NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clownments22 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacc Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 22, 2008 Author Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock'em Sock'em Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyF Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts