What was the explanation for that simultaneous possession?

[Mickey]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

[Heels20X6]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

They came up with some bullsh!t call that Evans was bobbling the ball as he hit the ground (clearly he wasn't) so it wasn't simultaneous possession. IMO, the refs botched that one MAJORLY.

[bladiebla]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

Didnt get it either on the net I was fuming too hard myself. I fimly believe that was total BS.

[Corp000085]

eh, i would have had the play stand as called. evans seemed to bobble it a little bit. Had the call been made the other way and the raiders had challenged, i still don't think it gets overturned. It was a close call and a judgment call on the refs. The whole point is moot had the ball been on target and/or evans come down cleanly with it. Luckily it did not cost the bills the win in the end.

[Spiderweb]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

From what I saw, and heard, there was a different interpretation today.

 

Evans had equal possession at least, and his knees were down. Simultaneous catch to me as well.

 

Rule Guru's ?

[StupidNation]

Should have been a catch. Evans was down with possession. You can't strip a downed man. Blown call that gave them a huge advantage.

[Spiderweb]

Should have been a catch. Evans was down with possession. You can't strip a downed man. Blown call that gave them a huge advantage.

 

That's our interpretation. One can only wonder what the NFL will or would say....

[Max997]

i think that Crew was brutal today...I dont recall ever seeing that head referree before either

 

the rule is equal psossession goes to the receiver, he was clearly down with both hands on the ball, play over

 

that was probably the worst game Ive seen Evans play, the fumble which I think he had the ball in the wrong hand, the awful penalty and losing the ball to a defender who clearly wanted it more

[sullim4]

Carl Cheffers is a new referee. He was a SB-caliber umpire for years and was just recently promoted with the retirements of Larry Nemmers and Gerry Austin.

 

That being said, the crew today was horrid.

[BuffOrange]

That was a horrid call. If you can't get a call against the Raiders at home, I guess you can't count on getting any calls ever.

[bladiebla]

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

[eSJayDee]

I tend to believe it WAS the correct call.

I don't have a copy of the recent rules (my dog ate my copy from a few yrs ago - seriously),

but I hear mention of making a "football action" after catch to validate possession. (Which sort of trumps the simultaneous possession rule IMO).

Evans was unable to make a "football related move" after gaining possession cuz he never had exclusive possession. The ball popped out after he hit the ground (at which time both players jointly possessed the ball) after which the Raider guy caught it b4 it hit the ground.

[Steely Dan]

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

 

It doesn't matter all you missed was Bull , Bull , Bull

 

 

From what I saw, and heard, there was a different interpretation today.

 

Evans had equal possession at least, and his knees were down. Simultaneous catch to me as well.

 

Rule Guru's ?

 

No rule gurus needed for a bad call.

 

 

i think that Crew was brutal today...I dont recall ever seeing that head referree before either

 

the rule is equal psossession goes to the receiver, he was clearly down with both hands on the ball, play over

 

that was probably the worst game Ive seen Evans play, the fumble which I think he had the ball in the wrong hand, the awful penalty and losing the ball to a defender who clearly wanted it more

 

All of the receivers, except Reed, had a bad day today.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

No it's not incomplete becasue it never hit the ground. What the refs are saying is Evens was juggling it, then the Raider player got a hold it as they went down.

 

Err so the explanation was that Evans bobbled the ball?

 

Let's say he did, that would mean he never had possesion thus an incomplete pass. If Evans bobbled he was still down and the play was over so complete pass or incomplete but no way this was a fumble.

[ans4e64]

Disgusting call.

[Thoner7]

Totally wrong call. I will use last weeks torry holt TD catch as evidence. Holt bobblbe, slid and slided all over the place, with the defender holding the ball ontop of him. he was given a TD, which the NFL later said was the right call. In this case Evans had a lot more possesion than holt ever had, and even if he bobbled it...it never hit the ground, so it is still a CATCH.

 

I am just glad that we finally have a team good enough to beat the opposing team AND the refs.

 

Go Bills

[TheMadCap]

That's our interpretation. One can only wonder what the NFL will or would say....

 

I am sure it will go something like this:

 

NFL head-clown Mike Perera:

 

"Clearly, the referee made the correct call, as we never screw up. Ever. Even Ed Hoculi made the right call last week"...

[Kelly the Dog]

I actually thought it was a good call. At first I thought it was simultaneous possession, but on the replay I thought that the Raider had a better grip and more possession than Evans did. I do think, however, that if it was originally called in the Bills favor, that they would not have overturned it.

[sven233]

Should have been a catch. Evans was down with possession. You can't strip a downed man. Blown call that gave them a huge advantage.

 

BINGO.......If Evans is down, there is no was to intercept a player down by contact and no way to cause a fumble either. THE REF BLEW THAT BIG TIME........

 

The ref also blew the pass interferance call on Evans as well long with several missed holding calls on the Raiders. The one play that would have made up for it of course they end up getting right on that tipped pass, but man.......the REFS WERE TERRIBLE today.

[riverssyr]

I tend to believe it WAS the correct call.

I don't have a copy of the recent rules (my dog ate my copy from a few yrs ago - seriously),

but I hear mention of making a "football action" after catch to validate possession. (Which sort of trumps the simultaneous possession rule IMO).

Evans was unable to make a "football related move" after gaining possession cuz he never had exclusive possession. The ball popped out after he hit the ground (at which time both players jointly possessed the ball) after which the Raider guy caught it b4 it hit the ground.

 

 

Ehh, this isn't really correct. So what happens when an open receiver is down on the turf and catches the ball on his knees?

 

The simultaneous possession rule was the issue, and it was a blown call...