(November 16, 2016 at 2:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Here's a photo that's been circulating the Internet since the play: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/will-par...ick-return
It's a tough call, bad angle, so yeah, I can understand why they didn't call it. However one thing you'll learn is that the refs suck and are always against whatever team you are cheering for.
About once a week, if not more, there are "blown calls" where the refs missed something or got something wrong that affected the game. They spent a lot of time last season arguing over what a "catch" was, after this happened: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highl...z-catch-it
If you rewatch the Broncos / Saints play and pause it at specific moments, you'll see Denver #31 leap over the line and gets himself in front of the ball as it is kicked, which causes it to ricochet to the left and is caught by Denver #34.
Right... well I'd vote too close to call on that even with the photos
Yeah, I did figure that that's what it looked like... that it looked like it basically just bounced off him, but I thought there might have been a pass in there somewhere too.As for the bad call, was that because the ball the receiver caught touched the ground just before the end zone? If so, then I'd accept the call being reversed. It's a tough one really isn't it: on the one hand you've got what what's technically correct, in light of video evidence etc, but on the other hand they did make a call and I take it what you mean is that this decision wasn't reversed until long after the game? In which case I'd understand the team being pissed off on a technicality. But nonetheless I think the only fair way is to go with the video evidence, even if it does mean reversing a call long after the game. How many times have England played and there been clear evidence after the fact that it was a bad call but nothing anyone could do about it? So I'm definitely in favour of calls being challengeable after the fact.
