TigerJ Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The call was right, though before the replay (for the TV audience's sake) showed he dragged (or more correctly bounced) though toe of his left foot, I was thrilled Buffalo might have gotten a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 NFL primetime showed the play and said Evans got his left foot down. The rubber pellet "in-fill" was kicked up where he foot landed. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 From ESPN:The replay CLEARLY showed that he caught the ball, yet they write this tripe? Why don't they talk about all the crappy "fortunate breaks" that the other teams have gotten AGAINST us this year? Like phantom holds, phantom personal fouls, etc??? Really annoys me... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=241107002 CW 107219[/snapback] Yeah, when I first looked at it I didn't see him get his second foot down. They went on to show it again and it was clear to the announcers he got both feet down. It was a great catch in bounds just look at the tape. We needed Lee to produce and that's just what he did. Good job Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidbuff Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I think at worst the replay would have been inconclusive, and as such, the play would have been upheld. 107231[/snapback] I watched the replay a few times and would have to AGREE with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 1.) Lee Evans made a legal catch. 2.) That it was called such means the Bills got a break. I mean, come on, I think we're at the point where simply NOT being screwed by the refs qualifies as a break. But it was a very, very close call, that ended up being right but easily could have gone the other way. We got a little lucky, but it was more skill than luck. Lee Evans was lucky that he made the play as much as got the call - it's a hard thing to do, and Jerry Rice '90 would be lucky to pull it off. So the ball bounced in our favor for once. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 1.) Lee Evans made a legal catch.2.) That it was called such means the Bills got a break. I mean, come on, I think we're at the point where simply NOT being screwed by the refs qualifies as a break. But it was a very, very close call, that ended up being right but easily could have gone the other way. We got a little lucky, but it was more skill than luck. Lee Evans was lucky that he made the play as much as got the call - it's a hard thing to do, and Jerry Rice '90 would be lucky to pull it off. So the ball bounced in our favor for once. End of story. 107733[/snapback] Just to clarify, I'm not saying we didn't get (self-made) breaks in the game. My complaint is that the article makes it sound like the refs blew the call and that if the Jets had any timeouts left, it would've been overturned. Combine that with the fact that I never ONCE saw an article saying the Raiders "caught a break" when TKO was tackled in the endzone, or any other number of "breaks" (both self-inflicted and ref-inflicted) from the rest of the season. Made it sound like sour grapes IMHO. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 1.) Lee Evans made a legal catch.2.) That it was called such means the Bills got a break. I mean, come on, I think we're at the point where simply NOT being screwed by the refs qualifies as a break. 107733[/snapback] I think that sums it up perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The Bills still had challenges remaining, so if the play WAS called a non-catch, they could have challenged and had it overturned. The amazing thing is that the zebras got it right the FIRST time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yo Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The first two replay showed him dragging his left foot but it looked like he didn't get it down. The third replay (field level) CLEARLY showed his left toe bouncing off the turf. It was in. No doubt. TIVO does not lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Okay, so here's a different direction to take this: does anyone know if the ref's are looking at High Definition monitors when making their replay calls? It would be pretty ridiculous if they weren't, though I doubt the one(s) on the field are HD.... As far as the "might have caughta break" comment goes, I simply took that as the AP writer was covering multiple games and didn't take the time to look closely and form his own opinion. He was more commenting on the commentary at the end than the game itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I have to say that I'm disappointed by the media's anti-Buffalo stance. It's not just the fact that a close call that correctly went in our favor was pointed out, while clearly erroneous calls that went against us were ignored. It's also the Stanley Cup, and his foot being in the crease. If an NYC team had that happen to them, the media would have never let the officials live it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts