Pats destined for undefeated season (1 Viewer)

[NJ OAK]

What a joke. That was clearly not a catch. I hate the Eagles, but am rooting for them. What do you do when you realize even the refs want you to lose? I hope they come out fighting in the third Q.

 

[DawnBTVS]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

 

[NJ OAK]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

Not both feet and not one knee. Didn't look like a TD to me. Actually, not even that close.

 

[dgreen]

I don't see how this is debateable. It was a TD.

 

[jaxdolfan]

I don't see how this is debateable. It was a TD.

There is that whole, did he have/maintain control of the ball, etc. But to not even review it. His knee came down OOB before his foot came down inbounds? We'll never know. The MNF crew sure replayed it a bunch.

 

[munchkin]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

Not both feet and not one knee. Didn't look like a TD to me. Actually, not even that close.

Try Lasik....

 

[FFdork]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

Not both feet and not one knee. Didn't look like a TD to me. Actually, not even that close.

Try Lasik....

I agree that they should have taken a look to be sure, but the replay clearly showed he got both feet (or a foot and a shin) down.

 

[Nipsey]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

I'm sure they looked at it and like everyone else who saw one replay deemed it a good call.

 

[dgreen]

I don't see how this is debateable. It was a TD.

There is that whole, did he have/maintain control of the ball, etc. But to not even review it. His knee came down OOB before his foot came down inbounds? We'll never know. The MNF crew sure replayed it a bunch.

We'll never know? It was a TD and it isn't even a question in my mind.

 

[Das Boot]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

Not both feet and not one knee. Didn't look like a TD to me. Actually, not even that close.

Try Lasik....

I agree that they should have taken a look to be sure, but the replay clearly showed he got both feet (or a foot and a shin) down.

:( I was hoping it wasn't a TD... but it was.Good call.

 

[AllVolUT]

That was a phantom offensive PI call....gotta play both sides of the coin here fellas.

 

[nashua55]

Very weak call on Moss for pass interference in the endzone

 

[stbugs]

Very weak call on Moss for pass interference in the endzone

I can understand the arguments for reviewing the Gaffney play (although they had time to and that one perfect angle, so they probably did), but that was absolutely 100% a TD, no question about it.Also, the Moss PI was ridiculous. I think they are looking for it and when Sheppard kind of fell down, the back judge called it, when it clearly wasn't on replay. Both plays were obvious onced NBC replayed them a few times and should have netted them 14 instead of just 7. The Pats should have won by 10.The OP has started so many anti-Pats threads it is kind of silly now.

 

[Whizzinator]

I do think they should have reviewed the Gaffney catch.

I have 100% confidence they'd have affirmed the catch, however, both feet were clearly down and the ball did not move significantly as he rolled after the catch. Close enough to merit a review, but not only was there not enough to overturn it, the replay shows the call was definitely correct.

The Moss PI was embarassing and a product of his rep, I think. A well-deserved rep for pushing off, I might note...just one that in this particular case didn't merit a flag.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Moss PI call was impossible to tell from the replays we saw. They never showed a replay even close to what the ref who threw the flag would have seen. It looked like Moss gave a little push, which the ref probably saw, but it wasn't caught on camera. It was probably very subtle.

The Gaffney TD looked questionable. I have seen the replay ten times now, and I am still not sure. It should have been reviewed. Oh well.

 

[((Morpheus))]

I don't understand how somebody could watch the replay of the Gaffney catch and think it wasn't a TD.

And as a Pats homer, I guess a Moss offensive PI call was inevitable. He's been getting away with stiffarms in the endzone all year. Obviously the timing sucks, but it was a makeup for all of the other times he got away with it.

 

[The Ref]

What a joke. That was clearly not a catch. I hate the Eagles, but am rooting for them. What do you do when you realize even the refs want you to lose? I hope they come out fighting in the third Q.

:Reported:

 

[mektarus]

The Moss PI call was impossible to tell from the replays we saw. They never showed a replay even close to what the ref who threw the flag would have seen. It looked like Moss gave a little push, which the ref probably saw, but it wasn't caught on camera. It was probably very subtle.

The Gaffney TD looked questionable. I have seen the replay ten times now, and I am still not sure. It should have been reviewed. Oh well.

Passive-aggressive Patriot hater much?

 

[BassNBrew]

What a joke. That was clearly not a catch. I hate the Eagles, but am rooting for them. What do you do when you realize even the refs want you to lose? I hope they come out fighting in the third Q.

My four year old son gets upset and cries when he loses.

 

[Brutis]

What a joke. That was clearly not a catch. I hate the Eagles, but am rooting for them. What do you do when you realize even the refs want you to lose? I hope they come out fighting in the third Q.

My four year old son gets upset and cries when he loses.

 

[Max Power]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

 

[snogger]

It looked like Gaffney got both feet down (his right foot tapped the grass a split second before he slid out. You can see his calf sliding after) but even as a Pats fan, I was surprised the booth didn't at least review it.

Not both feet and not one knee. Didn't look like a TD to me. Actually, not even that close.

First.. it should have been reviewed. Same with last week when the booth didn't call for a review during the Titan game. Even the head of refs on NFL Network said the Titans play should have been reviewed.Saying that, I think the review would have held it as a TD.One thing to remember.. Lower leg = Knee = Two feet = TD.When watching the replay it was clear his leg from the foot up to just below the knee was on the ground Inbounds just before his knee hit out of bounds.

 

[stbugs]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

 

[Max Power]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I would hardly call the catch obvious. Different people see it different ways. Maybe I am missing something...when an Offical reviews happens, it is the Head Referee who makes the call to overturn or let stand correct? Not the booth.

 

[snogger]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call. They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all. They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

 

[dino259]

Is it up to the booth or the referee to review the play? The booth should be reviewing anything questionable right? I think it should have been reviewed. I agree, once you saw it on the replay it was no doubt a catch.

 

[twitch]

Is it up to the booth or the referee to review the play? The booth should be reviewing anything questionable right? I think it should have been reviewed. I agree, once you saw it on the replay it was no doubt a catch.

Guy musta been snoozin' on that one. Where was Jerry Jones when we needed him?

 

[[icon]]

Mods, Doesn't this belong in the official pats-haters whining thread (aka the asterisk thread)?

 

[stbugs]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

Your bolded statement is what I am talking about. The replay officials have to have some sort of decision making ability to decide if it should be reviewed. The review booth stops play on the field to start the review, so they have to be the ones deciding if it should be reviewed.Anyway, I think that we are underestimating the power, if you will, of the review booth. They have to be making some determination as the refs on the field do not start the review process. I have seen many TD catches that one could say are hard to tell from the fan angle that are never reviewed because they show one replay on TV and it seems obvious. I just think that the replay booth is replaying all of these the instant that they happen and determining if there is a review needed. Some may disagree, but after watching the corner endzone angle on TV of Gaffney's TD, it seemed like a no brainer IMHO.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

ETA: The replay booth may have made a mistake in not stopping play, but I think the conspiracy angle is silly. The NFL refs make mea culpas on plays called on field as well after the fact.

 

[tick dog]

i think the gafney play should have at least been looked at. i also think the moss PI call was B.S. even steven.

look, the refs are going to screw up from time to time. the pats got totally hosed in indy (not to echo bill simmons, who i don't even really like all that much, but this is just a fact, and anyone who doesn't think so wasn't watching that game) and now they might have benefitted from a non-call here with gafney. it all comes around and, hopefully, evens out in the end.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I hate the Pats and still think that it was the right call. Seems like they probably should have reviewed it, but the play would have been upheld regardless.

The bad no-call was on Brady's first down run in the 1st quarter. Matt Light was clearly holding the RDE (Cole I think). Cole would probably have gotten to Brady if Light wasn't standing behind him with his arm wrapped around his neck. It was an obvious hold right in front of an official in open space.

From the games I've seen, Light seems to be getting away with a lot of holding. He was hugely underated for quite a while, but I think he lost a step this year.

Either way, that loss can be pinned on Feeley for turning the ball over so many times. At the end of the game they were in FG range which would have at least tied it up when Feeley threw that INT. He had a nice game for a backup QB, but he ended up costing them their shot at a win.

 

[phthalatemagic]

That was a touchdown, but the fake offsides penalty that they should have called a false start can be attributed to the refs wanting the Pats to win. It's been the same sort of deal since 2001 though. Nothing new.

 

[tick dog]

That was a touchdown, but the fake offsides penalty that they should have called a false start can be attributed to the refs wanting the Pats to win. It's been the same sort of deal since 2001 though. Nothing new.

Riiiiight, just like they wanted them to win against Americas Golden Marketing Boy Peyton and Saint Dungy in Indy. Gimme a break.

 

[snogger]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

As I stated before. The Head of all Refs on NFL Network stated that the booth officials only job is to single for a review if there is any question at all inside of two minutes and the play should be reviewed. There was some question there as even the refs got together to discuss it meaning it should have been reviewed.The other thing you see is that after the head Ref goes "under the hood" to review the play, he will confer with the Booth on where the ball should be spotted and what the game clock should be set to.

 

[phthalatemagic]

That was a touchdown, but the fake offsides penalty that they should have called a false start can be attributed to the refs wanting the Pats to win. It's been the same sort of deal since 2001 though. Nothing new.

Riiiiight, just like they wanted them to win against Americas Golden Marketing Boy Peyton and Saint Dungy in Indy. Gimme a break.

toxic waste

 

[tick dog]

That was a touchdown, but the fake offsides penalty that they should have called a false start can be attributed to the refs wanting the Pats to win. It's been the same sort of deal since 2001 though. Nothing new.

Riiiiight, just like they wanted them to win against Americas Golden Marketing Boy Peyton and Saint Dungy in Indy. Gimme a break.

toxic waste

nice rebuttal. well played, in a "taking my ball and going home" kinda way.look, there's no conspiracy to help the pats....if anything, they're only the most hated team in america right now. and you honestly think the refs WANT them to win? that's just crazy talk. and i'm not even a pats fan (giants, unfortunately).

 

[stbugs]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

As I stated before. The Head of all Refs on NFL Network stated that the booth officials only job is to single for a review if there is any question at all inside of two minutes and the play should be reviewed. There was some question there as even the refs got together to discuss it meaning it should have been reviewed.The other thing you see is that after the head Ref goes "under the hood" to review the play, he will confer with the Booth on where the ball should be spotted and what the game clock should be set to.

OK, well then I could see where they watched the corner of the end zone shot and felt there was no question about it. Don't you think they quickly watch replays of any close TD catch? Well, no one here can dispute that every single close TD catch is reviewed so why is this play any different. I for one thought he was out of bounds from the live play, so I can see where the on field officials may have wanted to confer. I can also see from the replays that it was obvious that he got both feet down in bounds. I think it is reasonable to think that while the on field officials had to confirm it that during that time the replay officials felt there was NO question that he was in bounds. Other than the silly posters, everyone one here has said that after watching the reviews on NBC, it was a TD, so why is it not reasonable to think the replay booth had no doubts? It seemed like the catch itself was easy to call, but the in bounds was harder. Well, watching that replay, he got both feet in well before the end line.Again, the replay booth probably should have reviewed it, but I can see with that one angle that they would feel it was unecessary as it would in no way have been overturned.

 

[stbugs]

That was a touchdown, but the fake offsides penalty that they should have called a false start can be attributed to the refs wanting the Pats to win. It's been the same sort of deal since 2001 though. Nothing new.

Were you watching the game? I am pretty sure that Madden/Michaels were correct when they said that because Brady was in shotgun formation he can move any way he wants. Brady was not under center, so he can do any type of motion he wants. If Brady did the head bob under center, it is a false start, but he wasn't, so it isn't.

 

[trader jake]

Most Patriot threads = a bunch of nonsense

 

[phthalatemagic]

That was a touchdown, but the fake offsides penalty that they should have called a false start can be attributed to the refs wanting the Pats to win. It's been the same sort of deal since 2001 though. Nothing new.

Riiiiight, just like they wanted them to win against Americas Golden Marketing Boy Peyton and Saint Dungy in Indy. Gimme a break.

toxic waste

nice rebuttal. well played, in a "taking my ball and going home" kinda way.look, there's no conspiracy to help the pats....if anything, they're only the most hated team in america right now. and you honestly think the refs WANT them to win? that's just crazy talk. and i'm not even a pats fan (giants, unfortunately).

Sorry man. I didn't mean to appear I was rebutting your statement. I was just labeling toxic waste posts as toxic waste. No worries!

 

[snogger]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

As I stated before. The Head of all Refs on NFL Network stated that the booth officials only job is to single for a review if there is any question at all inside of two minutes and the play should be reviewed. There was some question there as even the refs got together to discuss it meaning it should have been reviewed.The other thing you see is that after the head Ref goes "under the hood" to review the play, he will confer with the Booth on where the ball should be spotted and what the game clock should be set to.

OK, well then I could see where they watched the corner of the end zone shot and felt there was no question about it. Don't you think they quickly watch replays of any close TD catch? Well, no one here can dispute that every single close TD catch is reviewed so why is this play any different. I for one thought he was out of bounds from the live play, so I can see where the on field officials may have wanted to confer. I can also see from the replays that it was obvious that he got both feet down in bounds. I think it is reasonable to think that while the on field officials had to confirm it that during that time the replay officials felt there was NO question that he was in bounds. Other than the silly posters, everyone one here has said that after watching the reviews on NBC, it was a TD, so why is it not reasonable to think the replay booth had no doubts? It seemed like the catch itself was easy to call, but the in bounds was harder. Well, watching that replay, he got both feet in well before the end line.Again, the replay booth probably should have reviewed it, but I can see with that one angle that they would feel it was unecessary as it would in no way have been overturned.

I'm just going with what was said last week after the Titans "non-catch" wasn't reviewed.

In his mind it probably would have been reversed had the Booth official done his job and signaled for a Review.

He said it was a mistake by the booth official not to signal for a review.

He said "It is not his job to determine if it was a catch or not, his job is to decide if there is any question at all and if so let the head ref on the field make the call".

Going off that, there is no doubt in my mind the Booth official will be called out again if they review it on NFL Network.

my

 

[stbugs]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

As I stated before. The Head of all Refs on NFL Network stated that the booth officials only job is to single for a review if there is any question at all inside of two minutes and the play should be reviewed. There was some question there as even the refs got together to discuss it meaning it should have been reviewed.The other thing you see is that after the head Ref goes "under the hood" to review the play, he will confer with the Booth on where the ball should be spotted and what the game clock should be set to.

OK, well then I could see where they watched the corner of the end zone shot and felt there was no question about it. Don't you think they quickly watch replays of any close TD catch? Well, no one here can dispute that every single close TD catch is reviewed so why is this play any different. I for one thought he was out of bounds from the live play, so I can see where the on field officials may have wanted to confer. I can also see from the replays that it was obvious that he got both feet down in bounds. I think it is reasonable to think that while the on field officials had to confirm it that during that time the replay officials felt there was NO question that he was in bounds. Other than the silly posters, everyone one here has said that after watching the reviews on NBC, it was a TD, so why is it not reasonable to think the replay booth had no doubts? It seemed like the catch itself was easy to call, but the in bounds was harder. Well, watching that replay, he got both feet in well before the end line.Again, the replay booth probably should have reviewed it, but I can see with that one angle that they would feel it was unecessary as it would in no way have been overturned.

I'm just going with what was said last week after the Titans "non-catch" wasn't reviewed.

In his mind it probably would have been reversed had the Booth official done his job and signaled for a Review.

He said it was a mistake by the booth official not to signal for a review.

He said "It is not his job to determine if it was a catch or not, his job is to decide if there is any question at all and if so let the head ref on the field make the call".

Going off that, there is no doubt in my mind the Booth official will be called out again if they review it on NFL Network.

my

I understand. I am not sure what the Titans play was, as I only remember the Vince Young thing which was reviewed, but I think that was a coach's challenge. Anyway, I think in this case it may not be called out because IMHO, it wasn't close to being overturned. I liken it to a catch when the WR touches both feet in bounds and while at first there might have been a question, after a single review there wasn't. I don't think that this play would have been such a big deal if it weren't the Pats in a close game. If the Titans call was one where the review would have overturned the call on the field, then I think that case is completely different than Gaffney's play. Most everyone in the Pats thread said that the Gaffney call wouldn't have been overturned, so I can see where that was a play that the replay booth looked at and decided that it really wasn't questionable and worth reviewing.

 

[Sinners]

The Gaffney catch was a TD, but if it were most other teams, they would of taken a look at it to make sure.

Anybody who said the Moss PI call was an obvious BS call, is a moron. Not a single replay that we were shown actually showed the play. They were all panning in from other locations and only got there after the catch was made. Gimme a break you band wagon hopping homers! I hate you 'non-football fan' fans.

 

[porkins]

The Gaffney catch was a TD, but if it were most other teams, they would of taken a look at it to make sure.Anybody who said the Moss PI call was an obvious BS call, is a moron. Not a single replay that we were shown actually showed the play. They were all panning in from other locations and only got there after the catch was made. Gimme a break you band wagon hopping homers! I hate you 'non-football fan' fans.

Somebody needs a hug.

 

[mad sweeney]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

As I stated before. The Head of all Refs on NFL Network stated that the booth officials only job is to single for a review if there is any question at all inside of two minutes and the play should be reviewed. There was some question there as even the refs got together to discuss it meaning it should have been reviewed.The other thing you see is that after the head Ref goes "under the hood" to review the play, he will confer with the Booth on where the ball should be spotted and what the game clock should be set to.

OK, well then I could see where they watched the corner of the end zone shot and felt there was no question about it. Don't you think they quickly watch replays of any close TD catch? Well, no one here can dispute that every single close TD catch is reviewed so why is this play any different. I for one thought he was out of bounds from the live play, so I can see where the on field officials may have wanted to confer. I can also see from the replays that it was obvious that he got both feet down in bounds. I think it is reasonable to think that while the on field officials had to confirm it that during that time the replay officials felt there was NO question that he was in bounds. Other than the silly posters, everyone one here has said that after watching the reviews on NBC, it was a TD, so why is it not reasonable to think the replay booth had no doubts? It seemed like the catch itself was easy to call, but the in bounds was harder. Well, watching that replay, he got both feet in well before the end line.Again, the replay booth probably should have reviewed it, but I can see with that one angle that they would feel it was unecessary as it would in no way have been overturned.

I'm just going with what was said last week after the Titans "non-catch" wasn't reviewed.

In his mind it probably would have been reversed had the Booth official done his job and signaled for a Review.

He said it was a mistake by the booth official not to signal for a review.

He said "It is not his job to determine if it was a catch or not, his job is to decide if there is any question at all and if so let the head ref on the field make the call".

Going off that, there is no doubt in my mind the Booth official will be called out again if they review it on NFL Network.

my

I understand. I am not sure what the Titans play was, as I only remember the Vince Young thing which was reviewed, but I think that was a coach's challenge. Anyway, I think in this case it may not be called out because IMHO, it wasn't close to being overturned. I liken it to a catch when the WR touches both feet in bounds and while at first there might have been a question, after a single review there wasn't. I don't think that this play would have been such a big deal if it weren't the Pats in a close game. If the Titans call was one where the review would have overturned the call on the field, then I think that case is completely different than Gaffney's play. Most everyone in the Pats thread said that the Gaffney call wouldn't have been overturned, so I can see where that was a play that the replay booth looked at and decided that it really wasn't questionable and worth reviewing.

The Titans play would've been overturned and could very well have led to at least a FG before the half. Big mistake, but also the Titans ran a play pretty quickly IIRC. THe replay booth is not supposed to decide the call but they do have the discretion to not replay it if it's clear to them that it won't be overturned. And this one wouldn't be overturned, they have twice this year ruled that leg parts above the feet (calf, shin) count a player as down just like 2 feet would. They chose not to review it based on the fact that it was clearly a TD. I know there's a gray line as to where the replay booth's opinion comes into it, but if it's clearly a TD there's no need to replay it even if it's close. We'll see what Perreria says on Wednesday. I would love for that segment to be longer, or even give him a whole show to better educate us on how and why penalties are called or not called.

 

[snogger]

Gaffney Looked like he got both feet down before his knee hit out of the endzone. However, I did think the ball moved once he hit the ground. Was that enough to overturn it? Who knows. Regardless, it should have been reviewed.

I still don't get this. Why do people think it wasn't even looked at? There was a little refs conference, so why is it not feasible that the replay booth had time to look at the corner of the end zone angle and decided there was no need to stop play. I would assume that the replay booth is replaying plays all the time during the 2 minute period with no coach challenges.

Personally, I didn't see the ball move at all and it was obvious the first time we saw the "good" angle that he got both feet in bounds, so I think a replay official could have looked at that one time and decided no need for a full review.

I'm 99.9% sure that if this play is brought up with the head Ref on NFL Network this week he will say it should have at least been reviewed. As he said last week on NFL Network, the booth personal are not the ones that should be making the call.

They are suppose to call for review inside of two minutes If there is any question at all.

They are not suppose to make the decision on if it is a catch or not, just whether the head Official should look at it.

By the way, does anyone know 100% that the replay officials in the booth do not make the final call or play a big part in it? It seems to me that after reviews spotting the ball, you see the on field refs listening to something while no longer looking at the TV screens, which to me seems to signal that the replay officials are determining something and do tell the on field officials what to do. I seem to remember some football game where they went into the booth and I could have sworn that it seemed like the guys in the booth might make more decisions than some here might want to think they do.

As I stated before. The Head of all Refs on NFL Network stated that the booth officials only job is to single for a review if there is any question at all inside of two minutes and the play should be reviewed. There was some question there as even the refs got together to discuss it meaning it should have been reviewed.The other thing you see is that after the head Ref goes "under the hood" to review the play, he will confer with the Booth on where the ball should be spotted and what the game clock should be set to.

OK, well then I could see where they watched the corner of the end zone shot and felt there was no question about it. Don't you think they quickly watch replays of any close TD catch? Well, no one here can dispute that every single close TD catch is reviewed so why is this play any different. I for one thought he was out of bounds from the live play, so I can see where the on field officials may have wanted to confer. I can also see from the replays that it was obvious that he got both feet down in bounds. I think it is reasonable to think that while the on field officials had to confirm it that during that time the replay officials felt there was NO question that he was in bounds. Other than the silly posters, everyone one here has said that after watching the reviews on NBC, it was a TD, so why is it not reasonable to think the replay booth had no doubts? It seemed like the catch itself was easy to call, but the in bounds was harder. Well, watching that replay, he got both feet in well before the end line.Again, the replay booth probably should have reviewed it, but I can see with that one angle that they would feel it was unecessary as it would in no way have been overturned.

I'm just going with what was said last week after the Titans "non-catch" wasn't reviewed.

In his mind it probably would have been reversed had the Booth official done his job and signaled for a Review.

He said it was a mistake by the booth official not to signal for a review.

He said "It is not his job to determine if it was a catch or not, his job is to decide if there is any question at all and if so let the head ref on the field make the call".

Going off that, there is no doubt in my mind the Booth official will be called out again if they review it on NFL Network.

my

I understand. I am not sure what the Titans play was, as I only remember the Vince Young thing which was reviewed, but I think that was a coach's challenge. Anyway, I think in this case it may not be called out because IMHO, it wasn't close to being overturned. I liken it to a catch when the WR touches both feet in bounds and while at first there might have been a question, after a single review there wasn't. I don't think that this play would have been such a big deal if it weren't the Pats in a close game. If the Titans call was one where the review would have overturned the call on the field, then I think that case is completely different than Gaffney's play. Most everyone in the Pats thread said that the Gaffney call wouldn't have been overturned, so I can see where that was a play that the replay booth looked at and decided that it really wasn't questionable and worth reviewing.

The Titans play would've been overturned and could very well have led to at least a FG before the half. Big mistake, but also the Titans ran a play pretty quickly IIRC. THe replay booth is not supposed to decide the call but they do have the discretion to not replay it if it's clear to them that it won't be overturned. And this one wouldn't be overturned, they have twice this year ruled that leg parts above the feet (calf, shin) count a player as down just like 2 feet would. They chose not to review it based on the fact that it was clearly a TD. I know there's a gray line as to where the replay booth's opinion comes into it, but if it's clearly a TD there's no need to replay it even if it's close. We'll see what Perreria says on Wednesday. I would love for that segment to be longer, or even give him a whole show to better educate us on how and why penalties are called or not called.

Best reason to watch on Wednesdays

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Moss PI call was impossible to tell from the replays we saw. They never showed a replay even close to what the ref who threw the flag would have seen. It looked like Moss gave a little push, which the ref probably saw, but it wasn't caught on camera. It was probably very subtle.

The Gaffney TD looked questionable. I have seen the replay ten times now, and I am still not sure. It should have been reviewed. Oh well.

Passive-aggressive Patriot hater much?

Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I guess a hit-and-run post like yours take a lot less brain power than actually addressing the points made in my post, as well as those of others, doesn't it?

 

[Sinners]

The Gaffney catch was a TD, but if it were most other teams, they would of taken a look at it to make sure.Anybody who said the Moss PI call was an obvious BS call, is a moron. Not a single replay that we were shown actually showed the play. They were all panning in from other locations and only got there after the catch was made. Gimme a break you band wagon hopping homers! I hate you 'non-football fan' fans.

Somebody needs a hug.

You need to quit being a band wagon hopping homer.

 

[North]

Saw a replay of the catch and he did have COMPLETE control and his second toe touched a split second before his knee.

I agree it should have been reviewed but even if it was they wouldn't have changed the call, because the call was correct. No conspiracy, just a great catch!

P.S. Sinners, how do you know he's a bandwagoner? Thats such a cheap put down. To call people bandwagon fans because their view is different than yours? Sounds like you do need a hug.

I agree with you that the Moss call was inconclusive in that there was no angle on the replays, but to "hate" people based on their football opinion?

 

[porkins]

The Gaffney catch was a TD, but if it were most other teams, they would of taken a look at it to make sure.Anybody who said the Moss PI call was an obvious BS call, is a moron. Not a single replay that we were shown actually showed the play. They were all panning in from other locations and only got there after the catch was made. Gimme a break you band wagon hopping homers! I hate you 'non-football fan' fans.

Somebody needs a hug.

You need to quit being a band wagon hopping homer.

If having season tickets for the past 10 years make me a band-wagon hopper, than so be it.Moss didn't appear to get full extention of his arms on the defender, which is what it usually takes to warrant a call there.Gaffney's right foot left a divot in the endzone. I'd say that would be enough evidence that he got his feet down.