What was the explanation for that simultaneous possession?

[Mickey]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

[Heels20X6]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

They came up with some bullsh!t call that Evans was bobbling the ball as he hit the ground (clearly he wasn't) so it wasn't simultaneous possession. IMO, the refs botched that one MAJORLY.

[bladiebla]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

Didnt get it either on the net I was fuming too hard myself. I fimly believe that was total BS.

[Corp000085]

eh, i would have had the play stand as called. evans seemed to bobble it a little bit. Had the call been made the other way and the raiders had challenged, i still don't think it gets overturned. It was a close call and a judgment call on the refs. The whole point is moot had the ball been on target and/or evans come down cleanly with it. Luckily it did not cost the bills the win in the end.

[Spiderweb]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

From what I saw, and heard, there was a different interpretation today.

 

Evans had equal possession at least, and his knees were down. Simultaneous catch to me as well.

 

Rule Guru's ?

[StupidNation]

Should have been a catch. Evans was down with possession. You can't strip a downed man. Blown call that gave them a huge advantage.

[Spiderweb]

Should have been a catch. Evans was down with possession. You can't strip a downed man. Blown call that gave them a huge advantage.

 

That's our interpretation. One can only wonder what the NFL will or would say....

[Max997]

i think that Crew was brutal today...I dont recall ever seeing that head referree before either

 

the rule is equal psossession goes to the receiver, he was clearly down with both hands on the ball, play over

 

that was probably the worst game Ive seen Evans play, the fumble which I think he had the ball in the wrong hand, the awful penalty and losing the ball to a defender who clearly wanted it more

[sullim4]

Carl Cheffers is a new referee. He was a SB-caliber umpire for years and was just recently promoted with the retirements of Larry Nemmers and Gerry Austin.

 

That being said, the crew today was horrid.

[BuffOrange]

That was a horrid call. If you can't get a call against the Raiders at home, I guess you can't count on getting any calls ever.

[bladiebla]

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

[eSJayDee]

I tend to believe it WAS the correct call.

I don't have a copy of the recent rules (my dog ate my copy from a few yrs ago - seriously),

but I hear mention of making a "football action" after catch to validate possession. (Which sort of trumps the simultaneous possession rule IMO).

Evans was unable to make a "football related move" after gaining possession cuz he never had exclusive possession. The ball popped out after he hit the ground (at which time both players jointly possessed the ball) after which the Raider guy caught it b4 it hit the ground.

[Steely Dan]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

It doesn't matter all you missed was Bull , Bull , Bull

 

 

From what I saw, and heard, there was a different interpretation today.

 

Evans had equal possession at least, and his knees were down. Simultaneous catch to me as well.

 

Rule Guru's ?

 

No rule gurus needed for a bad call.

 

 

i think that Crew was brutal today...I dont recall ever seeing that head referree before either

 

the rule is equal psossession goes to the receiver, he was clearly down with both hands on the ball, play over

 

that was probably the worst game Ive seen Evans play, the fumble which I think he had the ball in the wrong hand, the awful penalty and losing the ball to a defender who clearly wanted it more

 

All of the receivers, except Reed, had a bad day today.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

No it's not incomplete becasue it never hit the ground. What the refs are saying is Evens was juggling it, then the Raider player got a hold it as they went down.

 

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

[ans4e64]

Disgusting call.

[Thoner7]

Totally wrong call. I will use last weeks torry holt TD catch as evidence. Holt bobblbe, slid and slided all over the place, with the defender holding the ball ontop of him. he was given a TD, which the NFL later said was the right call. In this case Evans had a lot more possesion than holt ever had, and even if he bobbled it...it never hit the ground, so it is still a CATCH.

 

I am just glad that we finally have a team good enough to beat the opposing team AND the refs.

 

Go Bills

[TheMadCap]

That's our interpretation. One can only wonder what the NFL will or would say....

 

I am sure it will go something like this:

 

NFL head-clown Mike Perera:

 

"Clearly, the referee made the correct call, as we never screw up. Ever. Even Ed Hoculi made the right call last week"...

[Kelly the Dog]

I actually thought it was a good call. At first I thought it was simultaneous possession, but on the replay I thought that the Raider had a better grip and more possession than Evans did. I do think, however, that if it was originally called in the Bills favor, that they would not have overturned it.

[sven233]

Should have been a catch. Evans was down with possession. You can't strip a downed man. Blown call that gave them a huge advantage.

 

BINGO.......If Evans is down, there is no was to intercept a player down by contact and no way to cause a fumble either. THE REF BLEW THAT BIG TIME........

 

The ref also blew the pass interferance call on Evans as well long with several missed holding calls on the Raiders. The one play that would have made up for it of course they end up getting right on that tipped pass, but man.......the REFS WERE TERRIBLE today.

[riverssyr]

I tend to believe it WAS the correct call.

I don't have a copy of the recent rules (my dog ate my copy from a few yrs ago - seriously),

but I hear mention of making a "football action" after catch to validate possession. (Which sort of trumps the simultaneous possession rule IMO).

Evans was unable to make a "football related move" after gaining possession cuz he never had exclusive possession. The ball popped out after he hit the ground (at which time both players jointly possessed the ball) after which the Raider guy caught it b4 it hit the ground.

 

 

Ehh, this isn't really correct. So what happens when an open receiver is down on the turf and catches the ball on his knees?

 

The simultaneous possession rule was the issue, and it was a blown call...

[NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW]

I actually thought it was a good call. At first I thought it was simultaneous possession, but on the replay I thought that the Raider had a better grip and more possession than Evans did. I do think, however, that if it was originally called in the Bills favor, that they would not have overturned it.

 

Can the percentage of possession be rated clearly? How can the refs judge that the Raiders had "more" possession? It still sounds simultaneous to me, therefore Bills ball. He was down by contact, and making a "football move" should not exclude this from being a catch. You can argue that the Raider DB went for the ball, but Evans was already down.

[clownments22]

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

 

But the ball never touched the ground, and when the ball was clearly in someone's possession, it was in the defender's hands. I thought that it should have been called a catch and Lee was down by contact, but if the ruling was that he didn't have possession, it doesn't automatically become incomplete because the ball never hit the ground.

[BuffOrange]

If you just pause the tape at the moment Lee's knee hit and pretend you don't know who popped up with the ball (or show it to someone who is watching it for the 1st time and doesn't know), I don't think any neutral observer would call that an int.

[lets_go_bills]

Poor refing all day. I hope they analyze it on NFLN, I would like some further explanation. Evans clearly had possession and was down. BS call.

[Guest dog14787]

I tend to believe it WAS the correct call.

I don't have a copy of the recent rules (my dog ate my copy from a few yrs ago - seriously),

but I hear mention of making a "football action" after catch to validate possession. (Which sort of trumps the simultaneous possession rule IMO).

Evans was unable to make a "football related move" after gaining possession cuz he never had exclusive possession. The ball popped out after he hit the ground (at which time both players jointly possessed the ball) after which the Raider guy caught it b4 it hit the ground.

 

ya, I know, blame it on the dog

[Tcali]

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

noooo...if he bobbled it..the ball was still in the air/live

[Guest dog14787]

noooo...if he bobbled it..the ball was still in the air/live

 

or crawling across Evans while he's laying on the ground live

[Guest dog14787]

or crawling across Evans while he's laying on the ground live

 

 

defender just reaches in and snatches the live kritter, and says my ball

[amacc]

I agree that the call was botched. It seems to me the with the call they did make it contradicts themselves. If he did as the refs say "intercept" the pass, he was never touched and I don't think the play was blown dead so a touchdown. So it should have been Evans on the catch or a td for Oakland. Horrible officiating.

[BuffOrange]

Anyone see the Marian Barber fumble just now? Fumbles, foot touches out of bounds while still in contact with the ball as the GB guy is recovering....

As I remember the call that gave NE the 2001 division title, that should be Dallas ball.

[Guest dog14787]

Anyone see the Marian Barber fumble just now? Fumbles, foot touches out of bounds while still in contact with the ball as the GB guy is recovering....

As I remember the call that gave NE the 2001 division title, that should be Dallas ball.

 

 

I'll bet this game is a reality check for Arron Rodgers.

[Mickey]

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

I think a pass is not "incomplete" until it hits the ground or leaves the field of play. If Lee was bobbling it, it would still be a live ball even though he is on the ground.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

In order for it to be a simultaneous catch, Evans needs to catch the ball. Since the ball popped loose when Evans went to the ground, he did not complete the catch. So it would have been incomplete. But the ball popped loose into the lap of the defender and the defender caught the ball before it touched the ground. Hence the interception.

[AnthonyF]

In order for it to be a simultaneous catch, Evans needs to catch the ball. Since the ball popped loose when Evans went to the ground, he did not complete the catch. So it would have been incomplete. But the ball popped loose into the lap of the defender and the defender caught the ball before it touched the ground. Hence the interception.

Not what I saw. Evans had possession, was down by contact and the ball wrestled from him. Three in the booth saw it the same way.

 

When will the NFL stop letting the Ump make the call and go to the NHL type replay and have an impartial committee at league headquarters make the call, so the Ump does not have to overturn one of his crew?

[Lori]

In order for it to be a simultaneous catch, Evans needs to catch the ball. Since the ball popped loose when Evans went to the ground, he did not complete the catch. So it would have been incomplete. But the ball popped loose into the lap of the defender and the defender caught the ball before it touched the ground. Hence the interception.

Correct. Was there (at the least) "simultaneous possession" when Evans' knee hit the ground? Yes. In high school or college, that's Buffalo's ball.

 

Unfortunately, the rules are different in the NFL, where the player has to control the ball all the way to the ground, not just when he's technically ruled "down." Here's the example given in the official rulebook:

While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder hits the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.

Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.