[Misleading Title]Conclusive evidence it was not a catch.

[Patrick Duffy]

32 minutes ago, Jigsaw2112 said:

If that play is Brady to any Pats receiver its a TD all day....

Yup, most definitely it would be.

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, DC Bills Fan said:

Unfortunately, when you watch the video, the ball is still moving at this point.  His foot had just dragged the carpet and kicked up the old tires ... but when he actually had control, his foot then came down again out of bounds and it kicked up more tire.

 

The best replay that was shown was the split screen that showed it from both sides.  The official was on this side and was shielded from the ball movement, so he made the call based on what he saw.

 

I think this was the right call, but the 4th down replay was not.

I saw what you saw, but the right call there was to conclude that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.  When he did secure the ball, it still wasn't clear that Benjamin's foot was off the ground.  It was really close, and if I had to bet my life I'd say his foot was off the ground.  But there was not a clear look that showed conclusively that his foot WAS off the ground, and without clear evidence, they're required to up hold the call on the field.  

[westerndecline]

Grasp and control and then two feet

 

There i fixed it

 

 

This " process "bull **** can go on indefinitely and doesnt define a catch

[Sweats]

And?...........the game is over, we lost, the Pats won and tomorrow is just another day.

 

Does it really matter at this point if it was a catch or not?

 

Really?..........its Christmas, for Christs sakes and we're patting ourselves on the back because we have irrefutable proof that it "could" have been a catch, it "may" have been a catch and it was "probably" a catch.

 

Wow...........enjoy your holidays, boys.

[Stank_Nasty]

15 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I saw what you saw, but the right call there was to conclude that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.  When he did secure the ball, it still wasn't clear that Benjamin's foot was off the ground.  It was really close, and if I had to bet my life I'd say his foot was off the ground.  But there was not a clear look that showed conclusively that his foot WAS off the ground, and without clear evidence, they're required to up hold the call on the field.  

It’s really this simple. Honestly..... his foot probably wasn’t touching and it probably wasn’t a catch but there is absolutely NO ANGLE that showed that conclusively. Nothing was there to overrule that td. Just didn’t happen. 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Stank_Nasty

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

It’s really this simple. Honestly..... his foot probably wasn’t touching and it probably wasn’t a catch but there is absolutely NO ANGLE that showed that conclusively. Nothing was there to overrule that td. Just didn’t happen. 

Correct.   The intention of replay is to correct the obvious incorrect call.  That was anything but obvious.

 

And the 4th and 1 reversal was worse.   There they didn't even know the rules.  

 

[Stank_Nasty]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Correct.   The intention of replay is to correct the obvious incorrect call.  That was anything but obvious.

 

And the 4th and 1 reversal was worse.   There they didn't even know the rules.  

 

Right. The 4th and 1 was the salt to the wound. 2 plays that directly affected points on the scoreboard during a one score game.

 

no point wonder what if. But 2 calls that could have made the outcome look quite a bit different. 

 

The frustrating part is when you have such a flawed team you basically need the perfect game to get it done in foxboro. And then when it’s even slightly trending in that direction and as if the pats weren’t good enough already.... you have to Contend with blatantly flawed officiating that is DIRECTLY altering the scoreboard. And you can’t convince me that’s not wearing on an underdogs psyche during the course of a game. 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Stank_Nasty

[Augie]

If it was “conclusive” it wouldn’t take 10 minutes. If the call on the field had been incomplete, I’d have no problem with the same outcome. But it wasn’t....

[Shaw66]

24 minutes ago, Augie said:

If it was “conclusive” it wouldn’t take 10 minutes. If the call on the field had been incomplete, I’d have no problem with the same outcome. But it wasn’t....

Correct. Can't overturn the call on the field either way. 

 

And I agree that once they have to look and look and look, it just isn't conclusive enough to overturn. 

[SinceThe70s]

6 hours ago, Bash_Gash said:

 #sarcastic. ..how u can tell his foot off ground is beyond me...NFL is a joke

 

 

 

You guys are all out to lunch. This still photo DOES provide irrefutable, conclusive evidence that this was not a catch. 

 

Everyone is focusing on toe drags and possession, but none of you can see the forest for the trees.

 

If you look closely at the footwork, what you will notice is that the receiver is wearing standard issue Buffalo Bills footwear. Clearly this cannot be a catch. Had this been Kraft-issued, Patriot themed footwear it would be readily apparent to the most casual observer that this was a catch worthy of 6 points.

 

#sarcasm

[The Frankish Reich]

"Clear and obvious" video proof to the contrary is ostensibly the standard. 

1. To be "clear and obvious" proof, it stands to reason that it cannot take more than about the average amount of time for a review (per the NFL, that's about 2.5 minutes), since that clearly allows for ample time for the review judges to view every available angle multiple times. If it takes more time than that, how can the video evidence be clear and obvious?

2. The standard of review is something the NFL set. The NFL has created a ridiculously legalistic regime. And here I have to admit to being a lawyer. I've worked on hundreds of appeals. The starting point of any appeal brief is the standard of review. What the NFL has chosen is what we call a deferential standard of review. It means that we accept the trial judge's decision unless it was clearly erroneous. The NFL standard comes close to what is usually phrased as "clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."  That means not just "more likely than not" that it was not a catch. It means something more like "we're 80% certain he didn't have control of the ball before he stepped out of bounds." The opposite of deferential review is called "de novo review." It means the reviewing court/official gives zero deference to the initial call; he looks at it with new eyes, and (by rule) cannot really care about what the official on the field ruled.  That's pretty clearly what happened with the Benjamin "non-catch."  The NFL can adopt de novo review if it wants to. It's their league, they make the rules. But they shouldn't create a deferential standard and then ignore it. That's what leads to lack of confidence in the integrity of the appeals court system (in real life) or in the NFL review process (in the play life we all obsess over).

 

I'm not the only one to notice this. Here's ESPN's similar take:
http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/263347/kelvin-benjamin-td-reversal-distorts-nfls-replay-review-system-again

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

20 hours ago, DC Bills Fan said:

Unfortunately, when you watch the video, the ball is still moving at this point.  His foot had just dragged the carpet and kicked up the old tires ... but when he actually had control, his foot then came down again out of bounds and it kicked up more tire.

 

The best replay that was shown was the split screen that showed it from both sides.  The official was on this side and was shielded from the ball movement, so he made the call based on what he saw.

 

I think this was the right call, but the 4th down replay was not.

 

This isn't why the NFL instituted replay.  They added it to fix obvious mistakes - a fumble where his knee was down, a receiver not getting both feet in, ball hitting the ground and being called a catch.

 

Not this - the ball may have been moving while at the same time his foot may have been touching turf... Or last weeks when james was reaching out and it was called no catch... or maybe the jets guy getting called for fumbling into the end zone when he never actually lost the ball.  That one still irked me the most.  The ball never hits the turf, but because it was like, unpossessed for a split second on a replay its a touchback?  That's just ridiculous. 

 

The stuff you see in slow motion isn't what is actually happening on the field.  He caught the ball and got both feet in - touchdown.  End of story.

15 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Correct.   The intention of replay is to correct the obvious incorrect call.  That was anything but obvious.

 

And the 4th and 1 reversal was worse.   There they didn't even know the rules.  

 

 

Yeah - didnt really get that.  He reached the ball over, and pulled it back.  Its essentially running the ball forward and then backwards.  It's not forward progress. 

 

If you ran for the first down and ran behind it and got tackled it's not a first down.  Same idea applies to this, or so i thought.  The only place it doesn't is the end zone where if you break the plane its a TD and you can then bring it back.

[The Frankish Reich]

36 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

This isn't why the NFL instituted replay.  They added it to fix obvious mistakes - a fumble where his knee was down, a receiver not getting both feet in, ball hitting the ground and being called a catch.

 

Not this - the ball may have been moving while at the same time his foot may have been touching turf... Or last weeks when james was reaching out and it was called no catch... or maybe the jets guy getting called for fumbling into the end zone when he never actually lost the ball.  That one still irked me the most.  The ball never hits the turf, but because it was like, unpossessed for a split second on a replay its a touchback?  That's just ridiculous. 

 

The stuff you see in slow motion isn't what is actually happening on the field.  He caught the ball and got both feet in - touchdown.  End of story.

 

Yeah - didnt really get that.  He reached the ball over, and pulled it back.  Its essentially running the ball forward and then backwards.  It's not forward progress. 

 

If you ran for the first down and ran behind it and got tackled it's not a first down.  Same idea applies to this, or so i thought.  The only place it doesn't is the end zone where if you break the plane its a TD and you can then bring it back.

Correct. Stepping back from the legalistic (was it "clear and obvious" evidence to the contrary?) there's the general question: does replay review make the game better or more fair? Or does it do the opposite?  Pretty much everyone will agree that it's a mixed bag. It's great when it confirms what we all saw: a receiver streaking down the sideline for a TD, but he probably stepped out of bounds at the 30, etc., etc.  I don't see many people arguing that it actually makes the game fairer or better to have these 50/50 type calls - the Benjamin noncatch - reviewed and overturned. The "clear and obvious" standard was probably enacted in part to deter teams from challenging these types of plays, but with the automatic review of all scoring plays that disincentive doesn't exist.  Think about the most publicized replay controversies; they've all been scoring plays. Plus there's a weird imbalance here: all scoring plays are automatically reviewed; a ruling on the field that a player didn't score requires a challenge flag. The officials are generally risk averse. If in doubt, call it a TD. If I'm wrong, the booth review will correct it. And that in turn makes the booth review more likely to ignore their own standard and substitute their judgement for that of the on-field officials. 

Once something is in place we tend to forget that it wasn't always that way. Review creep is in place, and it's harming the game experience now. We see it in baseball as it kills the stolen base: too many super slo-mo reviews show the base stealer momentarily lost contact with the bag while the tag was being applied. It's time to rethink things and rein in replay a bit now.

[Jauronimo]

21 hours ago, NoSaint said:

Still frame seems obvious but what’s the jerky movement his foot makes when it hits out of bounds? I’m guessing that’s what made the call (agree or disagree - I’m just speculating on the process)

The fact that you're guessing why the call was overturned reinforces what a BS call that was. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

18 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Correct. Stepping back from the legalistic (was it "clear and obvious" evidence to the contrary?) there's the general question: does replay review make the game better or more fair? Or does it do the opposite?  Pretty much everyone will agree that it's a mixed bag. It's great when it confirms what we all saw: a receiver streaking down the sideline for a TD, but he probably stepped out of bounds at the 30, etc., etc.  I don't see many people arguing that it actually makes the game fairer or better to have these 50/50 type calls - the Benjamin noncatch - reviewed and overturned. The "clear and obvious" standard was probably enacted in part to deter teams from challenging these types of plays, but with the automatic review of all scoring plays that disincentive doesn't exist.  Think about the most publicized replay controversies; they've all been scoring plays. Plus there's a weird imbalance here: all scoring plays are automatically reviewed; a ruling on the field that a player didn't score requires a challenge flag. The officials are generally risk averse. If in doubt, call it a TD. If I'm wrong, the booth review will correct it. And that in turn makes the booth review more likely to ignore their own standard and substitute their judgement for that of the on-field officials. 

Once something is in place we tend to forget that it wasn't always that way. Review creep is in place, and it's harming the game experience now. We see it in baseball as it kills the stolen base: too many super slo-mo reviews show the base stealer momentarily lost contact with the bag while the tag was being applied. It's time to rethink things and rein in replay a bit now.

 

Throw in the fact that you can't challenge a terrible call makes for even more problems.  40 yards for DPI, when cooks was the one who didn't look for the ball and wrapped up the defender.  That's a massive gain for just throwing it up for grabs.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, dneveu said:

 

Throw in the fact that you can't challenge a terrible call makes for even more problems.  40 yards for DPI, when cooks was the one who didn't look for the ball and wrapped up the defender.  That's a massive gain for just throwing it up for grabs.

The arbitrary nature of what is reviewable and what isn't.  Replays sometimes show something just a bit away from the issue being reviewed: a clear hold by a blocker, etc. But coaches can't ask for a flag to be thrown after the fact. Why not? Well, because that would turn every play into a replay review. But isn't that why we limit the number of challenges?  It would be self-regulating. Same thing with scoring plays. End the automatic review of scoring plays (or end of game plays) and coaches will budget their use of challenge flags accordingly. I can live with that rule.

[cba fan]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The arbitrary nature of what is reviewable and what isn't.  Replays sometimes show something just a bit away from the issue being reviewed: a clear hold by a blocker, etc. But coaches can't ask for a flag to be thrown after the fact. Why not? Well, because that would turn every play into a replay review. But isn't that why we limit the number of challenges?  It would be self-regulating. Same thing with scoring plays. End the automatic review of scoring plays (or end of game plays) and coaches will budget their use of challenge flags accordingly. I can live with that rule.

I agree. Even though with current coach it would hurt the Bills as he wastes challenge flags on obvious plays he can not win and would be more likely than the avg team to be out of challenges at end of game for wrong calls on scoring plays.

 

The grounding non call when Brady was falling. McDerma thought he was down because his knee touched. Even though no Bill touched him. SMH.

He told sideline reporter Sun he would have challenged Clay incompletion in end zone but was told(never said by who) he could not. This just days after the Pitt/Pats game Jesse James call that shows clearly it would have been a non catch. How could McDerma not know this.????

[thunderingsquid]

https://streamable.com/6t41z. Hitler agrees.

[What a Tuel]

19 hours ago, Sweats said:

And?...........the game is over, we lost, the Pats won and tomorrow is just another day.

 

Does it really matter at this point if it was a catch or not?

 

Really?..........its Christmas, for Christs sakes and we're patting ourselves on the back because we have irrefutable proof that it "could" have been a catch, it "may" have been a catch and it was "probably" a catch.

 

Wow...........enjoy your holidays, boys.

 

Not saying anything leads officials to be less careful about botching the next one. Or Kraft a little more cautious about exerting control over the league office maybe.

 

Either way silence does nothing.

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Correct.   The intention of replay is to correct the obvious incorrect call.  That was anything but obvious.

 

And the 4th and 1 reversal was worse.   There they didn't even know the rules.  

 

 

What is the 4th and 1 rule? Lay it out for me. 

[Shaw66]

35 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Not saying anything leads officials to be less careful about botching the next one. Or Kraft a little more cautious about exerting control over the league office maybe.

 

Either way silence does nothing.

 

What is the 4th and 1 rule? Lay it out for me. 

Here are some things from the NFL rules:

 

"A Running Play ends: (a) When the ball is declared dead; (b) When a runner loses or relinquishes possession by a Fumble or a backward pass; or (c) When a player of either team throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage or when there is not a line of scrimmage.

 

"(d) The Dead Ball Spot: The spot at which the ball became dead."

 

"FORWARD PROGRESS. The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent."  (note that this rule could be written more clearly, but we know what it means - the offense gets the benefit of forward progress if the defense pushes the ball carrier back, but the offense DOES NOT get the benefit of forward progress if the offense retreats from the forward progress point.)

 

"A Down is a period of action that starts when the ball is put in play (3-2-3) and ends when the ball is declared dead (7-2-1)."

 

"ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down. (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends."

 

Okay, you have to put all of that together.  Fundamentally, the spot of the ball is the place where the ball is where the ball is declared dead.  The exception is forward progress, which makes the spot of the ball the farthest forward point to which the ball carrier had moved the ball before the ball carrier is pushed back by the defense.  The ball is dead when the runner is down or the ref otherwise declares the ball dead.  

 

On the play in question, the ball carrier clearly thrust the ball forward and then pulled it back - he didn't keep his arms extended.   So the ball going backward was not caused by the opponent, the Bills, moving it back.   Now, I'd have to see it again - it may be possible that the Bills pushed him back some, but most of the movement of the ball backward was caused by the ball carrier, not the Bills.

 

So the question becomes where was the ball when the ball carrier's knee or other part of his body (except feet and hands) touch the ground?   Or, if they didn't touch, where was the ball when some official stopped the play.   If either of those events happened at the exact instant the ball carrier reached the ball forward, then he gets the spot as far as he extended the ball.  But if either of those events happened at any other time, he doesn't get the spot based on the reach.  

 

I don't think it was possible in the replay to determine when the knee or some other part of the body was down.  I never saw a clear view of that actual touching.   So you can't possibly overturn the call on the field by ruling that the knee was down at the exact instant necessary to give the ball carrier the full extension of his reach with the ball.   If there isn't conclusive evidence that his knee touched at exactly the right time, you can't overturn the call on the field.  

 

If the play ended because the ref blew the whistle at the absolute exact instant when the ball was at its farthest forward point, then the spot is there.   I don't recall a replay where you could hear the whistle, but I'm pretty sure the whistle came AFTER the ball had reached out and pulled back.   So the play didn't end with the ball at the farthest forward point, it ended later, after the ball carrier had retreated from the farthest point forward, so the ball has to be spotted where the ball was after he pulled it back.  

 

Breaking the plane is irrelevant here.  Breaking the plane applies only at the goal line, because as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play is over.  (The ball is dead "when a touchdown, touchback, safety, field goal, or Try has been made."   "A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone.")  So the ball is dead when the ball gets to or past the goal line, and the play is over.  But in this case the ball isn't dead until the knee is down or the ref says it's dead, and it's almost certain that neither of those things happened at the exact instant when the ball carrier had pushed the ball forward to its farthest point.   

 

Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.