Outkast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. There just wasn't a good enough view of the ball to get the conclusive eveidence needed to overturn a call made on the field. If it had been called incomplete on the field, there wouldn't have been enough evidence to overturn that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 There just wasn't a good enough view of the ball to get the conclusive eveidence needed to overturn a call made on the field. If it had been called incomplete on the field, there wouldn't have been enough evidence to overturn that either. 491319[/snapback] Yeah whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Seriously were you guys watching the game from the Good Year blimp or on a three inch screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah whatever. So you think they should've overturned it, even though the ball and its relation to the ground were blocked by Branch's arm? Why? Just 'cause? I'm not saying it didn't hit the ground - it may have. But the view was not conclusive either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So you think they should've overturned it, even though the ball and its relation to the ground were blocked by Branch's arm? Why? Just 'cause? 491324[/snapback] Blocked by his arm? The view? You're kidding right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. 491315[/snapback] I don't know, on my 36 incher, it sure did look like the ball hit the ground. Maybe I needed the HDTV to have it go questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 He didn't even have control of it from start to finish. He was bobbling it the whole time anyway. Terrible call. Reminds me of the Henry Jones play. Anyone remember that bs call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Blocked by his arm? Yeah. The view? Yeah. You're kidding right? Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 1. It looked like a catch the first time so I think if i was a ref I would have called it a catch. 2. On the replay "I think" the ball hit the ground and it wasn't a catch. It sure looked like it wasn't a catch. 3. I don't think they should have overturned the play because the replay we saw was certainly not conclusive. Sothe officials made the right call from what we know. 4. It was inconceivable that on a nationally televised game, with at least 10 cameras, that there wasn't several other angles we should have seen that could have shown if it was a catch or not. We were only given one angle, which to me was inconclusive. 5. Perhaps Tedy Bruschi was playing in the game so all nine other cameras were on him on the sidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 5. Perhaps Tedy Bruschi was playing in the game so all nine other cameras were on him on the sidelines. 491335[/snapback] 8 on him 1 on his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I don't think they should have overturned the play because the replay we saw was certainly not conclusive. Sothe officials made the right call from what we know. Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah. 491338[/snapback] We don't know if they made the right call though because on TV we were shown only the one angle, which sure looked incomplete was wasnt conclusive. The Refs spent a lot of time looking it over. Certainly there were other shots they didnt show us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 We don't know if they made the right call though because on TV we were shown only the one angle, which sure looked incomplete was wasnt conclusive. The Refs spent a lot of time looking it over. Certainly there were other shots they didnt show us. I believe the refs and the TV producers are working from the same set of angles. That, evidently, was the only one that produced a workable view of the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. 491315[/snapback] On the two controversial plays, I don't think that Branch caught the ball. It hit the ground as he rotated and he didn't have control. I was quite surprised it was upheld. Moulds though - I thought that he should have been flagged. There's a "right way" to push off, and he didn't do it - he extended his left arm into Samuel right in front of the ref and in the middle of the field. I like Moulds a lot (and he played a heck of a game), but I think he's enough of a veteran that he should know to be more subtle. Not a well played game by either team, truth be told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonBBnFL Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So you think they should've overturned it, even though the ball and its relation to the ground were blocked by Branch's arm? Why? Just 'cause? I'm not saying it didn't hit the ground - it may have. But the view was not conclusive either way. 491324[/snapback] It was pretty damn conclusive to me! The Ball touched the ground before he had control of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I believe the refs and the TV producers are working from the same set of angles. That, evidently, was the only one that produced a workable view of the play. 491345[/snapback] Nonsense. On every other play, even if it is not a good angle to be sure, they show the other angle(s). You really think that ref spent all two plus minutes watching the same replay over and over? There had to be other angles and we werent given them. On a play like that there are usually five or so on a national game. But again, Tedy Bruschi was on the sideline, so the cameras probably were actually taping the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outkast Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 8 on him 1 on his wife. 491337[/snapback] Is it just me or does Tedy Bruschi's wife look like Terry Schiavo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I can't believe people are even arguing this. The ball didn't just hit the ground, it friggin moved. You have to expect at least 1 of these calls playing against the Pats. It doesn't excuse the obligatory defensive collapse in the face of a little pressure. RTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 He didn't even have control of it from start to finish. He was bobbling it the whole time anyway. Terrible call. 491331[/snapback] *sigh* The catch that wasn't. Sometimes life just isn't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILLS4LIFE Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 The view they showed on TV was clear enough to me. He bobbled it just enough to touch the ground. NO CATCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I'll get lynched for this but... I didn't see that ball hit the ground on ...and I didnt hear Brewskis name last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 After that call... a good friend of mine who is very much a Broncos fan and has no respect for the Bills and thinks I'm insane for some of my ideas regarding them.. called me a said: "I'm starting to think you're right, there is a conspiracy against the Bills, because that was defintiely not a catch." Then I explained how the ref was taking so long after looking at the monitor because he probably got a call on his headset from Tag telling him how to call it for NE and preserve the win for Bruchi. My friend is beginning to see that the Bills really are the bastard tema of the NFL and the man will do all he can to ensure we never make the Superbowl again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Overture Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 52 inch screen with High Def - it hit the ground. Even then, it would have still been a catch if he had control, but even in the exaggerated reality of slow motion Branch was bobbling the ball on his way to the turf. He had a second "catch" down within the 5 yard line where the top of the ball hit the ground before he had control, and he did the same tuck and roll routine. We were out of challenges, and besides that... its not like they would overturn that one either. On the Moulds push off, the thing that gets lost in the equation is that the New England defender was pushing and shoving Moulds well beyond 5 yards even before they separated (of course Madden was surprized with the call, because he said that they were pushing and shoving all the way down the field), but Moulds was having a big game and I expect some pushing back and forth. I just didn't think they would single him out with that penalty on a play that would essentially give New England the game. Those late calls were especially surprising because for the most part I felt that the Bills were not getting the usual "job" they get in New England from the officials. The calls were a little heavy on our side, but all was well with me after NE got called for the "unnatural act" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfan Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 At least we know Brewski didn't marry his wife for her looks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I don't know, on my 36 incher, it sure did look like the ball hit the ground. Maybe I needed the HDTV to have it go questionable. 491329[/snapback] I WAS watching on a 52" with HD and it looked like it hit the ground to me. Perhaps the video that the ref sees in the peep show device is more akin to that generated by bank and convienience store cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I didn't have much of a problem with the first one. Even though it certainly wasn't a catch, I didn't believe for a second they were going to overturn that blown call in a primetime game on New Bruschi's home field. And I probably wouldn't have had a problem with the second one if they had at least set some precedent earlier in the game to let the boys know that they were going to call it too tight. But there was plenty of bumping, grinding and hand-fighting going on all night and the stripes did a good job letting the players decide it up to that point. You can't call a game one way all night and then in the waning moments on the biggest play of a tight game suddenly decide that you're going to call it comepletely different. That's just totally unprofessional and unfair to every player on the field. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I thought for sure it was going to be ruled incomplete after the review. He double clutched the ball as he was reeling it in, and some portion of the ball appeared to touch the ground and then squirm up a bit in his arm. However: 1. Branch was wide open. 2. The Bills might have considered stopping them after the call was upheld. Just like on the Henry Jones PI call on the Hail Mary, they did not need to leave Ben Coates (the ONLY guy Bledsoe was going to throw to) open in the back of the endzone. Sorry about bringing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 52 inch screen with High Def - it hit the ground. 100" screen with HD -- it hit the ground and I could see the blades of grass moving from it. Ok, I exaggerate about the grass, but it definately hit the ground. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. 491315[/snapback] It didn't. Some folks on here would deny that it's water flowing over Niagara Falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 PS you get lynched for a lot less than that around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 It didn't. Some folks on here would deny that it's water flowing over Niagara Falls. 492908[/snapback] Well given the pollution in WNY, it's entirely possible that the "water" is over 50% chemicals... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 You mean Lake Erie isn't clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 yeah i saw it on a pretty darn big projection screen with 30 other people there most of them actually were trolls, cheering against the bills, but even 3/4 of them admitted that the ball rotated as branch hit the ground and that he did not have the ball under his arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Is it just me or does Tedy Bruschi's wife look like Terry Schiavo? 491391[/snapback] Not really. But, she did kind of look like Scott Peterson's mistress. Name just came to me - Amber Frey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I don't think the refs had any other angles. That game was produced so horribly by ESPN, I really think that was it - all the other cameras were on Bruschi and his wife...............I'm sure another camera angle would have shown it hit the ground better. I think it did, but it was very hard to see from that angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I concur, branch would have had to do alot of squirming to get his arms in place under the ball to make it look like it did not hit the turf. i thought it was a decent call by the officials, inconlusive at best! Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. 491315[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I watched the game in super-triple HD projected on a 50 foot side of the Empire State Building and I saw Joe Theismann's nose hairs, while three women brought me drinks and massaged my feet. In case you didn't catch the sarcasm, the HD screen-size bravado here is getting to be a little ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! 100" screen with HD -- it hit the ground and I could see the blades of grass moving from it. Ok, I exaggerate about the grass, but it definately hit the ground. CW 492894[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 And I probably wouldn't have had a problem with the second one if they had at least set some precedent earlier in the game to let the boys know that they were going to call it too tight. But there was plenty of bumping, grinding and hand-fighting going on all night and the stripes did a good job letting the players decide it up to that point. You can't call a game one way all night and then in the waning moments on the biggest play of a tight game suddenly decide that you're going to call it comepletely different. That's just totally unprofessional and unfair to every player on the field.Cya 492886[/snapback] And, as Moulds said, the New England player (Samuel) even admitted to him that they "got away with one there." Give Samuel his props for saying that, at least. Six years later and Brett Hull still isn't admitting that it was no goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts