PromoTheRobot Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 People keep sayng it was a god catch and a BS reversal. Any way I can see it? Anyone have a YouTube link or something? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 i dont have a link to it, but I had no problem with the reversal, it looked like it could have been a slight bobble while out of bounds....i think they got the call right on the replay People keep sayng it was a god catch and a BS reversal. Any way I can see it? Anyone have a YouTube link or something? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmjoyce113 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 agreed, no catch... they just showed it on sports center 30 seconds ago though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 def not a catch in the age of confounded NFL "catch" rules and HD millisecond playback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I agree. He did not have clean possession of ball before going out of bounds. So the reversal call was a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 i didn't like the call.....he caught the ball with both hands,with outstretched arms. as he was bringing the ball into his chest, his left hand remained on the ball at all times. his right hand did slightly come off (not a bobble in my mind). the call on the field (which was ruled a catch) should have stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 def not a catch in the age of confounded NFL "catch" rules and HD millisecond playback One of those plays where the frame-by-frame slow-mo distorted reality. Evans, at no time, bobbled that ball. But when you slow things down and go frame by frame, it created a very misleading "bobble" effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 One of those plays where the frame-by-frame slow-mo distorted reality. Evans, at no time, bobbled that ball. But when you slow things down and go frame by frame, it created a very misleading "bobble" effect. I agree 100%. Three years ago, given CBS's technology, that 'bobble' would have been undetected. The ref certainly couldn't have noticed it with his eyes. An artificial call enabled by slo-mo distortion. A prime example of the tail(technology) wagging the dog( NFL football). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/exQxYPEEpYv...stv7x/Lee+Evans here ya go....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/exQxYPEEpYv...stv7x/Lee+Evans here ya go....... Thank you. It looked like the right call...unless it was a NE Patriot* Then it would have been a legal catch. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 People keep sayng it was a god catch and a BS reversal. Any way I can see it? Anyone have a YouTube link or something? PTR According to the instant replay revised rule book, it was not a catch. But it was a great "catch"! Great concentration and body control. It was awesome, just too bad there was a brief bobble. I don't even want to call it a bobble, it was more just getting a better grip. But it was the right call... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Thank you. It looked like the right call...unless it was a NE Patriot* Then it would have been a legal catch. PTR sadly, this is true. i hate the patriots*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 agreed, no catch... they just showed it on sports center 30 seconds ago though. I am not so sure, he did take his right hand off the ball but his left hand never left the ball and appeared to have control over it in my view. Fouts focused on that right hand coming off the ball for a second but holding it one hand doesn't translate to "losing control for a second". I could see if incomplete was the original call but it seemed pretty thin for a reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I don't care what anyone says... that was a catch. He caught the ball on his fingertips. How is he supposed to pull it into his body and take his right hand off the ball to brace for the hit? He has to move the ball. But, at no time did he bobble or lose control of the ball. It hit his fingertips and he pulled the ball into his chest with one hand. It's physically impossible to do that without moving the ball. The question was did he at any time lose control? No. His left hand remained on the ball the entire time as he was pulling it in. It was a great catch. I suspect when Rexie gave the refs a few bills earlier in the game to get the mysterious too many men on the field, when no flag was thrown penalty; he slipped a few extra in the ref's pocket for later in the game. Speaking of that crap penalty. OK, so maybe the Bills had too many men on the field. I don't know, they never showed a replay. But, no flag was thrown. So, why didn't Rex have to throw a challenge flag to get the refs to make the call? It looked like he called them over, slipped some cash in their pocket, and they made a call. Did anyone actually see a flag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 i didn't like the call.....he caught the ball with both hands,with outstretched arms. as he was bringing the ball into his chest, his left hand remained on the ball at all times. his right hand did slightly come off (not a bobble in my mind). the call on the field (which was ruled a catch) should have stood. Yes he caught the ball. But he did not have control until he was out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I don't care what anyone says... that was a catch. He caught the ball on his fingertips. How is he supposed to pull it into his body and take his right hand off the ball to brace for the hit? He has to move the ball. But, at no time did he bobble or lose control of the ball. It hit his fingertips and he pulled the ball into his chest with one hand. It's physically impossible to do that without moving the ball. The question was did he at any time lose control? No. His left hand remained on the ball the entire time as he was pulling it in. It was a great catch. I suspect when Rexie gave the refs a few bills earlier in the game to get the mysterious too many men on the field, when no flag was thrown penalty; he slipped a few extra in the ref's pocket for later in the game. Speaking of that crap penalty. OK, so maybe the Bills had too many men on the field. I don't know, they never showed a replay. But, no flag was thrown. So, why didn't Rex have to throw a challenge flag to get the refs to make the call? It looked like he called them over, slipped some cash in their pocket, and they made a call. Did anyone actually see a flag? I agree with everything you said. A booble is loss of control. I don't see loss of control that is incontrovertible. Next, did the ball really hit Josh Reed? I couldn't hear the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I agree with everything you said. A booble is loss of control. I don't see loss of control that is incontrovertible. Next, did the ball really hit Josh Reed? I couldn't hear the game. I think so. It was close and borderline inconclusive. But, the ball does appear to change direction as it went by his leg. So, I'd say it did hit him... unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I think so. It was close and borderline inconclusive. But, the ball does appear to change direction as it went by his leg. So, I'd say it did hit him... unfortunately. Actually looked like it hit his arm, but there wasn't a great camera angle shown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I agree with everything you said. A booble is loss of control. I don't see loss of control that is incontrovertible. Next, did the ball really hit Josh Reed? I couldn't hear the game. A bobble is not loss of control. It's never having control in the first place. He did not establish complete control and maybe is was because he was moving to his right hand but that happened before he had complete control and by the time he did establish full control he was out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Actually looked like it hit his arm, but there wasn't a great camera angle shown... Could have. I agree, the camera angle wasn't very good at all. A bobble is not loss of control. It's never having control in the first place. He did not establish complete control and maybe is was because he was moving to his right hand but that happened before he had complete control and by the time he did establish full control he was out of bounds. I disagree. The ball stopped moving when it hit both his hands. He had control, took 2 steps, the ball doesn't bobble or move in any way while taking those 2 steps. Then while taking the 3rd step on his way out of bounds, he begins to bring the ball in and switch it solely into his left hand. That's when the ball moves; but not because he's losing control. He's repositioning the ball to better absorb the hit when he falls to the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts