+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Catch that Wasn't a Catch (/thread-12501.html)
Pages:
1
2
Catch that Wasn't a Catch - GreenCornBengal - 09-15-2017
Does anyone have footage of the 'catch' that was reviewed and the play 'stood as called'
I was trying to find it for a friend and I could not find it anywhere!
We got screwed, as usual, and of course it kept the Texans moving on their only TD drive.
It doesn't surprise me when the calls don't go our way. It was a clear no catch.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - TKUHL - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:24 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Does anyone have footage of the 'catch' that was reviewed and the play 'stood as called'
I was trying to find it for a friend and I could not find it anywhere!
We got screwed, as usual, and of course it kept the Texans moving on their only TD drive.
It doesn't surprise me when the calls don't go our way. It was a clear no catch.
They ruled that he had control when it touched the ground. I thought it couldn't hit, but apparently if the receiver has control before it touches and the ground does not appear to aid in the catch, then it's a catch.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - PhilHos - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:26 PM)TKUHL Wrote: They ruled that he had control when it touched the ground. I thought it couldn't hit, but apparently if the receiver has control before it touches and the ground does not appear to aid in the catch, then it's a catch.
Yes if the ball touches but the player has clear control, it's still a catch. However, it looked to me as the ball moved after it touched the ground which I thought meant that it should be considered an incomplete catch.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Wyche'sWarrior - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes if the ball touches but the player has clear control, it's still a catch. However, it looked to me as the ball moved after it touched the ground which I thought meant that it should be considered an incomplete catch.
Yup.....and it was a good challenge by Marv.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - BoomerFan - 09-15-2017
Sorry I don't have the footage but yeah you gotta love how the ball bouncing off the turf is ruled a catch while the announcer ramble on about "strike zones". Oh please.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - GreenCornBengal - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:26 PM)TKUHL Wrote: They ruled that he had control when it touched the ground. I thought it couldn't hit, but apparently if the receiver has control before it touches and the ground does not appear to aid in the catch, then it's a catch.
Yes I understand the ruling, but there was no way he had control in the .5 seconds it was wiggling around in his arms.
Totally bogus call. You can't even 'establish' having the ball without making football moves or taking 3 steps and this guy 'has control' in about .5 seconds.
It was total bull.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Millhouse - 09-15-2017
I thought the ball had to be secure in the hands if it touches the ground. From what I remember, it wasnt secure in his hands but in his arm and hand. Then it clearly hit off the turf without a hand under it. I thought it was a bad review, and chuckled at how Chris & Mike T. were trying to cover it up.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - cinci4life - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:24 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Does anyone have footage of the 'catch' that was reviewed and the play 'stood as called'
I was trying to find it for a friend and I could not find it anywhere!
We got screwed, as usual, and of course it kept the Texans moving on their only TD drive.
It doesn't surprise me when the calls don't go our way. It was a clear no catch.
That wasn't a catch. Still can't believe it wasn't overturned.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - tenacious-B - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes if the ball touches but the player has clear control, it's still a catch. However, it looked to me as the ball moved after it touched the ground which I thought meant that it should be considered an incomplete catch.
Not sure if anyone else noticed it, but last night they showed an angle, I think from behind the WR, like from the Safety's perspective, and it clearly showed the ball move as it hit the ground...but then in conspiracy theory fashion, they did not show it again. They kept repeating the angle that made the catch/non-catch look fuzzy and inconclusive leading to the ref staying with what was called on the field. I'm calling fuggin' bullshit there.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - TKUHL - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:32 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Yes I understand the ruling, but there was no way he had control in the .5 seconds it was wiggling around in his arms.
Totally bogus call. You can't even 'establish' having the ball without making football moves or taking 3 steps and this guy 'has control' in about .5 seconds.
It was total bull.
Oh I completely agree. It should have been incomplete. The way the rules are being tweaked any play can have whatever outcome the refs want and still be "correct" it's total garbage and the league is getting to be a joke with their contradictory rules.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Sweetness - 09-15-2017
From my understanding the refs aren't allowed to zoom in like they did on TV which was when it became more clear it may not have been a catch. Without that zoom in ability I can sort of see why they couldn't say for certain it wasn't a catch.
I could be totally wrong at that which at that point the refs just suck.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Tomkat - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 05:14 PM)Sweetness Wrote: From my understanding the refs aren't allowed to zoom in like they did on TV which was when it became more clear it may not have been a catch. Without that zoom in ability I can sort of see why they couldn't say for certain it wasn't a catch.
I could be totally wrong at that which at that point the refs just suck.
Aren't allowed to zoom in?
Then what's the point of even having replay?
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - PhilHos - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 05:14 PM)Sweetness Wrote: From my understanding the refs aren't allowed to zoom in like they did on TV which was when it became more clear it may not have been a catch. Without that zoom in ability I can sort of see why they couldn't say for certain it wasn't a catch.
I could be totally wrong at that which at that point the refs just suck.
Aren't replays done in the booth now or something? Isn't the "replay official" that now makes that determination?
If so, why can't HE zoom in?
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Rattler - 09-15-2017
I've seen several wide open catches which were invalidated by horrendous throws from AD#14
![[Image: 4_3126192.jpg]](https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/192/126/4_3126192.jpg)
Alexander the Great
(vagina whisperer)
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - firstand10 - 09-15-2017
I thought it was incomplete also. But why it was overruled is because I thought on a challenge, the call has to show with clear evidence that the call was correct as the official saw it! However the officials in NEW YORK could'nt see clear evidence that the call was correct! My opinion, also I've noticed in the NFL that calls go to the team that is winning or has the momentum and that time! I maybe wrong, but, just an opinion!
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - corpjet - 09-15-2017
Do we ever win these type of calls?
Does anyone have ole Giggles record of challenging calls on the field during a game?
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - XenoMorph - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 04:24 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Does anyone have footage of the 'catch' that was reviewed and the play 'stood as called'
I was trying to find it for a friend and I could not find it anywhere!
We got screwed, as usual, and of course it kept the Texans moving on their only TD drive.
It doesn't surprise me when the calls don't go our way. It was a clear no catch.
it definitely hit the Ground... and then moved... WR did not have control
Speaking of Catches that were not catches..
WATCH THEM DAMN FEET EIFERT!!!!!
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - XenoMorph - 09-15-2017
(09-15-2017, 05:49 PM)corpjet Wrote: Do we ever win these type of calls?
Does anyone have ole Giggles record of challenging calls on the field during a game?
We don't... But even if you look up the record 1/2 those times we don't get the call on a challenge we should have. he was absolutely right to challenge that play.
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - GreenCornBengal - 09-15-2017
I'm bumping this because I REALLY want footage of this.
Did anyone record the game and have ability to make a video?
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Brimey - 09-15-2017
I'd care, and live at the game seemed like a non catch
BUT: That wouldn't have changed that the O stinks. Maybe we are better off long run with the humiliation of this defeat. Texans shad literally half a team