nelms Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 If anyone knows why the pass to Coles wasn't a reception, please explain it to me. I'm so pissed right now that I can't think straight. Isn't clear possession of the ball in your hands and two feet in bounds conisdered a reception? Coles actually had three feet in bounds. Either I the dumbest motherf*cker in the world or the refs are once again trying to screw us. Please help me out before I lose my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 It was a reception, check out the thread: "We just got..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 You are ok. The zebras are either biased, completely incompetent or both. My vote is for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 That call should raise some flags this week. They may be QUIET flags and we may not hear of the result, but I'll bet next week EVERY ref in every game knows what to do in the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 it was clear on the replay that Coles already had possession of the ball and was in fac extending his arm out to try and ensure he got the first down. with the arm extended it fell out of his hand when he hit the ground. Simms and the officials were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 There's no doubt it was reception. I'd bet money that we'll get an apology from the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEastNCFan Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by CrankyTodd I'd bet money that we'll get an apology from the league. Yay, and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt. You'll never hear another thing about this from the officials. One because it didn't cost us the game, and two, I'm starting to feel a resentfulness from the refs. when it comes to the skins. The last you'll hear will be on ESPN tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by CrankyTodd There's no doubt it was reception. I'd bet money that we'll get an apology from the league. You might be right, but if there is an apology from the league, it will be done quietly. Btw, Greg Gumbel and Phil Simms are two of the worst football anouncers I've ever had the displeasure to listen to. And to think they're the #1 team on CBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by nelms You might be right, but if there is an apology from the league, it will be done quietly. Btw, Greg Gumbel and Phil Simms are two of the worst football anouncers I've ever had the displeasure to listen to. And to think they're the #1 team on CBS. Yeah they butchered Ohalete and Jimoh's names several times. Thankfully were not on CBS much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 If there is NOT an explanation forthcoming in the next day or two, I guarantee you I'll be writing to the league on this one. I'm no rules expert, and I've found that more often than not the zebras turn out to be "right" based on the arcane way some of the rules are written ... but on this one, I'm honestly trying to figure out what they were thinking. Not up to wading throught the rule book at the moment, becaused my adrenaline is still coursing through my alcohol-besotted blood, but I will if somebody who knows the EXACT rule clause that let the call stand doesn't explain it to me by about this time tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by Om If there is NOT an explanation forthcoming in the next day or two, I guarantee you I'll be writing to the league on this one. Amen brother. I might even write a little nasty-gram myself. I should be happy with the win and the fact that we're 3-1. But, I just can't get that call out of my mind. It was either incompetence or bias. Either one is un-excusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonjeff Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 What's the email address guys? That was the poorest call I have seen in ages. Coles clearly had three steps before going out of bounds, had clear possesion, and dropped the ball after hitting the ground. That call could have cost us a victory. At the time, I thought it would. Bullsh*t, flat out bullsh*t! If that wasen't a catch, then why was David Carr given a touchdown on the final play of the Texans-Jags game? He clearly had the ball when he crossed the goaline, but had it knocked away before hitting the ground. Now I'm not stupid, I know the rule concerning the endzone line, but what's the difference. Coles did the same damm thing. This call has to be addresed. It was wrong, and the league needs to say it was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 As far as I know the rules, this was a catch. The fact is Coles lost possesion out of bounds. The problem is the officals incorrectly viewed that he did not complete the possesion because he did not bring the ball into his body. I guarrantee if Coles brought the ball into his body while falling out of bounds and then lost possession, it would have ruled a catch......BS....but it didn't cost a win, and thats what is really important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 The moment the ball touch the ground out of bounds the play should have been over. With the control he showed before going out of bounds, I feel quite confident it should have been a catch. It was never bobbled. He got at least 3 feet clearly down. I'd certainly like to hear the ruling that states this was incomplete as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I can't explain it. I can understand - maybe - the belief by the ref on the initial call at full speed without replay that Coles might have been bobbling the ball. Hands catches can be deceptive that way, and the ball came out when he hit the ground as you'd expect it to if he didn't have control. There's no excuse for the replay crew, however. On review, on any angle you like, Coles had the catch, had total control over the football, and got both feet in. There was simply no other reasonable interpretation, and it was more than adequate to overrule the on-field call. That was a potentially game-changing call. A first down there and we ice the game; otherwise we punt to the Pats with almost 2 mins left with an opportunity to drive only 20 yards to kick a tying FG, or 50-60 yards to win. They need to pull their heads out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Good thing our defense stiffened there on that last possession. Let's give them some credit for overcoming a potentially disastrous call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Despite not playing a particularly good game, this is what good teams do. They overcome bad calls. We haven't seen that in a while. Usually we fold. So far, we have three character wins. The first we won despite a punch in the mouth toughness game with the Jets. The nwe came back big and won. Now we win despite not playing our best and having the refs give a potentially lethal miscall (if it was a miscall). Simms thought it was the right call, but I still don't understand why. Evidently Spurrier didn't either in teh post game conference. All three of these wins have been impressive in that the Skins won dispite the normal things that have sunk them for the past decade. Let's face it; we've spent a decade losing these games. Who was it that said "First we win. Then we get good."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Guys, please stop even acknowledging the presence of a legitimate doubt. There is NO rule in the book that says that isn't a catch. I'm sorry, it's not your fault, but I'm offended that some of you don't take that call at face value. It was an absolute abomination. I could write another essay on where the confusion occured and why the IDIOT ref thought the ruling on the field was justified, but it's not really necessary. The call was blown. I'd stake my life on it. The officials applied the Bert Emmanuel rule where the Bert Emmanuel rule doesn't apply. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 The more we discuss this blown call, the more pissed I get. I am extremely happy we won and have a 3-1 record. But, a call like this in a another game could translate into a loss. Something needs to be done about the quality of refereeing in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Just a guess, but I've seen similar rulings in other games this year, so it might be a new rule about "posession" when going out of bounds. I believe the rule now states that the reciever must maintain posession of the ball after he hits the ground, unless the ball is tucked away with a few steps taken. This is not based on anything I've heard, simply a result of watching many games on NFL sunday ticket. This ruling is consistant with many rulings I have seen this year. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Atleast they weren't as bad as last week's refs, who were looking at the day clock instead of the time of time clock and stopped the game for 5 minutes because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 DB, I'm not aware of such a rule. Can you point me to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 No DB, what you're seeing is refs overthinking and applying the Bert Emmanuel rule to situations where is does not apply. Sorry, but I'm not going to let that view slide, there's no chance of it being true. It's obvious enough what's going on. Refs should be a lot smarter and more intuitive than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 For what it is worth, the analysts watching at ESPN seem to be unanimous that it WAS A CATCH. http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=375 It's a long chat. Just search on "Coles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyGator Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Why is the rule named after Bert Emmanuel? What did Bert do to deserve this? To me applying that rule in this sense is the same as saying the ground can cause a fumble. BTW, I know where Ref Tom White lives. He's an acquaintance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.