[Phils20]

About the td, he said it was so close that if he was the ref, he would

have had to go with how it was called on the field. Had it been originally called incomplete, he would have had to go with that.

What a CS way to call that one.

As far as the holding goes, I'll agree with ya on that one, having seen it again.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Phils20

About the td, he said it was so close that if he was the ref, he would


What a CS way to call that one.

As far as the holding goes, I'll agree with ya on that one, having seen it again.

No its not. The rule is that there has to be clear, visual undisputable evidence to over turn the call. You could argue that he had control, because he had fingertip control and was not bobbling. By the very same token, you could argue he didnt have control because it was fingertip. No other way they could do it, the call had to stand.

[Phils20]

Originally Posted by Bette

No its not. The rule is that there has to be clear, visual undisputable evidence to over turn the call. You could argue that he had control, because he had fingertip control and was not bobbling. By the very same token, you could argue he didnt have control because it was fingertip. No other way they could do it, the call had to stand.

And my point is still that it wasn't a catch. And to say thay you would have backed the ref either way is riding the fence on the issue. The official has to make a stand one way or the other. It's a catch or it isn't.

I would still have disagreed, since i feel it wasn't a catch, but that rep for the officials is a what I call a "corporate hack". Someone who won't take a stand.

You just can't look at that play and not have an opinion. I feel he is not being honest. And why not??? CS call. It is either a catch or it isn't. Replay is supposed to get it right. That is not some obstructed replay. It clearly shows everyting in question. You have to get the call right.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Bette

No its not. The rule is that there has to be clear, visual undisputable evidence to over turn the call. You could argue that he had control, because he had fingertip control and was not bobbling. By the very same token, you could argue he didnt have control because it was fingertip. No other way they could do it, the call had to stand.

Even though I am a Pat's fan and the call was in their favor I agree with how you see it Bette. There was no clear cut evidence he didn't have control of it. It's that shadow of a doubt theory.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Phils20

About the td, he said it was so close that if he was the ref, he would

What a CS way to call that one.

As far as the holding goes, I'll agree with ya on that one, having seen it again.

The whole response is irrelevant anyway. Since there is now a method in place to demand a review of the play, opinions seem to amount to nothing. It seems like he caught the ball but may not have had complete control but at the same time it was not out of control. The only person making a CS call would be the one agreeing with the ref. The ref had to decide if the ball was in his possession, it was (he was not fumbling the ball and he didn't drop it) and he had both feet inbounds.

If it is Mike Pereira that you feel is making the CS call .. I just don't get it. He's only agreeing with the on the spot call and the final review.