The AJ Brown OT catch was a fumble!!!!

[Dan]

3 minutes ago, Goin Breakdown said:

So if he got tackled on the spot then it's a catch, but if he gets it punched out on that same spot it's incomplete. Like I get it but at the same

time it just confuses what a catch is and is not. 

Apparently now there’s a 3 second rule or something according to posters here.  What I don’t get is does that apply if you catch it and fall down?  Like do you have to fall really slow to reach the required made up time?   
 

Bills got screwed.  Think the league cares?  Nope. They just been giving calls to the opposition for decades now. 

[thenorthremembers]

He had two feet down, the ball was tucked, and he took a third step.  It was by rule a catch.  The Refs are terrible, you have to know that going into a game.  That said, you have to win in spite of it.

[jkeerie]

26 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

He had two feet down, the ball was tucked, and he took a third step.  It was by rule a catch.  The Refs are terrible, you have to know that going into a game.  That said, you have to win in spite of it.

Unfortunately, that was their opportunity to win.  Keenan Allen, same play last night.  Ruled fumble.  McCauley explained it.  

[vanislebills44]

im on the fence with that play, if u catch the ball and bring it into your body, that 'seems' 2 me 2 appear as possession, yet a football move??? probably not, but who defines a football move??  shoulda never came to that play anyways...

 

[Old Coot]

20 hours ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

need three feet down before it’s a fumble.

How many three-footed receivers are there in the NFL?

 

Seriously, I watched the play a ton of times and it's difficult to tell whether it's a fumble or an incomplete pass. Rules say if there is doubt call it incomplete.

 

Why do we have the two feet down plus a football move?  Is the two feet down rule for sideline catches? If so, I'd have a special rule for those catches and a simple rule that if it's a catch then it's a fumble without the two feet plaus a football move complication.

[stlbills13]

I wouldn't have called it a catch but I guarantee they would have called it a catch if he caught it in the endzone for a TD (rendering the proceeding fumble irrelevant). 

[BBFL]

2 minutes ago, stlbills13 said:

I wouldn't have called it a catch but I guarantee they would have called it a catch if he caught it in the endzone for a TD (rendering the proceeding fumble irrelevant). 

Interesting take. You might be right. 

[PayDaBill$]

Even through Bills colored glasses it is was an incomplete pass especially based on the current rules.  If you ask me the entire catch no catch BS is so convoluted. It really needs to be updated and simplified.

Edited November 28, 2023 by PayDaBill$

[wppete]

 

[Straight Hucklebuck]

It used to be two hands and a football move.

 

The ball stops in both of his hands (control) and he starts to turn up the field.

 

That time has seemingly gotten longer and longer over the years.

 

 

[Not Applicable]

I thought he never had possession. Seeing an identical play in the Sunday night game actually get called a fumble irked me, though. There's no consistency.

 

If you need to complete the catch, why was that 3rd down conversion on Denver's last drive against us not only counted as a completion, but ruled forward progress when the ball (almost immediately) came out?

[theAteam]

He started tucking it which to me says he has control. But I can see why they went the other way with it.

[The Wiz]

Did I want it to be a fumble, yes.  Was it a fumble, it was right on the line of fumble/incomplete.  Blowing it dead removed all possibility of it being questioned by review.

[BananaB]

He caught the ball over his head and it got knocked out at his waist. It’s a catch

[2003Contenders]

On 11/27/2023 at 12:08 AM, Punch said:

 

I think the distinction here is that in the Chargers game, the ruling on the field was a fumble. In our game the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. In both cases it was close enough either way that the play was unlikely to be overruled.

 

For conspiracy theorists, compare that to the last drive in regulation where the officials ruled a fumble on Hurts that was (rightfully) reversed to an incomplete pass. The announcers were complimentary of the refs for having let the play go on and NOT blow the whistle knowing that it would be reviewed and overturned if need be. Conversely, with Brown's catch-no catch, they did NOT do the same thing. The former was very clearly going to be over-turned, whereas the latter's call would have probably stood either way. Hmmm.

[Charles Romes]

I’d be more enraged if the exact same thing did not happen on a Diggs catch the prior possession.  

[LABILLBACKER]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:41 PM, Dan said:

Apparently now there’s a 3 second rule or something according to posters here.  What I don’t get is does that apply if you catch it and fall down?  Like do you have to fall really slow to reach the required made up time?   
 

Bills got screwed.  Think the league cares?  Nope. They just been giving calls to the opposition for decades now. 

The league doesn't care. We're a very small market team that's relatively inconsequential to the shields greater objectives.  Not even the marketing of JA seems to help anymore. We'll always be chasing calls v the blue bloods.

[JESSEFEFFER]

The broadcast rules expert, forget which one, said they like to see a third step.  Two feet down and then a complete step.  He may be totally correct in the way they want to call it but that is not the way the rule is written.  Scott7975 had the language of the rule posted up thread.

 

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 

 

That's 6 equal examples given as acts common to the game but game officials only want to see the third step?  It's like counting to three is the only judgement they are willing to make.  The ball was clearly brought to the tuck position.  Any talk of a minimum time element is irrelevant to the application of the rule.

[The Jokeman]

23 hours ago, jkeerie said:

Unfortunately, that was their opportunity to win.  Keenan Allen, same play last night.  Ruled fumble.  McCauley explained it.  

And there in lies the problem with human officiating, it's all in eye of the beholder and not everyone sees and analyzing things the same. There should be some accountability and more than red flags which can only called in certain plays. All plays should be reviewable imo.

[Matt_In_NH]

26 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

I think the distinction here is that in the Chargers game, the ruling on the field was a fumble. In our game the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. In both cases it was close enough either way that the play was unlikely to be overruled.

 

For conspiracy theorists, compare that to the last drive in regulation where the officials ruled a fumble on Hurts that was (rightfully) reversed to an incomplete pass. The announcers were complimentary of the refs for having let the play go on and NOT blow the whistle knowing that it would be reviewed and overturned if need be. Conversely, with Brown's catch-no catch, they did NOT do the same thing. The former was very clearly going to be over-turned, whereas the latter's call would have probably stood either way. Hmmm.

The ruling in the Bills Eagles game was a fumble.

 

The difference is the chargers receiver tucked the ball and moved forward before fumbling.   Brown was just completing the tuck when it came out.  They are different in my eyes

11 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

The broadcast rules expert, forget which one, said they like to see a third step.  Two feet down and then a complete step.  He may be totally correct in the way they want to call it but that is not the way the rule is written.  Scott7975 had the language of the rule posted up thread.

 

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 

 

That's 6 equal examples given as acts common to the game but game officials only want to see the third step?  It's like counting to three is the only judgement they are willing to make.  The ball was clearly brought to the tuck position.  Any talk of a minimum time element is irrelevant to the application of the rule.

I must have listened to a a different broadcast.  A third step is one of the things that would make it a catch that did not happen.  He was not saying he has to see a third step or else its not a catch