I had had a few during the game and wasn't following the Game Day thread at the time.Deadskins wrote:Another bullsh:t replay call. You can't overturn the call on the field without visual evidence, which was non-existent because there was no contact after the catch.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
lol. I don't know about "fun", man. I was dying watching that game. I was really going to be pissed if the Seahawks won that the Skins had played *just* well enough to make me watch that entire game!!!SkinsJock wrote:what a lot of fun that 2nd half was for Redskins fans ...
I disagree completely.Deadskins wrote:The players contacted, then fell apart. After the separation, the interception was made. The Skins' player got up and returned the ball for another 15 yards. no contact was made after the ball was intercepted. Ruling on the field was interception and return. But after the replay, the call was changed to interception but down by contact. not sure who intercepted the ball, but it wasn't Compton. It seems like every game we have a replay where the call is either overturned or upheld, incorrectly, based on the replay. I'm just sick of it. I'm surprised the Cousins' "fumble" TD wasn't upheld.
I don't think the refs were out to get us, like they sometimes are, but you are totally incorrect about the down by contact thing. If the contact was made before the interception, then it doesn't apply as "down by contact." They never touched after the ball was caught. Dean Blandino said as much when he watched the replay. His only question was that from the one angle, it looked as if their feet may have touched after the catch. But from the other angle you could clearly see they did not. There was certainly not visual evidence to overturn the call on the field.DarthMonk wrote:I disagree completely.Deadskins wrote:The players contacted, then fell apart. After the separation, the interception was made. The Skins' player got up and returned the ball for another 15 yards. no contact was made after the ball was intercepted. Ruling on the field was interception and return. But after the replay, the call was changed to interception but down by contact. not sure who intercepted the ball, but it wasn't Compton. It seems like every game we have a replay where the call is either overturned or upheld, incorrectly, based on the replay. I'm just sick of it. I'm surprised the Cousins' "fumble" TD wasn't upheld.
Our interceptor was CLEARLY down by contact.
The interception was a process that began while contact was being made. This was an easy call that was blown by the refs live and corrected with replay.
I do agree that many calls have me shaking my head and asking "Why have replay?" but not this one. As soon as it happened I swigged my beer and said "That'll come back."
It did and correctly so.
BTW - It was Fuller.
I was honestly a bit worried about the Doctson catch at the end. Looked like the nose of the football might have been on the ground. Close. Glad it was ruled complete on the field.
I think the balance of the calls went our way in this one.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
You can say "But Fuller was B1" or some such thing but that is irrelevant.A.R. 7.7 Second-and-10 on A30. Both eligible offensive A1 and defensive B1 leap in the air to catch a forward pass
and collide during a legal attempt to catch ball on the 50. A1 controls the pass and falls to the ground.
Ruling: Ball is dead at spot. A’s ball first-and-10 on the 50
Well, then I certainly understand why Dean Blandino is no longer head of officiating for the NFL, because he disagreed with you when he stated that the contact had to be made during or after the catch. Your example does not clarify that no contact is made after the catch (the key word in the example case is "during"), as was the case last Sunday. I'll take Dean's word for it over yours, though.DarthMonk wrote:You are wrong Deadman - the clearly wrong call was correctly changed after replay review. Contact DID NOT have to be made AFTER the ball was secured.
This would be the relevant case from the Official NFL Rules Casebook:
You can say "But Fuller was B1" or some such thing but that is irrelevant.A.R. 7.7 Second-and-10 on A30. Both eligible offensive A1 and defensive B1 leap in the air to catch a forward pass
and collide during a legal attempt to catch ball on the 50. A1 controls the pass and falls to the ground.
Ruling: Ball is dead at spot. A’s ball first-and-10 on the 50
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Definitely not misquoting Dean. He made a point of the fact that the contact was made before the catch, and how that made the difference. He then said his only question was whether or not their feet contacted after the catch was made, which you could plainly see from the other replay that they did not. He also said that from his initial review he thought the play should be upheld as called on the field. I don't understand why you can't see how "contact during" differs from "contact before." As a "computer guy," I understand the basic logic difference between < and =>.DarthMonk wrote:You are just wrong bro.
Completely clarified by the casebook.
Can’t you read “during a legal attempt” and then use the basic logic any computer guy like you should be equipped with?
This completely eliminates any need for contact after the completion of the catch.
I also think you are miss quoting Blandino but I would need to hear the audio again.
Later.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Read the rule and watch the play.A.R. 7.7 Second-and-10 on A30. Both eligible offensive A1 and defensive B1 leap in the air to catch a forward pass
and collide during a legal attempt to catch ball on the 50. A1 controls the pass and falls to the ground.
Ruling: Ball is dead at spot. A’s ball first-and-10 on the 50
DarthMonk wrote:Admission is a sign of strength while sticking to your guns on this one shows weakness.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
