Lori Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Scott asked me this after the game, and I agreed with him - far as I know, if it's ruled on the field that a receiver was pushed out of bounds, that part of the play is NOT reviewable. We were both surprised that a replay was initiated. Couldn't find anything at NFL.com, but the game story from the Vikes-Cards game at the end of last season seems to bear this out: Replay officials upheld both scores, but the central question of the final play -- if Poole would have come down inbounds had he not been pushed by the Vikings' Denard Walker and Brian Russell -- is not a reviewable component, according to NFL rules.Cardinals 18, Vikings 17: From 6-0 to no go Did Criqui and Tasker discuss this at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 No they didn't. They just kept saying it was a TD, and didn't think the refs would overrule it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Scott asked me this after the game, and I agreed with him - far as I know, if it's ruled on the field that a receiver was pushed out of bounds, that part of the play is NOT reviewable. We were both surprised that a replay was initiated. Couldn't find anything at NFL.com, but the game story from the Vikes-Cards game at the end of last season seems to bear this out: Did Criqui and Tasker discuss this at all? 29453[/snapback] No idea....I know Tasker/Criqui said that it wouldnt be reversed unless it was possession issue.... And i think under NFL rule thats all the refs could look at, to reverse the ruling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 The radio coverage said that the play could be overturned. What they said was that when the official finished the review that the receiver WAS PUSHED out of bounds. From the replay I saw on ESPN, he wasn't pushed. I looked like momentum that carried him out. Can't say for sure but that's the way it looked to me. Can'd do anything about it now so I'm over it. Oh, the review came from "upstairs" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 if you look at the replay, he got both his feet down anyway... his one heel hit inbounds so it really wasn't an issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 The ref said the receiver did not get both feet in bounds, but that he was forced out and therefore it was a TD. No one on the network said that the force out part is not reviewable. My feeling was that it was reviewable, but there was no way, as long as there was some contact, that they were going to overrule that judgment on the field. As with any review, there would have to be incontrovertable evidence to overturn, and as long as there is contact, how do you determine incontrovertibly from the replay that it wan't enough to force him out? But the reality of that play is he jumped up vertically, possibly a little backwards at the end line. One must assume that if he then ends up coming down without contact that he gets his feet down. It is physics. I don't think the ball is enough to take him out, and one has to assume that he was jumping pretty much vertically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 if you look at the replay, he got both his feet down anyway... his one heel hit inbounds so it really wasn't an issue... 29470[/snapback] Ref said he didn't, and I agree. When you look at the replay, his heel never makes it all the way down before his upper body hits out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 The biggest thing for the review is whether the receiver maintained possession when he landed - the ref said that he did maintain possession -making it a valid catch. I'm pretty sure they weren't checking his feet since it was ruled that he was pushed out of bounds which is a judgement call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwatts Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I believe they were reviewing whether he had control of the ball. If he didn't then it's an incomplete pass. He has to have control of the ball on impact with the ground, that's my understanding. I also believe he had both feet in bounds but I couldn't tell for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 OK, the possession angle makes more sense (although from the scoreboard replay, I don't remember seeing anything that would have made me think he did NOT have possession both before and after being hit).... Thanks, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Ref said he didn't, and I agree. When you look at the replay, his heel never makes it all the way down before his upper body hits out. 29476[/snapback] His first foot landed at least 2 feet into the white boundary, the second foot touched down inbounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 if you look at the replay, he got both his feet down anyway... his one heel hit inbounds so it really wasn't an issue... 29470[/snapback] I thought his butt his the ground before his feet. Shouldn't that be rule out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Criqui was drunk . He was blowing the refs' calls all day long. The back line judge signaled TD immediately, and then he made a "pushed O/B" motion with his hands. Criqui took that hand signal as the ref calling the WR O/B. Good initial call & review. Wilford would have landed in bounds (maybe because even while being pushed, he got both feet in anyhoo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 Criqui was drunk . He was blowing the refs' calls all day long. The back line judge signaled TD immediately, and then he made a "pushed O/B" motion with his hands. Criqui took that hand signal as the ref calling the WR O/B. Good initial call & review. Wilford would have landed in bounds (maybe because even while being pushed, he got both feet in anyhoo) 29604[/snapback] Once they called for the review, all we were doing was hoping the replay crew had seen something we hadn't... because as soon as the ref raised his arms to signal touchdown, I knew we were cooked.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I thought it was the right call. The play happened close to where I sit. It's OK to discuss the call in my opinion, but we can't say we lost because of a ref's call. The Bills lost that game all by themselves. You know I can't think of a game in recent memory where I walked out of RWS so mad. Maybe the expectations of the season opener, and leading all game long and giving it away at the end. I don't know, but I was steamin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Once they called for the review, all we were doing was hoping the replay crew had seen something we hadn't... because as soon as the ref raised his arms to signal touchdown, I knew we were cooked.... 29612[/snapback] I couldn't watch the last play. I had my head buried on BF's shoulder. I didn't look up until the stadium fell deathly quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 I thought it was the right call. The play happened close to where I sit. It's OK to discuss the call in my opinion, but we can't say we lost because of a ref's call. The Bills lost that game all by themselves. You know I can't think of a game in recent memory where I walked out of RWS so mad. Maybe the expectations of the season opener, and leading all game long and giving it away at the end. I don't know, but I was steamin' 29620[/snapback] Likewise. That's why I was asking about the replay - granted, I was sitting on the other end of the stadium from my normal seats in 109, but even from there I didn't see anything to make me think that was NOT a Jacksonville TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Once they called for the review, all we were doing was hoping the replay crew had seen something we hadn't... because as soon as the ref raised his arms to signal touchdown, I knew we were cooked.... 29612[/snapback] You and I spoke about this after the game, but as I was thinking later, since the upstairs booth was responsible for calling for the review, doesn't that automatically imply or mean it was reviewable? I would think so. My opinion, as I said, is still that they ruled the Bills forced him out of bounds. The first time I saw it I thought that Reese hit him pretty good, or at least enough to knock him OB. On another angle, it looked like Reese barely even touched him, and didnt really change his direction. That is what I think they were looking at, did Reese indeed force him out by contact (in this case, ANY contact) and did he have possession and get his feet in bounds if Reese in fact, did NOT force him out. By the ref's description of the review, they looked at both of them. And they decided that yes, Reese's contact forced the OB and the player had demonstrated possession on the catch. I still think if they saw that Reese never touched him, they would have reversed it. But that is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zona Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 The announcers blew it as usual. Usually tasker is right on, but he blew this one. The replay was called because they wanted to make sure he maintained possession during the fall to the ground. They COULD NOT overturn the pushed out, or feet inbounds, but if the ball wobbled or came loose as he hit the ground then it is NO CATCH! That was what they were looking for and it was inconclusive. That is what the Referee said, so thats what we live with. The call and the TD are right. We lost because of a backward pass fumble, a fumble in the red zone (both by Eric Moulds) and because we missed a FG, and because we didnt try the last FG. I am not second guessing his decision to punt, thats his call. But if I was HC, I would of kicked the FG. If we miss, they still have to go 60 yrds to get in the EZ. If we make it, we cant lose. 60 yrds or 80 yrds makes no difference in that situation. The Jags had to get a TD and we didnt stop them. Its Simple. We lost, they won... I think we hired the right guy. This Bills team WILL be better. Mularkey will take this team to playoffs. The question is, WHEN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 first, tasker had to stand up from the blow bang he was giving to the entire Jags team, then he said "there's no way they can overrule this" .. man, i loved Steve Tasker as a player, but he pissed me off yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts