Mike Pereira looks Patriots vs. Ravens game.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-06-2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Nevfer lose contact? During his next step the ball bounced up and hit him in the chest as he tucked it away???? Bounced off of both hands... NOt in control.

I dont know what video you're looking at. Once his feet touch, both his hands are on the ball. The bigger picture here is did he have enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. That answer is a clear no and we would want that same consideration.

Typically, officials watch the hands. Once the hands have contact to the ball, they glance down at the feet. It's a bang-bang play, taking 1/4 of a second. When I ref, I do the opposite. I glance down at the feet, then peek up to see possession. It's personal preference.

**jonboy79** · 12-06-2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I dont know what video you're looking at. Once his feet touch, both his hands are on the ball. The bigger picture here is did he have enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. That answer is a clear no and we would want that same consideration.

Typically, officials watch the hands. Once the hands have contact to the ball, they glance down at the feet. It's a bang-bang play, taking 1/4 of a second. When I ref, I do the opposite. I glance down at the feet, then peek up to see possession. It's personal preference.

THen watch it again. I agree he has two hands on it when his feet were down, the thing is he bobbled it trying to secure it from that point forward. He did not maintain ccontinuous control. I agree that it would have been hard to call it incomplete on the field, and since it wasn't it'd be hard to overturn it, but that doesn't mena the right call was made.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-06-2007, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

THen watch it again. I agree he has two hands on it when his feet were down, the thing is he bobbled it trying to secure it from that point forward. He did not maintain ccontinuous control. I agree that it would have been hard to call it incomplete on the field, and since it wasn't it'd be hard to overturn it, but that doesn't mena the right call was made.

By "right call", I mean the end decision was the right one. if you and are having this much debate, then that only proves that the on field call needed to be upheld.

I would almost guarantee that side ref was looking feet first then glanced up to confirm posession. I would also guarantee thats what he told the head ref before he went under the hood.

**jonboy79** · 12-06-2007, 02:27 PM

If the call were incomplete on the field do you think they would have overturned it in the booth? Do you think the evidence is clear enough to show a completion? If so then that is where we break down.

**4G63** · 12-06-2007, 02:50 PM

You guys that are bitching about Gaffney not having control really need to look at the overall picture; We got the ball back quicker because of it. Remember, Bart got his thong in a bunch on that play and it would have given the ball back to the Pats at the 4yd line! Would you be bitching like little girls if it was Mason making the SAME catch in the same context of the game? HELL NO! It doesn't change anything at this point so you're all arguing over semantics.......The Pats would have gotten the ball on the ~4yd line if it was overturned and they would have taken their sweet time on those 4 downs!!!

**HoustonRaven** · 12-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

If the call were incomplete on the field do you think they would have overturned it in the booth?

No. Like I said, the review did not show conclusive envidence so any call on the field would have stood.

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Do you think the evidence is clear enough to show a completion? If so then that is where we break down.

Yes. If I was reffing that game, it's a catch. Once I saw the receiver make a move for the ball, I would have checked his feet and once they both came down, I would have then looked up to see two hands on the ball as he falls out of bounds. Now another ref may have checked hands first and that may be a different call. Again, the process refs take is personal preference. Some watch feet first, some watch hands first.

**crazyraven** · 12-06-2007, 03:56 PM

You guys that are bitching about Gaffney not having control really need to look at the overall picture; We got the ball back quicker because of it.

I'm beside myself that someone would take the stance of; so what, let them score--especially with the ravens offense. The call was wrong. I don't care if it was the first quarter with 14 minutes still on the clock. That WR was bobbling the ball. Why would anyone want to give an opposing offense anything, TD or FG? Why, So we can see our putrid and erratic offense take the field, especially with not knowing which one will show up from quarter to quarter? You trust our two minute offense? Our best offense has been and will continue to be our defense, has the defense struggled, yes but I'd rather go to war with Ray and the defense than with the inconsistency we have seen from the offense and the offensive coaching staff over the last decade.

**4G63** · 12-06-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by crazyraven

I'm beside myself that someone would take the stance of; so what, let them score--especially with the ravens offense. The call was wrong. I don't care if it was the first quarter with 14 minutes still on the clock. That WR was bobbling the ball. Why would anyone want to give an opposing offense anything, TD or FG? Why, So we can see our putrid and erratic offense take the field, especially with not knowing which one will show up from quarter to quarter? You trust our two minute offense? Our best offense has been and will continue to be our defense, has the defense struggled, yes but I'd rather go to war with Ray and the defense than with the inconsistency we have seen from the offense and the offensive coaching staff over the last decade.

If they overturned the play and gave the ball back to the Patriots at the 4, just as sure as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, they were going to get a TD. The 'D' had numerous letdowns that drive and I think you'll agree that the Pats are pretty good in the Redzone and would have scored on that drive......but maybe not so WTF do I know......

I'm sure this will come up in when the competition committee meets, but as of now the NFL deemed it a catch so why cry over spilled milk. The Ravens gave away a game they were dominating, not just on that play, but numerous times that quarter. Both on offense and defense!

**Greg** · 12-06-2007, 06:10 PM

You trust our two minute offense?

Actually, we have managed some decent 2 minute drives, like against Cleveland. Boller has managed some drives at the end of games to tie or win when given the chance. AAMOF, I think he actually performs better under pressure, his best 3 games have been the 3 prime time games he has started and finished.

**festivus** · 12-07-2007, 10:32 AM

I take issue with the players bitching about the officiating, on the field, in the locker room, and over the following days.

I do *not* take issue with fans bitching about a poorly officiated game. We don't have to 'look in the mirror' or stupid stuff like that. We are fans and are entitled to complain about officials who inserted themselves *way* too much into that game. We all watch a lot of football and I imagine most of us would agree the officiating in that game was poor, meaning, the officials routinely inserted themselves into the game. Either by their action or their inaction I kept noticing them, which is to my mind a sure sign they are not doing a good job. Good officials are relatively invisible. Throwing flags when needed, not throwing them when not necessary.

Anyway they did a crappy job of officiating and I don't have to apologize to anybody for stating the obvious.

One thing I like about BB is he can get after the officials subtly, without getting in trouble. The players should see he is Their Guy, and not ever worry about having to get after officials themselves. They have someone to do that for them, and he does a good job.

**yeahravens** · 12-08-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Huh? Possession has NEVER been defined by palms. It has always been defined by any part of both hands. If anyone is changing the standards, it's you. Balls can move around so long as both hands are on the ball and thats what happened here. We WOULD WANT THAT SAME CALL IF THE ROLLS WERE REVERSED!

We cant have our cake and eat it too.

See this post proves what an idiot you are. A moving ball is not a ball under control, butt munch. What planet are you on?

**HoustonRaven** · 12-08-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by yeahravens

See this post proves what an idiot you are. A moving ball is not a ball under control, butt munch. What planet are you on?

Two hands, no matter what part of the hands = possession. Maybe you've heard of receivers named Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, Hines Ward, etc? They ALL have a track record of making finger tip catches.

But then again you know it all ....I mean you had Samari Rolles illness all figured out, right? Still on record that he has AIDS?