somebody pls explain that non-reversal

[Meathead]

ok look, i have been the guy to point out the bills have been living a charmed life this season. theyve played well and made lots of plays, but you can easily point to several totally lucky plays the previous two games that essentially determined their wins

so it was indeed time for pure luck to conspire against them just to even the score

but how could an nfl ref stand up with a high resolution replay of the johnson first down play possibly diagram to me how that is NOT a catch??

i really dont get it. and im about to go to the er. so pls save me a deductable and help me climb back the hell out of the rabbit hole

[YardRat]

No explanation...it was clearly a catch and every replay supported that.

[Meathead]

forget the gd replay. just throw a fkng ten sided dice. you cant rely on replay if you cant get that call right

[MikeInRoch]

The only thing I can think is that they thought there wasn't enough to overturn it. I don't agree at all - that was a pretty bad call IMO.

[Meathead]

my dad says he saw the ball shift when clements swiped his hand inside

two retorts:

- i looked closely and i THOUGHT i saw the ball shift slightly but when i looked at it again it was actually clements ORANGE WITH BLACK TRIM GLOVE that was shifting near the ball. what appears to be the ball moving an inch or two is actually his glove getting caught up as he swipes close to the ball - the ball doesnt move at all

- EVEN IF the ball moved an inch or two, it was three plus feet above the ground, johnson had the ball securely between his body, his fingers, and his forearm, AND the ball never touched the ground!!!

seriously, how do you as a highest level nfl ref stand up and diagram to me on a slow-mo board, how that is NOT a catch??@?!??!@$R%%?^?

did someone slip me an lsd or something i think im tripping

[zone]

my dad says he saw the ball shift when clements swiped his hand inside

two retorts:

- i looked closely and i THOUGHT i saw the ball shift slightly but when i looked at it again it was actually clements ORANGE WITH BLACK TRIM GLOVE that was shifting near the ball. what appears to be the ball moving an inch or two is actually his glove getting caught up as he swipes close to the ball - the ball doesnt move at all

- EVEN IF the ball moved an inch or two, it was three plus feet above the ground, johnson had the ball securely between his body, his fingers, and his forearm, AND the ball never touched the ground!!!

seriously, how do you as a highest level nfl ref stand up and diagram to me on a slow-mo board, how that is NOT a catch??@?!??!@$R%%?^?

did someone slip me an lsd or something i think im tripping
Unreal, that cost us the game. They stole the game because of that call, we stay alive and it's a 2 score game.

[Novacane]

Terrible call to start with made even worse by not overturning it. Why have replay if you're not going to overturn obvious mistakes?

[Mad Bomber]

That was a bull**** call, and it probably changed the outcome of this game.

[Meathead]

if there isnt enough to overturn the call there then just shut the system the fk down. its a waste of gd time to have replays that crystal clear when you dont even fkg use them

anybody got a blood pressure monitor cut theres a little trickle of blood coming out my ear

[jamze132]

It's not the refs fault that the Bills came in totally lethargic.

[Spiderweb]

Unreal, that cost us the game. They stole the game because of that call, we stay alive and it's a 2 score game.

True..

What I saw was his hand and arm were UNDER the ball when he hit the ground. Never lost possession, nor did the ball hit the turf....

HORRIBLE call.

[Meathead]

anybody? somebody want to try to explain that with any logic whatsoever?

drag a bengals fan over here if you have to. something, ANYTHING, to explain how you possibly could not determine thats an obvious catch

[imbondz]

the problem w/ the call was that it looked like a catch live, not just in replay. made no sense

[imbondz]

all bengals fans would agree, but who cares, you get some calls, some you don't. we got screwed on that call.

[chernobylwraiths]

There was nothing that could overturn it. Pretty easy. When they looked at it, they saw that there HAD to be something on the other side where the official called it. There was absolutely nothing they could see to show WHY the official called it incomplete, so they had to go with the call on the field. They has had no view of what the official saw (or didn't see).

[Crisis]

There was nothing that could overturn it. Pretty easy. When they looked at it, they saw that there HAD to be something on the other side where the official called it. There was absolutely nothing they could see to show WHY the official called it incomplete, so they had to go with the call on the field. They has had no view of what the official saw (or didn't see).

how on earth do they not have a camera angle over there? they can show 5 different angles of meaningless plays in slow-motion, but as soon as a play with actual importance happens they have no good camera angles.

[methos4ever]

I still don't understand why it was called a drop, well after it was a catch. So annoying.

[Meathead]

i dont even buy that AT ALL

to me it clearly DID look like MORE THAN enough to overturn. i dont even know how anybody can say it didnt, it was right there, clear as day

[Mr. Pink]

The call was blown on the field, no doubt. But there wasn't inconclusive evidence to overturn it via replay. The ball did shift in Johnsons arms but none of the angles they showed on TV could you tell if the ball did or didn't touch the ground.

[imbondz]

There was nothing that could overturn it. Pretty easy. When they looked at it, they saw that there HAD to be something on the other side where the official called it. There was absolutely nothing they could see to show WHY the official called it incomplete, so they had to go with the call on the field. They has had no view of what the official saw (or didn't see).

then there should be a camera at every possible angle on the field, otherwise review is dumb, plus it was clearly a catch on review.

[northernbillfan]

The call was blown on the field, no doubt. But there wasn't inconclusive evidence to overturn it via replay. The ball did shift in Johnsons arms but none of the angles they showed on TV could you tell if the ball did or didn't touch the ground.That's exactly what I was going to say. Not enough evidence.

[alnilla]

Can someone find a video of this or post one

[Mr. Pink]

That's exactly what I was going to say. Not enough evidence.

If it was ruled complete on the field and Lewis challenged it, it wouldn't have been reversed either.

Just one of those things.

I won't dwell or complain because it's the first call/bounce that has gone against the team thus far this year, imo.

Win some, lose some. Happens.

[chernobylwraiths]

You can disagree all you want. But you have to know WHY he called it incomplete in the first place, which nobody can tell because there is no view from his angle.

I certainly think it was a catch too, but that was ridiculous.

We need a big playmaker on defense. This team won't go anywhere without one. And they need to be able to put pressure on the QB. Other teams have made some highlight real catches on us. It isn't like they had horrible coverage all the time, but I have seen great catches against us in the last three games. A couple TE catches for TDs with pretty good coverage on them.

[Banks2Pierce]

I just don't see how a ref can invent that it was incomplete. If the 35 different camera angles didn't catch the ball hitting the ground, how did a referee 20+ yards away invent a ball on the ground with his eyes? I don't think it's fixed...I just think it was quite bizarre to make that call.

[Forward_Lateral]

I'm sick and tired of hearing the non-conculsive evidence argument. Every replay they showed, it was clearly a catch. The fact that it wasn't over turned because there wasn't a certain angle to see what the ******ed ref who called it incomplete saw shouldn't effect what they see when they go under the hood. There was no way that call shouldn't have been over turned. The ball did not move at all on any of the replays. It didn't touch the ground. If his arm is under it, and stays under it, how is a replay from the other side of the field going to magically take his arm out from under the ball?

Ridiculous. Replay is a useless steaming pile of **** sometimes.

Oh, and the tuck rule is possibly the dumbest rule in all of sports, but that's an argument for another thread.

[northernbillfan]

If it was ruled complete on the field and Lewis challenged it, it wouldn't have been reversed either.

Just one of those things.

I won't dwell or complain because it's the first call/bounce that has gone against the team thus far this year, imo.

Win some, lose some. Happens.:bf1: Exactly. Time for folks to get over it. Those are the rules we have to live by.

[Michael82]

http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1488397487/image_normal.jpg
MikePereira (http://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira) Mike Pereira



I think the Johnson pass was complete - there was not enough to overturn the catch.

22 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira/status/120602252678414336) Favorite (http://twitter.com/#) Retweet (http://twitter.com/#) Reply (http://twitter.com/#)


»

http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/1502451693/BillsMafia11eq_normal.png
MichaelThomas82 (http://twitter.com/#!/MichaelThomas82) Michael Thomas @



<S>@</S>MikePereira (http://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira) Everyone thinks it was complete except for that ref that wasn't near the ball. What kind of evidence do u need to overturn it?

19 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#!/MichaelThomas82/status/120602911955881984) Favorite (http://twitter.com/#) Reply (http://twitter.com/#) Delete (http://twitter.com/#)





<FIELDSET class="in-reply-to-border conversation-earlier-border"><LEGEND class=in-reply-to-text>in reply to ↑ </LEGEND></FIELDSET>
http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1488397487/image_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira) @MikePereira (http://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira) Mike Pereira


<S>@</S>MichaelThomas82 (http://twitter.com/#!/MichaelThomas82) you would have needed to see the ball until the completion of the play, it disappears at one point, you can't assume




15 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#!/MikePereira/status/120604155701235712) via web

[don137]

The call was blown on the field, no doubt. But there wasn't inconclusive evidence to overturn it via replay. The ball did shift in Johnsons arms but none of the angles they showed on TV could you tell if the ball did or didn't touch the ground.
When a player falls forward like the high majority of the time the ball will shift and move as he falls. Common sense has to come into play sometimes. Between the ball never seen touching ground and common sense that was a completion.if that was the Packers, Patriots, etc would that be the same call?

[Mr. Pink]

When a player falls forward like the high majority of the time the ball will shift and move as he falls. Common sense has to come into play sometimes. Between the ball never seen touching ground and common sense that was a completion.if that was the Packers, Patriots, etc would that be the same call?


With the same official? Absolutely.

Different officiating crew? Who knows.

[Historian]

The best part will come Wednesday, when the Bills geta letter from the league telling them it was a legit catch, but there's nothing they can do about it now.

Sooow-rey!!!

[Meathead]

Those are the rules we have to live by.
WHAT
are the rules?

ive heard lots of people say this and then not say what the rule is

as i understand the rules, theres no way that ISNT overturned. what part of what rule could possibly say that wasnt a valid replay that showed everything you need?

just because the ball goes out of view under his body doesnt mean the ball isnt totally in control and in plain view before it becomes unviewable. why would simply disappearing under the body have an impact on all the imagry that showed it firmly contained between his ribs, his forearm, and his fingers before it became unviewable???

is it the 'football move' technicality? if so then why is any diving catch a reception?

i need nuts and bolts specifics. give me a clear and concise explanation

[Mr. Pink]

WHAT
are the rules?

ive heard lots of people say this and then not say what the rule is

as i understand the rules, theres no way that ISNT overturned. what part of what rule could possibly say that wasnt a valid replay that showed everything you need?

just because the ball goes out of view under his body doesnt mean the ball isnt totally in control and in plain view before it becomes unviewable. why would simply disappearing under the body have an impact on all the imagry that showed it firmly contained between his ribs, his forearm, and his fingers before it became unviewable???

is it the 'football move' technicality? if so then why is any diving catch a reception?

i need nuts and bolts specifics. give me a clear and concise explanation


The ball shifted in his arm, plain as day to see. Then it disappeared. None of the angles showed the ball after that. No way to overturn the call. No way to overturn it if the call went the other way.

It's that simple.

[imbondz]

for reviews to be fair, whatever angles they have should be what the decision is based on, and from every single angle, it was a catch.

[Meathead]

i just dont agree. the angles DID show a catch to me. therefore, something in the rules is either missing or more likely its either misunderstood by you or me

thats the question

where in the video is it NOT a catch. i can say where it IS a catch, already have. where is my explanation of IS turned into NOT?

[Meathead]

reminder: based on my assumptions just prior, the answer 'not enough to overturn' is eliminated. i think there IS enough to overturn, have said why. if you think not enough to overturn then you have to respond directly to my why, you cant just say not enough and leave it as is

iow, a ref would have to make that exact case in an official review, say on tuesday in the pete rozelle honorary conference room with the grand pubah of refs in attendance. what would that ref say in that review?

[RoscoeMagic]

Bull**** call...but it's not why we lost the game.

[TacklingDummy]

That was a bull**** call, and it probably changed the outcome of this game.
Maybe the season.

[Meathead]

btw i just got out of the er. they had to put a cranial stent in me to stop the braniacal hemorrhaging. my diastolic pressure is down to 140 and they think i might avoid a stroke. but only if you give me a clear and well defined answer. so please help. for the children

[NOT THE DUDE...]

it seems like the replay system failed and the ref had no choice because there was no other angle to conclude it was indeed a catch. the flaw is there is not always a camera angle. so basically its bad luck...

[YardRat]

Replay should have overturned it, plain and simple. If that isn't a legit catch, there is no such thing.

[Meathead]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fUOfpmWFqkE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Meathead]

ball secured. nothing moving. ball doesnt touch the ground.

i saw all this when the replay happened. how the hell does the ref come out from under that hood and not call that a catch?!?!%#^?$##?

i just. dont. get. it.

[Ebenezer]

I missed the second half "live" because I was working but I did get to see several highlight packages when I got home last night. At full speed, on my TV, the first thing I thought was that the ball bounced off the ground. When they started slowing down the tape I realized what made me think that SJ dropped the ball - the defenders pink gloves. One of his gloves rolls on the ground without a doubt. Not giving the referee an out but if he was in a hurry (they have 90 seconds) and looked quickly without concentrating I could see how he could confuse the ball for the pink glove.

[ddaryl]

I saw no shift in the ball. I saw a WR tucking the ball into his side to secure the catch, the hand was always under neath the ball..

I know there are bad calls, but the replay was beyond conclusive... Not to mention both knees hit the ground and Steve is clearly in control. PLUS there is another angle out there that supports this.. 2 angles and no reversal ???

Hey what better way to get Bengals fans to start filling in those empty seats then to manufacture some wins and keep the Bengals competitive in the standings.

yeah that call has me seriously questioning the integrity of the NFL.. that wasn't a bad call it was a blatant call.

and I agree we played a turd of a game, but we were in the drivers seat late and taking care of business..... this one is really bugging me, and it further aggravates me that for a split second it was a catch on the field... after that I could tell they weren't going to over turn it... it's just wasn't right

[trapezeus]

the part they say was inconclusive was the part that doesn't matter. Johnson catches the ball, tucks into his arms, puts his knees down and is touched. Then he rolls and you can't tell if the ball moves or not, but it simply doesn't matter. he was down. the play is over.

The nfl doesn't care about the level of refing in their league. if they did, Jeff Triplett wouldn't still be a HEAD ref. This is a guy who couldn't even understand the heads/tails part of a coin toss.

It's nice to know some league wants to compete with the NHL on world's ****tiest refs.

[mysticsoto]

ball secured. nothing moving. ball doesnt touch the ground.

i saw all this when the replay happened. how the hell does the ref come out from under that hood and not call that a catch?!?!%#^?$##?

i just. dont. get. it.

For the record, on WGR this morning they were discussing this, and they said the rules have changed from years past. The ball IS allowed to touch the ground and still be a catch so long as the receiver stays in full control of the ball. Now, given that his entire arm is wrapped around and his hand UNDER the ball, even IF the ref tried to use the excuse that the point of the ball touched the ground - his hand is FIRMLY wrapped around the ball!!!

There is NO possible justification for not calling that a catch. Not only does the ref make the wrong call, he spinelessly doesn't even take the time to explain out the rationale for why he is not reversing the initial call.

That is what pissed me off!!!

[psubills62]

For the record, on WGR this morning they were discussing this, and they said the rules have changed from years past. The ball IS allowed to touch the ground and still be a catch so long as the receiver stays in full control of the ball. Now, given that his entire arm is wrapped around and his hand UNDER the ball, even IF the ref tried to use the excuse that the point of the ball touched the ground - his hand is FIRMLY wrapped around the ball!!!

There is NO possible justification for not calling that a catch. Not only does the ref make the wrong call, he spinelessly doesn't even take the time to explain out the rationale for why he is not reversing the initial call.

That is what pissed me off!!!
There seems to be a code from the refs after reviews like this. When the ref gives an explanation for either overturning it or making it stand, then it's obvious he saw proof one way or another.

When the ref comes out and just says "the play stands as called," that indicates to me that they just didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. But they're never going to say that.

[Meathead]

I could see how he could confuse the ball for the pink glove.
yeah so can i and i said that previously. but watching the replay you see clearly its NOT the ball moving. i just dont know how a ref could look at what we saw and not come out and call it a catch. just doesnt make sense


the part they say was inconclusive was the part that doesn't matter. Johnson catches the ball, tucks into his arms, puts his knees down and is touched. Then he rolls and you can't tell if the ball moves or not, but it simply doesn't matter. he was down. the play is over.

right, what we can see makes the catch legal. doesnt matter what the ruling already had been. i dont understand how it could be any other way


For the record, on WGR this morning they were discussing this, and they said the rules have changed from years past. The ball IS allowed to touch the ground and still be a catch so long as the receiver stays in full control of the ball.
yes, that i did know. but i referenced it because im looking for any scintilla of reason that would justify the ridiculous non-call. if the ball did touch the ground it might have given the ref a psychological reason to conclude something he shouldnt. hey im grasping at straws here

in reality it shouldnt have mattered, cuz the bills didnt do enough to overcome that bad call and lost on a lot of other plays too. but its ironic that is the ONE play that should have gone their way, and if it did it dramatically enhances their chance of winning. you dont always deserve to win/lose and you do anyway, and that ONE bolt of luck lighting play was freaking huge for the bengals

[Historian]

Guys, Don Beebe stepped out of bounds on his TD in the Houston Wildcard game.

Time to move on.

[Mski]

There is NO possible justification for not calling that a catch. Not only does the ref make the wrong call, he spinelessly doesn't even take the time to explain out the rationale for why he is not reversing the initial call.

That is what pissed me off!!!That is what upsets me most about the call, the official didnt even attempt to give an explaination as to why the call wasnt overturned, even if he cited "inconclusive evidence" as the reason for upholding the original call, it would have been better.

[bf1]

Just to preface this. I am not a homer and call things like I see them. I laugh at complaining about calls almost always as it's usually a homer over-reaction. But..... This is what I saw. Clearly.
1) Stevie catches ball and secures it.
2) He goes down to knees.
3) Clements jumps on him.
at this point it should be a catch and he's downed. End of story.
4) Ball and Stevie hit ground--Stevie still in control.
5) Clements gets hand in and jars ball loose.

In conclusion. It was clearly a catch. And clearly overturnable.

[TigerJ]

I thought it was a catch, and every replay I saw supported that view, but as Cher stated, there were some angles for which there was no available camera view. Supposedly, that's the angle from which an official ruled the pass incomplete. It's terribly frustrating that the play stood as called for lack of a view that could have shown conclusively one way or the other what happened.

For that matter, I'd like to vent my frustration at the tuck rule. The only good thing about it is that it doesn't come into play that often. Let's face it, when it happens, it happens because the QB decided at the last split second not to throw, and was pulling the ball down when it came out. If they are going to rule it an incomplete pass, then it should also be ruled intentional grounding with the accompanying loss of down. Dalton was in the pocket. He was in the grasp, and there was no eligible receiver anywhere near him. In any other situation (other than the tuck rule) that's intentional grounding, no ifs ands or buts.

In the end, though, I have to admit the Bills didn't really deserve to win. Fitzpatrick again started out cold. Receivers dropped a bunch of passes, and the tackling the whole game was piss poor.

[bf1]

The tuck rule makes no sense whatsoever. The qb decides NOT to pass the ball, then gets the ball knocked loose as he's trying to bring it back into his chest. And it's not a fumble, why???

I totally understand the arm moving forward rule. Not the tuck rule at all.

[BertSquirtgum]

This entire officating crew should be lined up on a firing squad in mexico. :crazy:

[Ebenezer]

The tuck rule makes no sense whatsoever. The qb decides NOT to pass the ball, then gets the ball knocked loose as he's trying to bring it back into his chest. And it's not a fumble, why???

I totally understand the arm moving forward rule. Not the tuck rule at all.

Is this another one of those Don Shula rules?