BILLS4LIFE Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 The view they showed on TV was clear enough to me. He bobbled it just enough to touch the ground. NO CATCH!
Pete Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I'll get lynched for this but... I didn't see that ball hit the ground on ...and I didnt hear Brewskis name last night
Dan Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 After that call... a good friend of mine who is very much a Broncos fan and has no respect for the Bills and thinks I'm insane for some of my ideas regarding them.. called me a said: "I'm starting to think you're right, there is a conspiracy against the Bills, because that was defintiely not a catch." Then I explained how the ref was taking so long after looking at the monitor because he probably got a call on his headset from Tag telling him how to call it for NE and preserve the win for Bruchi. My friend is beginning to see that the Bills really are the bastard tema of the NFL and the man will do all he can to ensure we never make the Superbowl again.
Left Overture Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 52 inch screen with High Def - it hit the ground. Even then, it would have still been a catch if he had control, but even in the exaggerated reality of slow motion Branch was bobbling the ball on his way to the turf. He had a second "catch" down within the 5 yard line where the top of the ball hit the ground before he had control, and he did the same tuck and roll routine. We were out of challenges, and besides that... its not like they would overturn that one either. On the Moulds push off, the thing that gets lost in the equation is that the New England defender was pushing and shoving Moulds well beyond 5 yards even before they separated (of course Madden was surprized with the call, because he said that they were pushing and shoving all the way down the field), but Moulds was having a big game and I expect some pushing back and forth. I just didn't think they would single him out with that penalty on a play that would essentially give New England the game. Those late calls were especially surprising because for the most part I felt that the Bills were not getting the usual "job" they get in New England from the officials. The calls were a little heavy on our side, but all was well with me after NE got called for the "unnatural act"
billzfan Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 At least we know Brewski didn't marry his wife for her looks..
Buckeye Eric Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I don't know, on my 36 incher, it sure did look like the ball hit the ground. Maybe I needed the HDTV to have it go questionable. 491329[/snapback] I WAS watching on a 52" with HD and it looked like it hit the ground to me. Perhaps the video that the ref sees in the peep show device is more akin to that generated by bank and convienience store cameras.
Simon Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I didn't have much of a problem with the first one. Even though it certainly wasn't a catch, I didn't believe for a second they were going to overturn that blown call in a primetime game on New Bruschi's home field. And I probably wouldn't have had a problem with the second one if they had at least set some precedent earlier in the game to let the boys know that they were going to call it too tight. But there was plenty of bumping, grinding and hand-fighting going on all night and the stripes did a good job letting the players decide it up to that point. You can't call a game one way all night and then in the waning moments on the biggest play of a tight game suddenly decide that you're going to call it comepletely different. That's just totally unprofessional and unfair to every player on the field. Cya
smokinandjokin Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I thought for sure it was going to be ruled incomplete after the review. He double clutched the ball as he was reeling it in, and some portion of the ball appeared to touch the ground and then squirm up a bit in his arm. However: 1. Branch was wide open. 2. The Bills might have considered stopping them after the call was upheld. Just like on the Henry Jones PI call on the Hail Mary, they did not need to leave Ben Coates (the ONLY guy Bledsoe was going to throw to) open in the back of the endzone. Sorry about bringing that up.
Fezmid Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 52 inch screen with High Def - it hit the ground. 100" screen with HD -- it hit the ground and I could see the blades of grass moving from it. Ok, I exaggerate about the grass, but it definately hit the ground. CW
krazykat Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. 491315[/snapback] It didn't. Some folks on here would deny that it's water flowing over Niagara Falls.
krazykat Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 PS you get lynched for a lot less than that around here.
Fezmid Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 It didn't. Some folks on here would deny that it's water flowing over Niagara Falls. 492908[/snapback] Well given the pollution in WNY, it's entirely possible that the "water" is over 50% chemicals... CW
justnzane Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 yeah i saw it on a pretty darn big projection screen with 30 other people there most of them actually were trolls, cheering against the bills, but even 3/4 of them admitted that the ball rotated as branch hit the ground and that he did not have the ball under his arm.
bbb Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 Is it just me or does Tedy Bruschi's wife look like Terry Schiavo? 491391[/snapback] Not really. But, she did kind of look like Scott Peterson's mistress. Name just came to me - Amber Frey.
bbb Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I don't think the refs had any other angles. That game was produced so horribly by ESPN, I really think that was it - all the other cameras were on Bruschi and his wife...............I'm sure another camera angle would have shown it hit the ground better. I think it did, but it was very hard to see from that angle.
The Poojer Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I concur, branch would have had to do alot of squirming to get his arms in place under the ball to make it look like it did not hit the turf. i thought it was a decent call by the officials, inconlusive at best! Branch's catch. You can assume it hit the turf but it wasn't clear that it did. I watched the darn thing over and over again. In HI-DEF no less. 491315[/snapback]
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 I watched the game in super-triple HD projected on a 50 foot side of the Empire State Building and I saw Joe Theismann's nose hairs, while three women brought me drinks and massaged my feet. In case you didn't catch the sarcasm, the HD screen-size bravado here is getting to be a little ridiculous.
The Poojer Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! 100" screen with HD -- it hit the ground and I could see the blades of grass moving from it. Ok, I exaggerate about the grass, but it definately hit the ground. CW 492894[/snapback]
BRH Posted November 1, 2005 Posted November 1, 2005 And I probably wouldn't have had a problem with the second one if they had at least set some precedent earlier in the game to let the boys know that they were going to call it too tight. But there was plenty of bumping, grinding and hand-fighting going on all night and the stripes did a good job letting the players decide it up to that point. You can't call a game one way all night and then in the waning moments on the biggest play of a tight game suddenly decide that you're going to call it comepletely different. That's just totally unprofessional and unfair to every player on the field.Cya 492886[/snapback] And, as Moulds said, the New England player (Samuel) even admitted to him that they "got away with one there." Give Samuel his props for saying that, at least. Six years later and Brett Hull still isn't admitting that it was no goal.
Recommended Posts