The Safety. What did I miss?

[Livinginthepast]

A couple things about this play. 1. How did the official who made the call see it so clearly when his view was obstructed?. If you see the official run in he excitedly makes the call immediately as if there wasn't a doubt in his mind. 2. You CAN see the Bills running back get past the goal line at which he gets takes a wicked hit which not only stops him but takes him off his feet, and then the negative momentum piles him back into the endzone . I guess that where he landed provided the official with the illusion that he never left the end zone.  3. I don't understand how a big money league in a billion $ stadium has no direct overhead sky cam view? That would have easily answered the question without doubt but somehow there wasn't one??

[SinceThe70s]

There was no video that showed the ball crossing the plane. Therefore, no grounds to overturn. Move on - even though I have no doubt it should not have been a safety, I'm OK with it. 

[jkeerie]

2 hours ago, yall said:

I can understand the refs misreading it in real time. I can't understand McD not challenging it.

 

He didn't have to.  As a scoring play it was automatically reviewed. 

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

He couldn't. They have to review it in the booth because it was a scoring play.

If the back of the ball is touching the EZ line, it’s a safety. I think it was probably the right call. The bills deserved it, frankly. That has to be fair caught (like the earlier one rightly was by hyde at the 5 - there was jets guy behind hyde on that play who was ready to down it at the 1-2 yard line).

[ko12010]

1 hour ago, 1ManRaid said:

I love all the people going "like omg wtf I saw the ball leave the endzone clear as day a blind man could see that".  No.  No you didn't.  Take the homer glasses off for a second.

 

I agree that it was a bad call to grant them the safety in the first place, but the ruling to leave the play as called upon review was per the rules correct.  It was just one of those plays that would have stood on lack of clear evidence regardless of which was it was initially called.  You cannot INFER that ball was out, you have to SEE the actual ball being out.

I think he got the idea after the first 30 people corrected him on that.

Damn, you ooze of pretension 

[1ManRaid]

21 minutes ago, ko12010 said:

Damn, you ooze of pretension 

If being tired of people being obnoxious idiots is pretentious, then pretentious I shall be.

[Dadonkadonk]

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

I saw it clearly. 

 

 

No you didn't. No one could see where the ball was.  The entire ball must get out of the endzone. To me it looked like he did, but there was no view that proved it.

[NewEra]

More evidence that the nfl Turkey doesn’t want to fix their officiating problems.  Like I’ve been saying for a decade.  Add more cameras.  Add officials in the booth with access to multiple cameras.

 

this was terrible 

[Freddie's Dead]

The live shot showed it best.  His feet were on the line, and he was leaning forward when he was first hit.  The ball should have been spotted at the 1' line.  Ridiculous not to have the reverse angle on the other side, because that's the ####### who called the safety.

[KOKBILLS]

The surprising part to me was the call on the field, which is almost never done unless it's obvious in that situation...

 

But after they called it...Incorrectly IMHO...I get why it was not turned over...

 

Still...a bad call...?

 

 

[cantankerous]

5 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

I love all the people going "like omg wtf I saw the ball leave the endzone clear as day a blind man could see that".  No.  No you didn't.  Take the homer glasses off for a second.

 

I agree that it was a bad call to grant them the safety in the first place, but the ruling to leave the play as called upon review was per the rules correct.  It was just one of those plays that would have stood on lack of clear evidence regardless of which was it was initially called.  You cannot INFER that ball was out, you have to SEE the actual ball being out.

I think he got the idea after the first 30 people corrected him on that.

 

Finally someone reasonable! I thought he made it out too, but you just couldn’t see where the ball was. So many people in here wearing their “homer glasses” as you called it. Haha. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by cantankerous

[Bookie Man]

Both of his feet were out of the endzone at one point. So physics would say, since he was carrying the ball with both hands in front of him, the ball made it out also. You could tell from the endzone angle. Bad call. I've seen much closer and clearer not be called a safety.

[Mat68]

Pretty crazy imo.  The refs always give benefit of the doubt to forward progress.  I've seen more questionable plays not called safties.  With the amount of money the NFL makes, the lack of goal line angles always suprises me.  

[Matt_In_NH]

7 hours ago, ko12010 said:

I think the main point is it was a terrible terrible initial call. Unless it's clearly a safety you don't call a safety there. I've never seen one like that called a safety on the field. 

 

Is it possible the ref had a clear angle/view?   The tv shots were never clear but it did not look good for the bills to me.  The entire ball has to get out of the end zone.  Just because it was not clear to you or tv cameras does not make it a bad call.  

[dlonce]

8 hours ago, yall said:

I can understand the refs misreading it in real time. I can't understand McD not challenging it.

 

 

McD didn’t need to review, it was a scoring play and was automatically reviewed.

you’d have to be blind not to see he was out of the end zone.

[Wayne Cubed]

6 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

If the back of the ball is touching the EZ line, it’s a safety. I think it was probably the right call. The bills deserved it, frankly. That has to be fair caught (like the earlier one rightly was by hyde at the 5 - there was jets guy behind hyde on that play who was ready to down it at the 1-2 yard line).

 

It was comical because in the Game Day Thread, there were posters upset at Hyde for fair catching the previous punt. "Why would you do that?" "You never fair catch a ball inside the 5!!" and so on. 

 

And that's why you do it.

[Xwnyer]

If they are gonna start mandating that all,of the ball make it out of the end zone than an overhead camera should be mandated at every goal line.

[Captain Caveman]

9 hours ago, yall said:

I can understand the refs misreading it in real time. I can't understand McD not challenging it.

 

It's a scoring play, it already gets reviewed, nothing he can do to challenge.

[Magox]

9 hours ago, yall said:

I can understand the refs misreading it in real time. I can't understand McD not challenging it.

 

Because there was no camera angle that showed definitive proof to overturn it.  I believe he did as there was one camera angle showing he had crossed the line but you couldnt see the football. 

[Big Turk]

10 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I didnt hear the announcers discuss this, and not that they are always right about these things, but to me it was very clear, both live and on replay that Gore's forward progress was 1-2 feet across the goal line. It wasn't even all that close as far as those things go. My only possibility is if on the replay the Refs could easily infer that Gore was well out of the endzone but didn't see the ball on that particular view. One view, IMO, showed he was clearly over.

 

What was the explanation and what do you guys say? I wasn't even worried until the Bills were kicking off.

 

I couldn't see where the ball was...the whole ball has to get outside the front endzone line