sonyab1974 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Hi! I'm new!! THE BILLS WON WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :worthy:
CodeMonkey Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 That was a bad reversal. I thought it was a catch. It looked like he perhaps purposely let go of the ball with his right hand so that he could brace himself with his right hand while holding the ball with his left hand. If they called it the other way to begin with, I could understand replay not overturning the original call -- but I do not understand how there was enough evidence to overturn the original call here. So is this more evidence of the refs conspiracy against the Bills?
cåblelady Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 That was a bad reversal. I thought it was a catch. It looked like he perhaps purposely let go of the ball with his right hand so that he could brace himself with his right hand while holding the ball with his left hand. If they called it the other way to begin with, I could understand replay not overturning the original call -- but I do not understand how there was enough evidence to overturn the original call here. Agreed.
BillnutinHouston Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 The replay call was clearly correct, I bet 95 out of 100 neutral observers would agree. After several looks at the replay, Fouts and Enberg called it a bobble before the refs did. I actually thought it was a bobble watching the play in real time.
Simon Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I actually thought it was a bobble watching the play in real time. I did too. But the rule on replay is clear and incontrovertible evidence. Considering the possibility that Lee was trying to put the ball away too brace himself for impact leaves some doubt. And as a result I don't think the call should have been overturned.
Doc Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 "Just don't give it to 'em." But hey they won, without a disputed call.
dave mcbride Posted October 19, 2009 Author Posted October 19, 2009 Sorry I think you are being biased he clearly bobbled the ball before completing the catch out of bounds the Refs actually got one right. The thing is, I *tried* to think that yeah, it was a bobble, but the last couple of times they showed it, one could easily interpret it as a clean shift to a tuck in the left hand. In any event, it wasn't entirely clear, and the rule is "irrefutable," not "probably." I agree with Simon -- in Rich, that call goes the Bills' way. And I also agree with Peter -- if the call goes the Jets way from the start, the refs shouldn't have overturned it if the Bills had challenged.
Doc Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 He didn't "bobble" the ball. He tried to transfer/secure it with his left hand.
SoulMan Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Bad call. Embarassingly, pathetically bad call. Bad non-holding call against Wood earlier.
AJ1 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 It has to be irrefutable. To me, it looked less like a bobble than a clean shift to his left hand. In any case, it really has to be clear. That was not. If you review and reverse that play, NFL, you have review ALL sideline pass completions. If was a ref homer screwing to the Bills, as usual.
JimBob2232 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 It was a tough call. Could have gone either way. I dont think there was enough to overturn it. Likewise, if it was called incomplete, i dont think there was enough there either.
thebug Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 He didn't "bobble" the ball. He tried to transfer/secure it with his left hand. nope....switching it to the other hand is not control when trying to catch a football, when you are done doing that, you are out of bounds.
Doc Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 nope....switching it to the other hand is not control when trying to catch a football, when you are done doing that, you are out of bounds. Wrong. He was in full control of the ball. The issue is whether the ball was not under his control, and it was, the entire time.
Simon Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 nope....switching it to the other hand is not control when trying to catch a football You're wrong. There is a specifically written rule that says that if you're manipulating the ball to a different position, that means you're already in control of it and it's considered to have been caught.
Tcali Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 nope....switching it to the other hand is not control when trying to catch a football, when you are done doing that, you are out of bounds. that may depend on the switch---if it were seamless then its under control--
Realist Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 When I saw the replay, I immediately said No Catch. Correct call was made.
CodeMonkey Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 nope....switching it to the other hand is not control when trying to catch a football You are of course correct. The idea of switching hands to secure the ball in that case is ludicrous. But it was a call against the Bills so obviously it was wrong
thebug Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 You're wrong.There is a specifically written rule that says that if you're manipulating the ball to a different position, that means you're already in control of it and it's considered to have been caught. nope, not in that case. I have watched it 20 times and not once does it look like a catch. No control until out of bounds, but nice try.
Doc Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 nope, not in that case. I have watched it 20 times and not once does it look like a catch. No control until out of bounds, but nice try. That's your (wrong) opinion. But you're entitled to it.
Recommended Posts