Mort Hendrickson Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 If you ask me, it looked like he caught it. Bad replays though, but I still he had control of it with his hand under the ball. I only wish CBS would have tried a few more angles to get a better look.
VABills Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 I forget the rule, but it's named after a WR from Tampa I think who basically got screwed by this. But basically if he didn't have that little bobble the ball is allowed to touch the ground with the hand under the ball. But because of that little bobble it's not considered a clean catch and therefore the refs made the right call.
Dan Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 Looked like a catch to me. Both arms were under the ball. And the ball didn't move so much as his arms moved when he rolled.
Ramius Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 I forget the rule, but it's named after a WR from Tampa I think who basically got screwed by this. But basically if he didn't have that little bobble the ball is allowed to touch the ground with the hand under the ball. But because of that little bobble it's not considered a clean catch and therefore the refs made the right call. 805581[/snapback] did the ball ever touch the ground? thats what i have been trying to find out. i saw the ball move, but if it never hit thr ground, it should have been an int. I agree about the rule. its stupid, and not logical. It happend in last years playoffs. The tampa WR caugh the pass in the endzone, both knees hit the ground, and the ball moved when the WR hti thre ground. By this gay rule, that was incomplete, because even tho he had possession and 2 knees down in the endzone, he didnt maintain possession after he hit. Its an illogical rule, kinda like the tuck rule.
VABills Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 did the ball ever touch the ground? thats what i have been trying to find out. i saw the ball move, but if it never hit thr ground, it should have been an int. I agree about the rule. its stupid, and not logical. It happend in last years playoffs. The tampa WR caugh the pass in the endzone, both knees hit the ground, and the ball moved when the WR hti thre ground. By this gay rule, that was incomplete, because even tho he had possession and 2 knees down in the endzone, he didnt maintain possession after he hit. Its an illogical rule, kinda like the tuck rule. 805588[/snapback] Different WR. I just remembered. It's the Bert Emanual rule. The point of the ball was on the ground. If it doesn't bobble it's a catch because of the Emanual rule. But it did.
billsfanone Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 It looked like a catch to me but not enough evidence to overturn the call. If it was ruled a catch, it would have stayed too. I think it's BS that the original ruling wasn't a catch though...
Deep2Moulds46 Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 Too close to call. Once they ruled it an incomplete pass on the field, it wasn going to be overturned. You shouldn't need a referee to overturn a call to beat an 0-5 Lions team.
seq004 Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 did the ball ever touch the ground? thats what i have been trying to find out. i saw the ball move, but if it never hit thr ground, it should have been an int. I agree about the rule. its stupid, and not logical. It happend in last years playoffs. The tampa WR caugh the pass in the endzone, both knees hit the ground, and the ball moved when the WR hti thre ground. By this gay rule, that was incomplete, because even tho he had possession and 2 knees down in the endzone, he didnt maintain possession after he hit. Its an illogical rule, kinda like the tuck rule. 805588[/snapback] The ball did touch the ground but his hand was also under the ball if that makes any sense.
smokinandjokin Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 That was a catch in my opinion. I can't believe that ref called it incomplete in the first place. There was no way to change a call based on the replays they showed, though. They would've stuck with the call on the field no matter what it was. The bogus part is, that drive ended with three points which ended up making the difference. I know, I know, we shouldn't need a charity call to beat the 0-5 Lions. Well why not? The Bills are that good? Hell yeah we needed to get a call when our safety makes a diving pick in the end zone. Oh well, nice try Whitner.
Beerball Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 It was IMHO a catch. If it had been called that I don't think it would have been over turned, just like I didn't think they would over turn the ruling of no catch.
The Tomcat Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 I thought it was a catch....not enough to overturn it one way or another however....
ch19079 Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 his hands were under the ball, it was a catch. but it was so close, i can see why the ref ruled it incomplete.
2003Contenders Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 I too think it was a catch -- but too close to overturn. Of course, it would have been nice if the officials had called it an INT in the first place, then the Lions could have challenged it. Even if they had received the home-cooked reversal, at least we wouldn't have been charged that timeout, which came back to haunt us. Oh well...
Recommended Posts