Blaise321 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 How many of you would be proclaiming it a catch if it were the same play, except made by the Jets? Perspective perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 That call is not made in Rich Stadium. Right because we never get hosed there. I thought incomplete live and incomplete on the replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It has to be irrefutable. To me, it looked less like a bobble than a clean shift to his left hand. In any case, it really has to be clear. That was not. It looked clear to me. And it still looked clear to me after all the replays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3cheesenacho Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 In my mind, I thought there was no way it would be overturned- bad call... Sure, if you look super super zoomed in, the ball is maybe moving a little, but there is rarely a catch when a receiver grasps the ball so well that its not moving at all. If that would of lost us the game, I woulda been pissed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 The evidence was that the ball was clearly moving, watch it again. I've watched it plenty of times. And like I said, I'm no homer. It was a bad reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Great point. I immediately said incomplete, but it should not have been overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talley56 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 First of all, Evans was clearly bobbling the ball and stepped out before maintaining possession. The replay provided clear evidence of this and the refs made the right call to overturn it and rule it incomplete. Not sure how you can debate this and even the Bills fans at the bar I was watching with all agreed that he was clearly bobbling the ball while still inbounds and didn't maintain possession until out of bounds. Secondly, we shouldn't be complaining about officiating. I'm not trying to discredit our win but in looking at it objectively, the Jets were called for some really ticky-tack holding-illegal contact penalties. And a few plays before we scored our TD we had thrown a pic which was called back for illegal contact. After looking at the replay I must say I did not see any contact at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 First of all, Evans was clearly bobbling the ball and stepped out before maintaining possession. The replay provided clear evidence of this and the refs made the right call to overturn it and rule it incomplete. Not sure how you can debate this and even the Bills fans at the bar I was watching with all agreed that he was clearly bobbling the ball while still inbounds and didn't maintain possession until out of bounds. Secondly, we shouldn't be complaining about officiating. I'm not trying to discredit our win but in looking at it objectively, the Jets were called for some really ticky-tack holding-illegal contact penalties. And a few plays before we scored our TD we had thrown a pic which was called back for illegal contact. After looking at the replay I must say I did not see any contact at all. There was contact before the ball was thrown from behind. The WR broke into his pattern and I don't see it affected the throw (which was lousy), but there was contact about 10 yards down they showed from a bird's-eye view. I saw the play a hundred times and there was not enough evidence to say it was bobbling. To say that every catch must be firmly in grip and never move would negate just about every play in which the guy was going out of bounds and trying to stay in bounds. If slight movement is enough to over-turn a call then most plays would be reversed under those same criteria. The very fact it is debatable, and movement is not sufficient evidence, it has to be irrefutable. It's wasn't. Also, what happened with the Josh Reed call? Did he actually touch the ball? I couldn't see any evidence, but maybe it did but I couldn't hear the game. As another poster mentioned, that call against Wood for holding was laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I could kindof see the point that "the ball moved" a little. But when you have to magnify the ball and look at it in stop action, you're slicing and dicing too far IMHO. Let 'em play. I'm just glad that Lindell made that kick and we beat those mamby pamby Jets in their own house! Bottom line, call the poh-leece. We was robbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Secondly, we shouldn't be complaining about officiating. I'm not trying to discredit our win but in looking at it objectively, the Jets were called for some really ticky-tack holding-illegal contact penalties. And a few plays before we scored our TD we had thrown a pic which was called back for illegal contact. After looking at the replay I must say I did not see any contact at all. He grabbed the jersey of the receiver, altering his route, which allowed the interception. That was most-assuredly a good illegal contact call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talley56 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Also, what happened with the Josh Reed call? Did he actually touch the ball? I couldn't see any evidence, but maybe it did but I couldn't hear the game. I was confused about this one as well. It didn't look like the ball changed trajectory when it bounced up either suggesting it didn't touch anything. I couldn't really hear what they were saying on TV. Anyone else see the ball touch him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Isn't that shift called a "football move" or am I getting this confused with something else. It didn't look like bobble. Again, I think all tech should be removed from the game, it is so obviuos how they can "push" situations (even if they are all/mostly NOT on purpose) one way or another by applying the myriad of rules that plague this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 There are a ton of WRs that get that call every week; it was a catch, no question. Tell me that Welker or Wayne would have had that one called back. No. Glad to not have to B word about it affecting the outcome. If it were a clear shift from one hand to the other, you'd have an argument. It bounced around between his hands. No catch. Good teams overcome correct calls. As an added bonus, J-E-T-S fans have absolutely nothing else to blame but their team. Lordy, how I do feel for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I was at the game & I was listening to the Jets radio broadcast. The Jets announcers were adamant that it was a catch & the play would not be overturned. When I watched it on the scoreboard, I thought it was a very close call because the ball was still moving a bit. I told one of the Jets fans I went to the game with "At least your announcers aren't homers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It was reversed because it wasn't a catch, that's what replays are for. I think you are missing Simons point. What he said is that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn either way. IF it were called incomplete on the field, the replay should have upheld it. They called it a catch on the field, there was still a small amount of doubt that it was a catch, small doubt= call upheld. Not enough to overturn either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 As soon as you start to have to magnify the image in order to get something from it, it's no longer irrefutable. Case of where they are taking technology too far and it ruins the game. IMHO do away with the whole possesion rule; either you have it or not and if you didnt have it and loose the ball its a fumble. Bingo. I said this during the review yesterday. I'm all for replay to get calls right, but this was very nitpicky. The NFL is going way too overboard with the rules and over-analyzing plays like that. It was bad that it went against the Bills, but if that was a Jets receiver and they overturned the call (like they really would have done so in the Meadowlands), I'd be saying the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I think you are missing Simons point. What he said is that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn either way. IF it were called incomplete on the field, the replay should have upheld it. They called it a catch on the field, there was still a small amount of doubt that it was a catch, small doubt= call upheld. Not enough to overturn either way I think I understand what he is saying. I'm just saying that it wasn't a completed pass, therefore it's easy to overturn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. What mattered is he got both feet planted inbounds before he fell outside. And we are disputing the over-ruling and hence the officials' incompetence. Not debating if there is a conspiracy against the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It has to be irrefutable. To me, it looked less like a bobble than a clean shift to his left hand. In any case, it really has to be clear. That was not. I am a lifelong Bills fan, and once they slowed it down it was obvious it was getting overturned. My heart was upset they overturned it, but my brain told it was the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 There was contact before the ball was thrown from behind. The WR broke into his pattern and I don't see it affected the throw (which was lousy), but there was contact about 10 yards down they showed from a bird's-eye view. As another poster mentioned, that call against Wood for holding was laughable. You can go back and forth all day about calls that should have been made, or ones that should not have been. For example how about the play where TO flat out mugged the jets corner to break up a certain interception. A nice play by TO, he clearly needed to do it. But no offensive interference? Calls, both good and bad, go both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts