Doc Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 9 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said: The only thing I can think of as to why it was ruled down, the shin. The knee is definitely off the ground, but hiw much of the shin is still on the ground nd how much of a shin is needed to = down But then I think why wouldn't the NFL just explain this in the tweet rather than say the call stood 2 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said: Earlier this season there was a 2 or 3 week stretch where guys were being ruled down or in bounds because of the shin - ill try to find the games His shin wasn't down. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheektowaga Chad Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Doc said: His shin wasn't down. I agree But I need closure or reasoning because this play will eat me a live!!!!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 1 minute ago, Cheektowaga Chad said: I agree But I need closure or reasoning because this play will eat me a live!!!!!!! The reasoning is Al Riveron is incompetent or a crook. Almost everyone in the world knows it was a fumble. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 18 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said: The only thing I can think of as to why it was ruled down, the shin. The knee is definitely off the ground, but hiw much of the shin is still on the ground nd how much of a shin is needed to = down But then I think why wouldn't the NFL just explain this in the tweet rather than say the call stood If his knee wasn't down but his shin was he'd have to have a really funky shaped lower leg 😛 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codyny13 Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 15 hours ago, klos63 said: inexcusable bad call by the refs. And then they did it again to the Bucs last night. Clear fumble from Heinike and a clear recovery from the Bucs...and the Bucs had to call a timeout to get the review to buzz in. Just complete bafoonery from the officiating crews and NY yesterday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmart128 Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 18 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said: The only thing I can think of as to why it was ruled down, the shin. The knee is definitely off the ground, but hiw much of the shin is still on the ground nd how much of a shin is needed to = down But then I think why wouldn't the NFL just explain this in the tweet rather than say the call stood Yeah his shin was not down... you can clearly see the white 45 yard line on the football field before he was touched. That 100% evidence that no part of his body was down blocking that white line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Mighty Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Some good stuff on this in Terry McAulay’s Twitter feed but the gist is here: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 I did not read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been brought up. But here is my question: They said in the explanation that he was down by contact. Okay. But I would like to ask those officials, had he got up, took off and gained yards or scored a touchdown, are you calling it back? Would the review have spotted it there and kept the clock running? ..... My gut feeling, no way they would change it. Clearly the "down by contact" was them covering their behind(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Kaenon said: I would like the NFL to come out with a statement today and just say they got the call wrong - sorry. I agree. That would bring closure. But their unending stubbornness and willing to lie (or, at least willingness to create Fake News) to everyone watching to cover their tails is what is frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheektowaga Chad Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Was it the cigarette smoking man from the x files making a call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookie Man Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 16 hours ago, Moonzoo said: How about the "catch" which was overturned earlier? The "catch" was not even a judgment call. That made me see where the refs were coming from. Which play are you referring to? I honestly don't remember this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, Raleigh • √eff said: Which play are you referring to? I honestly don't remember this. There was a long sideline throw to Hilton early in the game that basically hit him on the back and fell to the ground. One ref called it incomplete and another said it was a catch. They got it right utlimately, but how in the world the one ref could say he caught it is beyond explanation, except that he is incompetent or crooked. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bferra13 Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 7 minutes ago, Doc said: There was a long sideline throw to Hilton early in the game that basically hit him on the back and fell to the ground. One ref called it incomplete and another said it was a catch. They got it right utlimately, but how in the world the one ref could say he caught it is beyond explanation, except that he is incompetent or crooked. Or just a bad angle of view lol. This isn't 1963. If the ref had an agenda, that wouldn't be the play to show it with a million replays shown on HD tv's where it wasn't even close to catch and bounced off his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bferra13 said: Or just a bad angle of view lol. This isn't 1963. If the ref had an agenda, that wouldn't be the play to show it with a million replays shown on HD tv's where it wasn't even close to catch and bounced off his hands. If so, don't make something up. This isn't hard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playoffs? Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Doc said: The reasoning is Al Riveron is incompetent or a crook. Almost everyone in the world knows it was a fumble. As for being a crook, tough to think it was a Vegas thing. Colts were already covering, and if Bills regained control, they weren’t scoring any more points... unless Vegas had a ridiculous amount of bets on the Bills money line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 It wasn't crooked it was the usual thing of the refs not wanting their call to end the game. We see this frequently. Even though getting it wrong could still have been pivotal in the outcome they would still say "ah well the Bills still had a chance to stop them." Not crooked. Just cowardly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookie Man Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 26 minutes ago, Doc said: There was a long sideline throw to Hilton early in the game that basically hit him on the back and fell to the ground. One ref called it incomplete and another said it was a catch. They got it right utlimately, but how in the world the one ref could say he caught it is beyond explanation, except that he is incompetent or crooked. OK that's what I thought. I was watching the game at bar packed with Bills fans. I saw they kept showing the replay like they were taking a hard look at it. I was confused. Didn't know they even thought about that as a catch. That crew shouldn't be allowed near playoff football... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Codyny13 said: And then they did it again to the Bucs last night. Clear fumble from Heinike and a clear recovery from the Bucs...and the Bucs had to call a timeout to get the review to buzz in. Just complete bafoonery from the officiating crews and NY yesterday. The refs missed two obvious calls in our game, the first drive incompletion to Hilton that was bouncing on the ground and they called complete, but that was fixed and then the fumble. Other than that, no issues with the refs, but that last one could have been huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: It wasn't crooked it was the usual thing of the refs not wanting their call to end the game. We see this frequently. Even though getting it wrong could still have been pivotal in the outcome they would still say "ah well the Bills still had a chance to stop them." Not crooked. Just cowardly. That's not an excuse. Not wanting the game to end...on a call they got wrong initially and refused to fix makes them look even worse. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Just now, Doc said: That's not an excuse. Not wanting the game to end...on a call they got wrong initially and refused to fix makes them look even worse. Wasn't giving it as an excuse. But that is what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts