Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 That was a serious LOL for me watching that replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 8 minutes ago, TigerJ said: 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. The ground is now irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dma0034 Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 Almost as bad as the Tyler Kroft interception. The refs have no idea what they're doing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BisonMan Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 As I understand the new rule, it requires two feet down in bounds (✔️) and a "football move" (❌). He clearly had two feet down with the ball but, I don't count falling on your a$$ as a "football move". Maybe that 3rd step he took as he was falling backward (and having the ball stripped away) was construed as a "football move" by the replay monkey. If the ref whistled after the ball came loose but before the recovery, then the Ravens get the ball. This is the case in all such situations as you can't just give the ball to the opposing team on an inadvertent whistle (or a blown INT call). This is why refs are generally told that on a questionable loose ball (reception? late fumble? backward pass? strip sack forward fumble) they should eat the whistle. That probably wouldn't make any difference here as the Ravens looked to be in the best position to get that ball (and maybe return it!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 58 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said: The official rule is if there's a clear recovery of a loose ball after an early whistle that team will be given possession. In this replay you can see #36 pick the ball up right before the camera cuts to Peters celebration. But how meaningful is that when most of the players near the ball ignored it because the whistle had blown and it was clearly an incompletion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManRaid Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 The argument that he took a third step to qualify as a "football move" is such a huge stretch. It's using an incredibly loose definition of what a step is. To me a step is made after you've demonstrated control of the ball, which he couldn't have seeing as this all happened in the same motion coming down the the ground. It says in the rule that you have to show that you have control. 25 minutes ago, BisonMan said: As I understand the new rule, it requires two feet down in bounds (✔️) and a "football move" (❌). He clearly had two feet down with the ball but, I don't count falling on your a$$ as a "football move". Maybe that 3rd step he took as he was falling backward (and having the ball stripped away) was construed as a "football move" by the replay monkey. If the ref whistled after the ball came loose but before the recovery, then the Ravens get the ball. This is the case in all such situations as you can't just give the ball to the opposing team on an inadvertent whistle (or a blown INT call). This is why refs are generally told that on a questionable loose ball (reception? late fumble? backward pass? strip sack forward fumble) they should eat the whistle. That probably wouldn't make any difference here as the Ravens looked to be in the best position to get that ball (and maybe return it!) That is exactly the argument being made by Ravens fans. They're going for "technically correct" and it's BS. I argue that the "third step" wasn't made with clear control, as the rule requires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 2 hours ago, GunnerBill said: The ground is now irrelevant. I assume that for it to be ruled an interception without a fumble, at some point there needs to be a way for the play to be ruled dead after the DB catches the ball and before he loses it. If it's not hitting the ground, what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, TigerJ said: I assume that for it to be ruled an interception without a fumble, at some point there needs to be a way for the play to be ruled dead after the DB catches the ball and before he loses it. If it's not hitting the ground, what is it? Down by contact the same as any other play. That is different to before where irrelevant of contact the receiver (or in this case interceptor) had to "complete the process to the ground." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 I doesn't seem as if there was enough time to have been ruled down by contact. It's partly the speed of the whole event that makes the final ruling so dubious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corta765 Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 3 hours ago, JerseyBills said: 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 Yea I saw that play and it was a huge swing. The Ravens last year benefited from catching the league off guard with their offense and Lamar. Buffalo and San Fran gave the league a blueprint and TEN perfect it come the playoffs. Now they have a tougher schedule, a year of tape, and truthfully its a lot to keep up that energy yearly they had last year. Also Lamar is being forced to be a pocket passer more something he still needs to grow more into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, GunnerBill said: 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. Agree totally with this - it is also why in the Miami game - when Tre was beaten down to the three yard line - the Miami receiver caught the ball falling down at the sideline - got 3 feet down and then lost the ball when he hit the ground, but it was ruled a catch. Under the older rules - that was incomplete because he did not complete the action going down, but now that is not the new rule. I thought both that play in Miami and the one last night should have gone as incompletes myself. The player gets control for a second to get feet down, but can’t maintain control. It is difficult, but I really dislike how they are calling it now and think it has just as many (or more issues), but tends to usually favor the WR and offense - so I think the NFL is ok with it. Edited November 9, 2020 by Rochesterfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 10 hours 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 I don't understand how you think it was not Riverton himself, he makes up rules as he goes and then makes up evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBBills Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Virgil said: 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 Even if they change the rules again the Refs will still get it wrong. Kroft INT that actually wasn't... Edited November 10, 2020 by TBBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 eh that was bad in Indy yesterday. horrible reversal. Buy hey, already in Buffalo this year it *looked* like Tyler Bass snuck a FG inside the upright and they called it wide right on the field.. AND Buf got robbed of a Gabe Davis TD yesterday. Nobody bothered to check if the dude stepped out of bounds or not. inexplicable. and McD should’ve been notified as well by his spotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Rivers is a TOTAL BUM, so.....int. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, zow2 said: eh that was bad in Indy yesterday. horrible reversal. Buy hey, already in Buffalo this year it *looked* like Tyler Bass snuck a FG inside the upright and they called it wide right on the field.. AND Buf got robbed of a Gabe Davis TD yesterday. Nobody bothered to check if the dude stepped out of bounds or not. inexplicable. and McD should’ve been notified as well by his spotter Don’t forget the “INT” against the Rams where the defender clearly did not intercept the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorin' Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, JayBaller10 said: 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. That used to be a catch before they instituted making a "football move." You just needed control of the ball and two feet down. That would have been ruled a catch and fumble back in the day. Edited November 10, 2020 by Motorin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan in Cleveland Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 11 hours ago, NewEra said: 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? How do explain the PI call at the end of the Rams game then? Did the refs get paid off during the game to switch from the Rams to the Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 It looked to me that he never really had control of the ball at all. One hand on one tip of the ball and the other hand on the other with the ball twisting around the whole time. Very weird reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 33 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said: How do explain the PI call at the end of the Rams game then? Did the refs get paid off during the game to switch from the Rams to the Bills? I said that there’s some kind of collusion. I don’t have all the answers to the universe. You disagree. Cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts