anyone have a running log of all the times we’ve been screwed by challenge official in NY?

[GunnerBill]

31 minutes ago, mikemac2001 said:

He didn’t follow the process of the catch to the ground. Right ? 
 

I get the 3 steps but he’s being tackled during that so he has to maintain possession 

 

No longer relevant because of all the "oh the catch rule is too complicated" moaners.

 

This is on them. I said when they abolished the "process to the ground" bit they were asking for trouble and this is an example of why.

[GunnerBill]

36 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

The official rule is if there's a clear recovery of a loose ball after an early whistle that team will be given possession.

 

In this replay you can see #36 pick the ball up right before the camera cuts to Peters celebration. 

 

Correct. The rules are a mess but this play was called in accordance with those rules.

 

Blame the "oh the rule is too complicated" crowd. What we had before, including the requirement to maintain possession to the ground, was as good as it was going to get. Because you can't have a rule that just says "does it look like a catch or not?" There has to be a criteria. Removing the possession to the ground element in favour of simplicity has created this mess.

 

Some of us predicted it too. Blame every fan and announcer and talking hea who whined on about the old rule. This is on them.

[TigerJ]

Picture size and quality makes it hard to say conclusively, but it sure didn't look like Peters had the ball long enough to rule that he had control, and it also appeared that he was losing it before it hit the ground.