The interception call...

[klos63]

1 hour ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

2- it was a catch. It's not impossible.

1 hour ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

How can you say Kroft didn't have possession, yet say the defender did?

54 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Let's not forget even if it was ruled a catch, the offensive pass interference on Kroft brings it all back. It would've been I think 1st and 28 on the Bills 11. Either way the play changed the momentum of the whole game. 

weak OPI call as well.

[JohnNord]

31 minutes ago, Augie said:

That was the worst call since the Saints got screwed out of a Super Bowl appearance.

 

Period. 

This call was worse

[DrPJax]

1 hour ago, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Ferreira in the booth as prior head of officials  said it was an erroneous call.  No other Option.  He hit the ground with his butt as he had the ball.  Cstch with possible offensive interference is only correct call. And offensive pi was a hard sell imho. 

[Stank_Nasty]

18 minutes ago, daz28 said:

...and what is it?  Did you see it, or just heard the league put something out about it?

I read it. I really don’t feel like going back and looking for a link though. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I read it. I really don’t feel like going back and looking for a link though. 

does it matter when in the last 10 seconds ive seen 2 horrid calls

Edited September 28, 2020 by daz28

[Penfield45]

1 hour ago, Stank_Nasty said:

He had the ball in his possession as he hit the ground and at worst it was a tie on the ground. Tie goes to the offense. This is an easy and obvious call. Don’t get it twisted 

 

never have i ever seen the refs give a tie ball to the defense. its stated in the rule book its the offenses ball. 

 

Kroft was even down by contact when he initially made the catch and fell down

[billsherd]

1 hour ago, Stank_Nasty said:

The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable 

Whats the explanation? 

[CircleTheWagons99]

What interception?  The one Goff threw?

[Marv's Neighbor]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Simple.

 

Couldn't believe the call wasn't reversed.

You are right BUT it seems that the league will go out of their way to never reverse an on field call, even if it was 99 44/100% Bull Sh*t!  To call an after the play wrestling match an interception is absurd!

[Beerball]

18 minutes ago, daz28 said:

does it matter when in the last 10 seconds ive seen 2 horrid calls

 

12 minutes ago, billsherd said:

Whats the explanation? 

Bottom of page 2:

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Beerball

[daz28]

nevermind

Edited September 28, 2020 by daz28

[Joe Ferguson]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Simple.

 

Couldn't believe the call wasn't reversed.

It's the Bills. What's so hard not to believe it?

[WideNine]

 

[Tolstoy]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

Kroft DID have possession of the ball. He caught it and as he went to the ground the defender grabbed it. While they were both on the ground (when the play should have been dead) the defender slightly wrestled it away, but Kroft eventually took it back. At worst it was a tie, which by rule should be a Kroft catch.

I have watched the video a dozen times now, and I think I agree with this post. At worst it seems to be a tie. That said, the primary mistake was made by the crew on the field. Once they made the incorrect call, the video reviewers needed sufficient video evidence that Kroft maintained possession all the way to the ground, and I am not sure we can see that from the video. It doesn't really matter, since the Bills won (thankfully), but it does go to show you don't want to leave things in the hands of the referees. They are doing their best, but they make mistakes.

[Maybe Someday]

I feel like this was one of those plays where the ref wasn't sure so they made the call that would be an automatic review. It baffles me that NY didn't overturn it. Couldn't prove Kroft maintained posesion???? You also couldn't prove he ever lost it or that the other guy had it. 

 

It does kind of feel like the NFL wants a relevant team in LA kind of call. 

 

3-0. Buffalo against the world!!!

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

What kills me about this “interception” is that it is Josh’s only pick of the year! He should have an unblemished record. Just a travesty. 

[BeastMaster]

The answer here is simple, but many may not wanna hear it.

 

Refs knew it was a catch. They wanted to change the direction of the game and they succeeded by ruling it a turnover. 

 

It damn near cost us the game, and it is absolutely inexcusable to have not overturned it on review, but the league has always gotten away with whatever they do, so it gets swept under the rug and excused as an error or mistake when there's no way that could be the case...we are not that stupid.

 

 

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

 

 

Wow their own video at the end shows he clearly maintained control and possession through the process.  He hit the ground with his arm around the ball and gripped by his hand and then the defender started to snag at it.  Even the penalty to me was a little weak.  I wont argue it because it was a push off but still pretty weak.  Interception it is most definitely not.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Scott7975

[947]

The moment Kroft's back touches the ground, he has possession of the ball & is in contact with the defender- he's down by contact. Even if it's dual possession when he hits the ground (which it's not), it's an undisputable catch. The defender wrestling the ball away is moot, because he's already down. Horribly blown call.

 

Props to team for overcoming this BS, every other Bills team from the last 25 years or so, would've been buried by it.

Edited September 28, 2020 by 947

[Dr.Sack]

Not an interception, but they did get the 4th & 9 call correct to make up for it.