The Bills won, but that was a bad reversal on Evans

[thebug]

That's your (wrong) opinion. But you're entitled to it.

 

 

Yah what ever, homer.

[AJ1]

nope, not in that case. I have watched it 20 times and not once does it look like a catch. No control until out of bounds, but nice try.

 

Only reason they gave it the look they did was because it was a game winner. Can't let the Bills have that.

[Simon]

nope, not in that case. I have watched it 20 times and not once does it look like a catch. No control until out of bounds, but nice try.

I only watched it once and I didn't think it was a catch. But it shouldn't have been overturned.

 

And if explaining the rules of the game to you was nothing more than a "nice try", I'll be sure not to waste my time in the future.

[thebug]

Only reason they gave it the look they did was because it was a game winner. Can't let the Bills have that.

 

 

and because it was an incomplete pass.

[thebug]

I only watched it once and I didn't think it was a catch. But it shouldn't have been overturned.

 

And if explaining the rules of the game to you was nothing more than a "nice try", I'll be sure not to waste my time in the future.

 

 

The rule only applies when you already have control of the ball and are changing the position of the ball, not before you have possession.

[CodeMonkey]

Guys, come on. The replay showed the entire sequence VERY clearly. The refs, who know the rules probably better than any of us, watched the replay and called it incomplete. The announcers, who have no emotional attachment to either team, called it incomplete. The Cheatriats were not involved so no ref bias there. Time to take off the homer glasses and see that play for what it was ... a correct overturn. But feel free to revel in the upset win!

[thebug]

Guys, come on. The replay showed the entire sequence VERY clearly. The refs, who know the rules probably better than any of us, watched the replay and called it incomplete. The announcers, who have no emotional attachment to either team, called it incomplete. The Cheatriats were not involved so no ref bias there. Time to take off the homer glasses and see that play for what it was ... a correct overturn. But feel free to revel in the upset win!

 

 

Bingo.

[Simon]

The rule only applies when you already have control of the ball and are changing the position of the ball, not before you have possession.

 

And the question was, did Evans have control of the ball when he was moving it around. If he did it's considered possession. The point of this thread wasn't whether or not he had control when he was moving the ball. It was whether or not there was enough "evidence" to overturn the call on the field. There wasn't.

And that holds true regardless of what the original call was. The call on the field should have stood, whether he called it a catch or incomplete. A reversal was out of line.

[thebug]

And the question was, did Evans have control of the ball when he was moving it around. If he did it's considered possession. The point of this thread wasn't whether or not he had control when he was moving the ball. It was whether or not there was enough "evidence" to overturn the call on the field. There wasn't.

And that holds true regardless of what the original call was. The call on the field should have stood, whether he called it a catch or incomplete. A reversal was out of line.

 

 

The evidence was that the ball was clearly moving, watch it again.

[Simon]

The evidence was that the ball was clearly moving, watch it again.

I don't have to watch it again. I know the ball was moving.

But the fact that it was moving does not, in and of itself, define it as an incompletion. Do you understand that? It's a subjective call and should not have been overturned whether it was called a catch or incomplete.

[Red]

I'm with ya 100%

 

There has to be irrefutable evidence to overturn a call. That was not a bobble and there certainly was not enough to overturn that one. BS call.

 

I agree.

 

It would appear that Evans switched the ball and then outstretched his original catching arm to brace himself for the impending collision with the ground.

 

Certainly, a professional receiver with his skills can do two things at the same time.

[Enemarty]

That was a bad reversal. I thought it was a catch. It looked like he perhaps purposely let go of the ball with his right hand so that he could brace himself with his right hand while holding the ball with his left hand.

 

If they called it the other way to begin with, I could understand replay not overturning the original call -- but I do not understand how there was enough evidence to overturn the original call here.

 

... is the correct call. He lets go of the ball with his right hand, making NO attempt to retouch the ball with his right hand, as he is preparing to brace his fall with that hand, i.e., avoid smashing his head on the ground, a perfectly human reaction. All the while the ball never leaves his left hand as he brings it into his chest, again to brace for contact with the ground. There is no bobbling going on there and, as stated above, certainly not enough to overturn the call on the field.

[thebug]

I don't have to watch it again. I know the ball was moving.

But the fact that it was moving does not, in and of itself, define it as an incompletion. Do you understand that? It's a subjective call and should not have been overturned whether it was called a catch or incomplete.

 

So you are basing this on seeing it one time? I understand the ball can be moving and the player can still have control. What I am saying is , in this case the ball was moving because the player did not have control and that is why it was overturned. Like I said, watch it again.

[Simon]

So you are basing this on seeing it one time? I understand the ball can be moving and the player can still have control. What I am saying is , in this case the ball was moving because the player did not have control and that is why it was overturned. Like I said, watch it again.

Like I said, I don't need to watch it again.

The fact that the reason for the ball moving was debatable is enough to keep it from being overturned. In order to be overturned, the play cannot be even remotely debatable.

Whether he caught it or not is irrelevant; the reversal was inappropriate regardless of the original call.

[thebug]

Like I said, I don't need to watch it again.

The fact that the reason for the ball moving was debatable is enough to keep it from being overturned. In order to be overturned, the play cannot be even remotely debatable.

Whether he caught it or not is irrelevant; the reversal was inappropriate regardless of the original call.

 

 

It was reversed because it wasn't a catch, that's what replays are for.

[No QB - No Bueno]

I'd like to hear more on this matter.

[Simon]

It was reversed because it wasn't a catch, that's what replays are for.

 

.

[dtgolder]

Awful call...and you can't say it's sour grapes as the Bills won.

 

IMHO the league should offer an apology sometime this week.

[Offside Number 76]

I don't have to watch it again. I know the ball was moving.

But the fact that it was moving does not, in and of itself, define it as an incompletion. Do you understand that? It's a subjective call and should not have been overturned whether it was called a catch or incomplete.

 

This is absolutely right on. Not enough to overturn at all.

 

And again, if it were Wayne or Welker, do you really think it even would have been reviewed? (I'm no conspiracy theorist; see my earlier post in this thread.)

[thebug]

This is absolutely right on. Not enough to overturn at all.

 

And again, if it were Wayne or Welker, do you really think it even would have been reviewed? (I'm no conspiracy theorist; see my earlier post in this thread.)

 

 

Yah never mind the fact that his feet were in the air when he caught the ball. the league is just looking to the Bills.