No dog in this hunt: The Bills were screwed. It was a CATCH

[6Trophies]

https://x.com/Pammadonna/status/2013142 ... 21609?s=20

[Dan Smith--BYU]

yep, its not even arguable

[langer]

Refs are hired on their ability to lie convincingly to millions of people.

Not everyone can do that.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Refs are increasingly like Jim Cramer or financial carnival barkers.

Often wrong, never in doubt.

Even after the massive runup in gold and silver, none of them have the least regret about trashing it for the last 25 years.

[anpsteel]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxJIT1HCv30i ... fagZb91zsX

[Dan Smith--BYU]

well then Rodgers was intercepted and so was the Rams receiver

the play is dead when he goes to ground unless he loses control so his analysis is wrong

[CKSteeler]

I've said I agree with this call, particularly in isolation. It gels with how I understand the catch rules and I don't think he ever had possession.It all happened real fast. There is a time element to what is a catch/possession etc.

But yea there's a lot of plays we've seen over the years where it's like if that's a catch why not this or that. And the Rodgers play or even the one in the Bears/Rams makes you scratch your head a bit.

There's too many judgement calls. Too many things that get called inconsistently. It breeds conspiracy theories and I can't say that it's really wrong. I'm a broken record on this subject. The game is way too over officiated at this stage at a minimum. It's asking too much of the refs on the field at best. You can't even count on the same guy in NY making the same sort of calls consistently for Christ's sake.

[anpsteel]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DTtlOsOCecx ... Mxa2lxZA==

[jeemie]

I've said I agree with this call, particularly in isolation. It gels with how I understand the catch rules and I don't think he ever had possession.It all happened real fast. There is a time element to what is a catch/possession etc.

But yea there's a lot of plays we've seen over the years where it's like if that's a catch why not this or that. And the Rodgers play or even the one in the Bears/Rams makes you scratch your head a bit.

There's too many judgement calls. Too many things that get called inconsistently. It breeds conspiracy theories and I can't say that it's really wrong. I'm a broken record on this subject. The game is way too over officiated at this stage at a minimum. It's asking too much of the refs on the field at best. You can't even count on the same guy in NY making the same sort of calls consistently for Christ's sake.

Yes this is where I am at.

And you are especially correct about New York. One of the reasons for expedited replay and centralizing replay in New York was so we'd get consistency in these judgement calls, and we can't even get that.

It may have actually gotten worse.

I don't know what the solution is because these things are bang bang.

I mean I saw someone on YouTube claim Davante Adams made a football move because his leg shifted very slightly after the catch and so then it changed from pass catch rules to fumble rules.

But his leg shift was involuntary- a result of being crashed into by two Bears' defenders. It was as involuntary as Cooks' roll.

When we are adjudicating it based on these types of miniscule movements, then we may as well chuck replay out altogether because it's no less a judgement call than the officials' call on the field is.

[jeemie]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DTtlOsOCecx ... Mxa2lxZA==

Strikingly absent from Burrow's post was an explanation of a) how they were "easy calls" and b) why they were "different"

[anpsteel]

well then Rodgers was intercepted and so was the Rams receiver

the play is dead when he goes to ground unless he loses control so his analysis is wrong

You are not understanding what happened or the rule


The bills broncos situation
The ball was not controlled by the receiver. Per the rules he never established possession or control. The ball never hits the ground and the defender ends up with the ball. Interception


The Rams Bears situation- the receiver establishes possession is making a football move, knee is down.

That’s a catch and down by contact at that point

You may not agree with the nfl rule or definition of a catch - but those calls are per the rules


And yes - the Aaron Rodgers call was wrong - but so were 2 other calls in that game

I’m not defending the league or officiating, in general, just commenting on the two specific plays and calls

[jeemie]

well then Rodgers was intercepted and so was the Rams receiver

the play is dead when he goes to ground unless he loses control so his analysis is wrong

You are not understanding what happened or the rule


The bills broncos situation
The ball was not controlled by the receiver. Per the rules he never established possession or control. The ball never hits the ground and the defender ends up with the ball. Interception


The Rams Bears situation- the receiver establishes possession is making a football move, knee is down.

That’s a catch and down by contact at that point

You may not agree with the nfl rule or definition of a catch - but those calls are per the rules


And yes - the Aaron Rodgers call was wrong - but so were 2 other calls in that game

I’m not defending the league or officiating, in general, just commenting on the two specific plays and calls

You will never convince me that Davante Adams made a football move, and that's the issue with that call.

[CKSteeler]

When we are adjudicating it based on these types of miniscule movements, then we may as well chuck replay out altogether because it's no less a judgement call than the officials' call on the field is.

I'm old enough to remember when they reinstated replay review in the late 90's and promised that the calls wouldn't come down to what it has obviously devolved into - slow-mo frame by frame bullshit. Replay was explicitly sold to the fans and media and skeptics in the league at the time as being a tool to fix obviously bad calls which is why we have the clear and obvious standard in the first place. That standard still technically exists on paper, but clearly means nothing besides the random occasions where they try to cite it to justify a particular decision. The game was also supposed to be in the hands of the refs on the field at the time.

All of this was really pushed openly and publicly when they put replay back into the league. But people have the memories of gold fish and we are two and a half decades or so past that.

[CKSteeler]

well then Rodgers was intercepted and so was the Rams receiver

the play is dead when he goes to ground unless he loses control so his analysis is wrong

You are not understanding what happened or the rule


The bills broncos situation
The ball was not controlled by the receiver. Per the rules he never established possession or control. The ball never hits the ground and the defender ends up with the ball. Interception


The Rams Bears situation- the receiver establishes possession is making a football move, knee is down.

That’s a catch and down by contact at that point

You may not agree with the nfl rule or definition of a catch - but those calls are per the rules


And yes - the Aaron Rodgers call was wrong - but so were 2 other calls in that game

I’m not defending the league or officiating, in general, just commenting on the two specific plays and calls

It's fine to defend this or that call overall and I know you may know someone who is supposed to be an expert on the rules...

But the plays you are citing were decided by the same person or supposed group of people using a process where the evidentiary standard is supposed to be "clear and obvious." So can you really sit here and tell me that the calls were so clear and obvious to where they can overturn some of them based on slow-mo frame by frame analysis? Because that's another aspect to this argument to me.

The Rodgers play wasn't a catch according to these interpretations of the rules, but was deemed to be one by the same group of people or the person who told us that Cooks play wasn't a catch and that the Bears play was.

This isn't how the process is supposed to work according to their own god damn rulebook.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Well we can all agree that the problem would be solved if they were just fucking consistent no matter what the rule is.

"Football move" is a term too subjective to be useful.

With the Balt touchdown, it was said he didn't make a football move. But if he were unguarded would he have to? Unguarded players spike or drop the ball all the time in the EZ once they have clearly established possession.

But if he were wide open and still caught the ball and held onto it, would the receiver need to make a useless performatice jete or Heisman pose just to convince the refs?

The fact that this issue is getting WORSE after the New York office involvement will only drive accusations of cheating for gamblers more. Even Collinsworth cringed when they called the Rams/Bears situation differently.

[Jobu]

"Football move" is a term too subjective to be useful.

So is “survive the ground”.
Two bullshit terms created by the league to delude the consumer into believing what they’re seeing, isn’t what they’re seeing.
WWE, NBA, NFL…sports entertainment!

[anpsteel]

well then Rodgers was intercepted and so was the Rams receiver

the play is dead when he goes to ground unless he loses control so his analysis is wrong

You are not understanding what happened or the rule


The bills broncos situation
The ball was not controlled by the receiver. Per the rules he never established possession or control. The ball never hits the ground and the defender ends up with the ball. Interception


The Rams Bears situation- the receiver establishes possession is making a football move, knee is down.

That’s a catch and down by contact at that point

You may not agree with the nfl rule or definition of a catch - but those calls are per the rules


And yes - the Aaron Rodgers call was wrong - but so were 2 other calls in that game

I’m not defending the league or officiating, in general, just commenting on the two specific plays and calls

You will never convince me that Davante Adams made a football move, and that's the issue with that call.

Fair enough. fwiw, the nfl has defined, extending the ball away from your body, as a football move. (This was the primary argument against the zay flowers call w the td they took off the board)

I am in complete agreement that the league has a serious issue regarding the inconsistency of calls- between crews and to a lesser extend, within the same game

[anpsteel]

well then Rodgers was intercepted and so was the Rams receiver

the play is dead when he goes to ground unless he loses control so his analysis is wrong

You are not understanding what happened or the rule


The bills broncos situation
The ball was not controlled by the receiver. Per the rules he never established possession or control. The ball never hits the ground and the defender ends up with the ball. Interception


The Rams Bears situation- the receiver establishes possession is making a football move, knee is down.

That’s a catch and down by contact at that point

You may not agree with the nfl rule or definition of a catch - but those calls are per the rules


And yes - the Aaron Rodgers call was wrong - but so were 2 other calls in that game

I’m not defending the league or officiating, in general, just commenting on the two specific plays and calls

It's fine to defend this or that call overall and I know you may know someone who is supposed to be an expert on the rules...

But the plays you are citing were decided by the same person or supposed group of people using a process where the evidentiary standard is supposed to be "clear and obvious." So can you really sit here and tell me that the calls were so clear and obvious to where they can overturn some of them based on slow-mo frame by frame analysis? Because that's another aspect to this argument to me.

The Rodgers play wasn't a catch according to these interpretations of the rules, but was deemed to be one by the same group of people or the person who told us that Cooks play wasn't a catch and that the Bears play was.

This isn't how the process is supposed to work according to their own god damn rulebook.

I am very clear on the inconsistency with the way the rules are applied, from crew to crew, and occasionally within a game.

You've likely seen that I am fairly convinced the league is rigged. This process wouldn't involve the players, coaches, or most of the officials.

It would take, the head official (Referee) and the individual in NY that rules on Review Calls.

I have two friends that have officiated at the nfl level. One was on the field (he's now retired) and another that is a current "on site" review official.

They will both discuss rules and calls- but when pressed, about inconsistency or issues, they both just shrug their shoulders.

It is very clear they don't want to talk about inconsistencies or issues.

I cant recall a time when either of them has openly admitted an nfl call was wrong. They'll just make a "I dunno" gesture and move on to a different topic

[anpsteel]

When we are adjudicating it based on these types of miniscule movements, then we may as well chuck replay out altogether because it's no less a judgement call than the officials' call on the field is.

I'm old enough to remember when they reinstated replay review in the late 90's and promised that the calls wouldn't come down to what it has obviously devolved into - slow-mo frame by frame bullshit. Replay was explicitly sold to the fans and media and skeptics in the league at the time as being a tool to fix obviously bad calls which is why we have the clear and obvious standard in the first place. That standard still technically exists on paper, but clearly means nothing besides the random occasions where they try to cite it to justify a particular decision. The game was also supposed to be in the hands of the refs on the field at the time.

All of this was really pushed openly and publicly when they put replay back into the league. But people have the memories of gold fish and we are two and a half decades or so past that.

I agree with you bit here is what I’ll add

With the technology we have today, could the league institute a policy and procedures that would insure 90% of the rules were uniformly applied and the calls correct?

I think the answer is yes


Could the league write the rules to be more clear and specific?

Definitely yes


So, Why don’t they?


Do you recall when they made pass interference a challengable call?

It made it worse. The calls were almost never overturned, irrespective of how “bad” the on field call was.


That was intentional, imo.


The intent was to create the public perception of, review makes it worse, and “look how difficult it is to properly identify”.

It’s all obfuscation, imo.

IF they wanted to fix it, they could and would

But they don’t

“It’s all entertainment.”

[.Kodiak]

I thought both calls were correct, and correct with how I understand the rules.

And the eye test - one clearly made a football move, or at least did something, whereas the other clearly does not and loses the ball as soon as contacting the ground.


There are plenty of calls to bitch about, these are not that.

[Stillerz Bar]

I think Joe Burrow can be classified as both fairly knowledgeable and "no dog in this fight" He ended his multi year Twitter/ X absence with the following

"The amount of ppl that don’t understand what a catch is in the rule book flabbergasts me. And it’s not the officials. The two plays yesterday were not difficult calls, and they got them both right,”

https://share.google/w65xD9nW5XIXCyUuY

[Dan Smith--BYU]

All of this appeal to authority ignores the fact that if the authority is correct, both Rodgers and Adams (Rams) were also intercepted but they weren't.

So Burrow is being a good company man but not logically consistent.

[Greeksteel]

I thought both calls were correct, and correct with how I understand the rules.

And the eye test - one clearly made a football move, or at least did something, whereas the other clearly does not and loses the ball as soon as contacting the ground.


There are plenty of calls to bitch about, these are not that.

100%

[Gonzo]

Here is what I don’t like about the INT call

it creates a situation where this stuff about football moves seems to now carry on through the tackle … even harder on a bang bang play and create even more discretion and ambiguity where common sense should prevail. The NFL IMO is purposely creating these grey areas

So when touched down … the play isn’t really over on a catch and quick tackle … the defender can now …. after they hit the ground down wrestle the ball out of a receivers hands during this undefined period of time. I would coach DBs to land on top of them and start pulling the ball … if several. Are there pile on and cover him up so ref can’t see

I do agree that if the receiver wasn’t in possession of the ball at all when he is touched down then it’s an INT … just like a bobble or hitting the ground untouched and the ball popping up in the air

This football move crap after a controlled ball has entered the end zone or with a downed player is an unduly cumbersome concept