So, uhh, why wasn't that bogus catch reviewed in OT?

[vhatever]

That ball quite obviously touched the ground and there was plenty of time before the snap.

[sneakers]

There were quite a few catches in OT, you will have to specify which one you are speaking of.

[sneakers]

There was only one that I could think of that was questionable....but it looked like they guy had his arm under it.

[pikkiwoki]

It was oh so close.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5RDuCzhJ6DI/TuXvpmgoFeI/AAAAAAAAACM/uZrIPINx4vY/s1600/barber+catch+OT.gif

That was a potential game deciding play. Even if they didn't overturn it, it should have at least been reviewed.

[claymore]

There are no reviews in OT. You have to deal with the cards given.

[slim]

There are no reviews in OT. You have to deal with the cards given.

There are reviews, just no challenges.

Questionable plays should be reviewed automatically.

[spikerman]

I don't know if you could see it on tv, but the Bears were really rushing to get the ball snapped. The Bears didn't seem convinced that it was a catch either.

[Davii]

It definitely should have been. That wil be hashed out at the league office for sure this week. No way that was a catch.

[claymore]

There are reviews, just no challenges.

Questionable plays should be reviewed automatically.
I thought they said last night that they werent reviewable in OT. After reading the rules its the same as if it were during the 2 minute warning.

I don't know if you could see it on tv, but the Bears were really rushing to get the ball snapped. The Bears didn't seem convinced that it was a catch either.

Are timeouts authorized during OT? If so why didnt we take one to give the officials a chance to review the play? I know thats been done before.

[slim]

I thought they said last night that they werent reviewable in OT. After reading the rules its the same as if it were during the 2 minute warning.


Are timeouts authorized during OT? If so why didnt we take one to give the officials a chance to review the play? I know thats been done before.

I thought we should have called time out too.

I believe they give you two TOs for OT.

[TXBRONC]

That ball quite obviously touched the ground and there was plenty of time before the snap.

They didn't it to piss off fanatical Tebow fans. ;)

Seriously, it should have been reviewed but I still think it would have been iffy that it got overturned. Also at the end of the day it doesn't matter because Denver won anyway.

[Tned]

I thought we should have called time out too.

I believe they give you two TOs for OT.

Yea, as soon as I saw the catch, before the replays, I said they have to review it. Questionable catch, that puts one team in FG range. Then when they weren't blowing the whistle, I was hoping Fox would call a timeout to give the officials more time to review it. I'm very surprised Fox didn't call the TO.

[TXBRONC]

I thought we should have called time out too.

I believe they give you two TOs for OT.

That had crossed my mind. It would have given the replay booth a little extra time review and if they did that then Denver could have gotten the timeout back if the replay booth overturns the catch.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Are timeouts authorized during OT? If so why didnt we take one to give the officials a chance to review the play? I know thats been done before.

That's what should have happened, but the Bears, knowing it probably would be overturned, rushed to the line to get the snap off before our guys in the booth could see the instant replay review of the play and call down to Fox to call that timeout.

It looked like a catch on the field until you look at the replay until you see the ball clearly hit the ground and then moved which makes it incomplete. I was also upset the booth didn't immediately call down to the officials to tell them to wait on a review, especially after they had done it to us a few weeks ago in OT without the other team having to call a timeout (SD game, Jeremiah Johnson spot on 3rd down that was spotted as a a 1st down but was 1/2 yard short after review). They were all over that one. I've never seen the replay officials call for a ball-spot review from the booth. Questionable catch? Yes. They never look at the ball spot unless they are told to... except when it's us playing SD in SD in overtime.

I don't blame our coaching staff for not calling timeout, I blame the replay official for not stopping play to take a look. He probably just wanted the game to end so he could go home... ;)

[spikerman]

Yea, as soon as I saw the catch, before the replays, I said they have to review it. Questionable catch, that puts one team in FG range. Then when they weren't blowing the whistle, I was hoping Fox would call a timeout to give the officials more time to review it. I'm very surprised Fox didn't call the TO.

I kept watching the white hat to see if he would stop play and I was really surprised that he never got buzzed.

[Thnikkaman]

Fortunately for us, the Football Gods had Marion Barber fumble the ball.

[spikerman]

Fortunately for us, the Football Gods had Marion Barber fumble the ball.

Barber is taking lot of heat today, and he did screw up, but Chi-town wouldn't have even been in this game without him.

[claymore]

That's what should have happened, but the Bears, knowing it probably would be overturned, rushed to the line to get the snap off before our guys in the booth could see the instant replay review of the play and call down to Fox to call that timeout.

It looked like a catch on the field until you look at the replay until you see the ball clearly hit the ground and then moved which makes it incomplete. I was also upset the booth didn't immediately call down to the officials to tell them to wait on a review, especially after they had done it to us a few weeks ago in OT without the other team having to call a timeout (SD game, Jeremiah Johnson spot on 3rd down that was spotted as a a 1st down but was 1/2 yard short after review). They were all over that one. I've never seen the replay officials call for a ball-spot review from the booth. Questionable catch? Yes. They never look at the ball spot unless they are told to... except when it's us playing SD in SD in overtime.

I don't blame our coaching staff for not calling timeout, I blame the replay official for not stopping play to take a look. He probably just wanted the game to end so he could go home... ;)

Hindsight being 20/20, Im glad that ball bounced in Chi-towns direction. All that stuff equalls out in the end, and we will need some help later. Not that we arent getting a ton as it is!

[atwater27]

There was nothing questionable about it. That ball CLEARLY hit the ground , it was a horrible job of officiating and replaying.

[Northman]

I remember the play but the replays they were showing werent nearly as conclusive as that GIF a few posts up. I just figured from the ones i saw it was legit but apparently not. Oh well, we won so thank you Barber for the justice.

[Tned]

I remember the play but the replays they were showing werent nearly as conclusive as that GIF a few posts up. I just figured from the ones i saw it was legit but apparently not. Oh well, we won so thank you Barber for the justice.

The first couple replays it looked like a great catch. Even with those replays, I expected the officials to blow play dead, because it was close enough it needed to be reviewed. Then, they ran the next play, and showed two more replays, where it was clear it should have been reviewed, and might have been overturned. I think it moved, but you never know with the refs, with the tie going to "call on the field."

I just don't know how you don't review a play like that in overtime. The flip side is that we had a similar one against the Jets to Rosario that I was saying, "please don't review, please don't review."

[rcsodak]

There are no reviews in OT. You have to deal with the cards given.
There ARE reviews, clay. Theyre all upstairs though.

And fox dropped the ball by not throwing the challenge flag on TT' int.
Before tillman got both feet down, he CLEARLY came in contact with the wr (willis?), who was out of bounds....meaning HE was out of bounds.
The same thing happened a week or 3 ago(SF?), but their HC was on the ball and was successful in the challenge.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[BroncoStud]

It should have been reviewed. It was questionable at best, and probably not a reception. The ball clearly hits the ground.

[rcsodak]

That's what should have happened, but the Bears, knowing it probably would be overturned, rushed to the line to get the snap off before our guys in the booth could see the instant replay review of the play and call down to Fox to call that timeout.

It looked like a catch on the field until you look at the replay until you see the ball clearly hit the ground and then moved which makes it incomplete. I was also upset the booth didn't immediately call down to the officials to tell them to wait on a review, especially after they had done it to us a few weeks ago in OT without the other team having to call a timeout (SD game, Jeremiah Johnson spot on 3rd down that was spotted as a a 1st down but was 1/2 yard short after review). They were all over that one. I've never seen the replay officials call for a ball-spot review from the booth. Questionable catch? Yes. They never look at the ball spot unless they are told to... except when it's us playing SD in SD in overtime.

I don't blame our coaching staff for not calling timeout, I blame the replay official for not stopping play to take a look. He probably just wanted the game to end so he could go home... ;)

I'm sure he wanted to stop the TT comeback bid.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Slick]

I thought we should have called time out too.

I believe they give you two TOs for OT.

He probably should have, but he shouldn't HAVE to call a timeout for these clowns to review the play.

It happens a lot in the NFL. How many times do we see a coach have to call a timeout to get these guys review plays in the last 2 minutes of a game?

[jhildebrand]

I thought they said last night that they werent reviewable in OT. After reading the rules its the same as if it were during the 2 minute warning.


Are timeouts authorized during OT? If so why didnt we take one to give the officials a chance to review the play? I know thats been done before.

Reviews come from the booth only! TO's can be called by the team I suppose in hopes of getting a review.

NFLN showed it perfectly. It clearly was NOT a catch.

[GEM]

It was oh so close.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5RDuCzhJ6DI/TuXvpmgoFeI/AAAAAAAAACM/uZrIPINx4vY/s1600/barber+catch+OT.gif

That was a potential game deciding play. Even if they didn't overturn it, it should have at least been reviewed.

No, actually it wasn't. Barber used the ground to force the catch and bobbled it once he continued to turn over. If it had been reviewed and seen from that angle, it would have been overturned.

[GEM]

There ARE reviews, clay. Theyre all upstairs though.

And fox dropped the ball by not throwing the challenge flag on TT' int.
Before tillman got both feet down, he CLEARLY came in contact with the wr (willis?), who was out of bounds....meaning HE was out of bounds.
The same thing happened a week or 3 ago(SF?), but their HC was on the ball and was successful in the challenge.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


That was my first question when watching that play....why was Willis on the ground if there wasn't some contact before the ball got there.

[TXBRONC]

Reviews come from the booth only! TO's can be called by the team I suppose in hopes of getting a review.

NFLN showed it perfectly. It clearly was NOT a catch.

I think this is exactly right.

[broncofaninfla]

If the WR's catch the balls they dropped*in the first three quarters and line up correctly*(two illegal formation penaliies) we don't need late game heroics for this game. **
*
Also I put a lot of this on McCoy, he tends to call more aggressive plays as the game gets closer to conclusion. He could do a better job of opening things up on offense earlier in the game. With 8 men in the box we need to start throwing the ball more on the early downs and keep the defenses off balance. **
*
*

[NightTrainLayne]

It seemed like an eternity in the stadium before the Bears snapped the ball. They showed the replay in the stadium at least three times.

My thoughts were that if the refs were going to review it, they had plenty of time to stop play. So with that in mind it was probably best to save the timeout. Calling the timeout doesn't guarantee a review.

[Tned]

There ARE reviews, clay. Theyre all upstairs though.

And fox dropped the ball by not throwing the challenge flag on TT' int.
Before tillman got both feet down, he CLEARLY came in contact with the wr (willis?), who was out of bounds....meaning HE was out of bounds.
The same thing happened a week or 3 ago(SF?), but their HC was on the ball and was successful in the challenge.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I didn't notice that about out of bounds. However, I "think" that the rule is that the ball has to be in contact (or posession) of someone out of bounds, for it to be ruled out. Not the player. Looking at game rewind now to check that play out.

[jhildebrand]

I didn't notice that about out of bounds. However, I "think" that the rule is that the ball has to be in contact (or posession) of someone out of bounds, for it to be ruled out. Not the player. Looking at game rewind now to check that play out.

Nope. Just the player in contact with a player out of bounds.

Happened in the Broncos Jets game in the back of the endzone on a would be Jets TD.

[slim]

It seemed like an eternity in the stadium before the Bears snapped the ball. They showed the replay in the stadium at least three times.

My thoughts were that if the refs were going to review it, they had plenty of time to stop play. So with that in mind it was probably best to save the timeout. Calling the timeout doesn't guarantee a review.

You must have been sitting next to hoes.

[Day1BroncoFan]

It's a conspiracy against Tebow/Broncos.

[Tned]

I didn't notice that about out of bounds. However, I "think" that the rule is that the ball has to be in contact (or posession) of someone out of bounds, for it to be ruled out. Not the player. Looking at game rewind now to check that play out.

While not the exact scenario, I think this covers it:


A.R. 3.19 RUNNER TOUCHING—OUT OF BOUNDS PLAYER
Third-and-goal on B7. Runner A2 runs toward the sideline and is inbounds at the B1-yard line when he touches A3 who is out of bounds at the time. A2 then scores. Ruling: Touchdown. (3-21-1-b)

I'm fairly sure just contacting a player out of bounds is not a problem. If Willis had made a play for the ball and touched it while out of bounds, then it would have been incomplete/out of bounds.

[Tned]

Nope. Just the player in contact with a player out of bounds.

Happened in the Broncos Jets game in the back of the endzone on a would be Jets TD.

I'm pretty sure that was a dual possession type deal, where the out of bounds player was touching the ball.

[rcsodak]

That was my first question when watching that play....why was Willis on the ground if there wasn't some contact before the ball got there.
True. i dont think they showed enough of the play to see what happened, but willis was saying he got pushed. Which, incidently, i saw all game long, not to mention a missed major face mask.
I wonder if hochuli trained this batch of refs.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[rcsodak]

I didn't notice that about out of bounds. However, I "think" that the rule is that the ball has to be in contact (or posession) of someone out of bounds, for it to be ruled out. Not the player. Looking at game rewind now to check that play out.
I was in the same mind of thought (I know....GASP!), but the same thing happened on an endzone play where the guy with the ball is contacting the guy out of bounds, and he was thusly ruled out as well. since it was in the endzone, maybe it was upstairs that made the call and not the HC. Just saw the highlight of the play, is all.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Tned]

I was in the same mind of thought (I know....GASP!), but the same thing happened on an endzone play where the guy with the ball is contacting the guy out of bounds, and he was thusly ruled out as well. since it was in the endzone, maybe it was upstairs that made the call and not the HC. Just saw the highlight of the play, is all.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

As I mentioned in an above post, I'm nearly certain in the earlier game that the out of bounds player was touching the ball --- that's the difference.

[rcsodak]

While not the exact scenario, I think this covers it:


A.R. 3.19 RUNNER TOUCHING—OUT OF BOUNDS PLAYER
Third-and-goal on B7. Runner A2 runs toward the sideline and is inbounds at the B1-yard line when he touches A3 who is out of bounds at the time. A2 then scores. Ruling: Touchdown. (3-21-1-b)

I'm fairly sure just contacting a player out of bounds is not a problem. If Willis had made a play for the ball and touched it while out of bounds, then it would have been incomplete/out of bounds.
But watch the play, T. He contacted willis BEFORE his feet touched the ground.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[spikerman]

But watch the play, T. He contacted willis BEFORE his feet touched the ground.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If the college rule and the NFL rule are the same, the rule reads: "A player is out of bounds when any part of his person touches anything, other than another player or game official, on or outside a boundary line. (A.R. 4-2-1-I and II)

[Ravage!!!]

There is no system in place to review everything.... who cares?

[wayninja]

If the college rule and the NFL rule are the same, the rule reads: "A player is out of bounds when any part of his person touches anything, other than another player or game official, on or outside a boundary line. (A.R. 4-2-1-I and II)

Are there different rules for kickoff/punt returns? I could of sworn there was a situation like this in one of the earlier Bronco's games where some weird, obscure touching-a-player-out-of-bounds thingie came into play, but I also may have been 10 beers deep.

[spikerman]

Are there different rules for kickoff/punt returns? I could of sworn there was a situation like this in one of the earlier Bronco's games where some weird, obscure touching-a-player-out-of-bounds thingie came into play, but I also may have been 10 beers deep.

My guess is that it had to do with possession, or lack thereof. There's a NCAA rule (Rule 4, Section 2, Article 3) that states, "A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line."

Basically if a player is laying out of bounds and he touches a ball that is inbounds the ball is considered out of bounds. If two players are touching it and one of them goes out of bounds the same holds true - the ball is dead. If a player in the field of play touches a player who is out of bounds then nothing happens. Think of it like this: suppose an eligible receiver is lined up wide, what would stop a CB from stepping out of bounds and making contact with the receiver? In that scenario the receiver would become ineligible to be the first one to touch a forward pass.

In a nutshell a player out of bounds has to be in contact with the ball for it to be ruled dead. Was that too long winded?

One interesting thing that could happen though, is suppose that on a kickoff the ball is kicked near the sideline. A quick thinking return man could step at least one foot out of bounds as he catches the ball. Believe it or not, that would be a penalty on the kicking team for a kick out of bounds.

[Tned]

My guess is that it had to do with possession, or lack thereof. There's a NCAA rule (Rule 4, Section 2, Article 3) that states, "A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line."

Basically if a player is laying out of bounds and he touches a ball that is inbounds the ball is considered out of bounds. If two players are touching it and one of them goes out of bounds the same holds true - the ball is dead. If a player in the field of play touches a player who is out of bounds then nothing happens. Think of it like this: suppose an eligible receiver is lined up wide, what would stop a CB from stepping out of bounds and making contact with the receiver? In that scenario the receiver would become ineligible to be the first one to touch a forward pass.

In a nutshell a player out of bounds has to be in contact with the ball for it to be ruled dead. Was that too long winded?

One interesting thing that could happen though, is suppose that on a kickoff the ball is kicked near the sideline. A quick thinking return man could step at least one foot out of bounds as he catches the ball. Believe it or not, that would be a penalty on the kicking team for a kick out of bounds.

This is what happened in the earlier game that people are referring to. A defender out of bounds, touched a ball while it was being caught by a player in the endzone. It was ruled incomplete, because the defender was out of bounds. The key is that the out of bounds player was in contact with the ball, not just the player attempting to catch it.

[Joel]

I don't know if you could see it on tv, but the Bears were really rushing to get the ball snapped. The Bears didn't seem convinced that it was a catch either.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, the announcers commented on that very fact, that the Bears might have gotten away with one because they hustled to the line. Seems like my teams never have the snap to do that, or when they do the other coach quickly throws the flag or the booth steps into do it.

[Joel]

It seemed like an eternity in the stadium before the Bears snapped the ball. They showed the replay in the stadium at least three times.

My thoughts were that if the refs were going to review it, they had plenty of time to stop play. So with that in mind it was probably best to save the timeout. Calling the timeout doesn't guarantee a review.
Fair point, but by the same token it's not like you'll need that TO to allow you a comeback drive. Unless you're caught with the wrong personnel on D or bumble your snap count (and you've got another TO for those; just don't make a habit of it) all burning that TO is likely to do is make a win a tie.

[vhatever]

If it's the one I'm thinking of, the announcers commented on that very fact, that the Bears might have gotten away with one because they hustled to the line. Seems like my teams never have the snap to do that, or when they do the other coach quickly throws the flag or the booth steps into do it.

They showed a replay almost immediately, and while you can't see the ball hit the ground in the first one, you also can't see the ball secured and it being a legit catch. Then they showed it again a little slower, still inconclusive, then they showed a different angle where it appeared the ball hit the ground before being secured. I counted about a 10 second gap between snapping and showing the incriminating third replay. But the reality is, the catch should have been immediately reviewed anyway because of the importance of that pass-- it put them in FG range. Remember them reviewing the spotting of a ball just a game or two ago that hurt the broncos?

[MOtorboat]

They showed a replay almost immediately, and while you can't see the ball hit the ground in the first one, you also can't see the ball secured and it being a legit catch. Then they showed it again a little slower, still inconclusive, then they showed a different angle where it appeared the ball hit the ground before being secured. I counted about a 10 second gap between snapping and showing the incriminating third replay. But the reality is, the catch should have been immediately reviewed anyway because of the importance of that pass-- it put them in FG range. Remember them reviewing the spotting of a ball just a game or two ago that hurt the broncos?

It was a catch.

No one got screwed.

[vhatever]

It was a catch.

No one got screwed.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5RDuCzhJ6DI/TuXvpmgoFeI/AAAAAAAAACM/uZrIPINx4vY/s1600/barber+catch+OT.gif

That's as much as a catch as your tebow hate-on is rational.

[MOtorboat]

That's great. There's absolutely nothing there that is conclusive, because the ball CAN hit the ground during a catch...

Ultimately, who gives a shit?

[Ravage!!!]

Its just a conspiracy of the NFL to try and beat Tebow. We all know everyone is against us, and every week the refs are trying to screw us. After all, the spot of the ball isn't jut right, they don't "review" every catch and every run to be sure its exactly right.

How on EARTH did we even play this sport before high speed, zoom in, high-definition, slow motion cameras? Soooo archaic!!

[Ravage!!!]

I'm sure when Tebow loses, its going to be because the REFS screwed the game up and nothing else.

[vhatever]

I'm sure when Tebow loses, its going to be because the REFS screwed the game up and nothing else.

There is an edit button... assuming you are literate it shouldn't be hard to find.

[Ravage!!!]

There is an edit button... assuming you are literate it shouldn't be hard to find.

what would you like for me to edit, oh brilliant layer of smack? :lol:

[Joel]

They showed a replay almost immediately, and while you can't see the ball hit the ground in the first one, you also can't see the ball secured and it being a legit catch. Then they showed it again a little slower, still inconclusive, then they showed a different angle where it appeared the ball hit the ground before being secured. I counted about a 10 second gap between snapping and showing the incriminating third replay. But the reality is, the catch should have been immediately reviewed anyway because of the importance of that pass-- it put them in FG range. Remember them reviewing the spotting of a ball just a game or two ago that hurt the broncos?
That was a pretty pivotal play, too, because it cost us a first down in OT; I doubt they even glance at it twice on 2nd down in the 3rd quarter. Refs aren't perfect, and don't like stopping games without solid reasons.

That's great. There's absolutely nothing there that is conclusive, because the ball CAN hit the ground during a catch...

Ultimately, who gives a shit?
Yeah, and that's a crap rule, too; receivers get enough help from the rules without calling traps "catches."

HOWEVER, even under the Bert Emmanuel BS the ball CAN'T move around when it hits the ground, and that one had some serious lever action going on when he trapped it.

Maybe the refs just felt sorry for Barber finding every way he could to blow that game. Still wasn't enough in the end.

[Ravage!!!]

That was a pretty pivotal play, too, because it cost us a first down in OT; I doubt they even glance at it twice on 2nd down in the 3rd quarter. Refs aren't perfect, and don't like stopping games without solid reasons.

Yeah, and that's a crap rule, too; receivers get enough help from the rules without calling traps "catches."



Wait.. you think the WRs get "help" with the rules on catching the ball compared to the past? Really? That entire "keeping the ball through the fall" thing is easier?

They can't trap it, but if they show control then hitting the ground isn't punished considering just how impossible it is to keep the ball from touching the turf, even when in COMPLETE control. So I don't think the rule is bogus.

[Joel]

Wait.. you think the WRs get "help" with the rules on catching the ball compared to the past? Really? That entire "keeping the ball through the fall" thing is easier?
No, that aspect isn't easier, and having to wear thigh plates now may have slowed them a hair. They also lost the rule that said it was a catch if they were pushed out when they would have otherwise landed in bounds, but that was a small loss because officials never called it anyway.

In every other way, including calling traps "catches," things are much easier now, hence the explosive stats. Making defenders wait for them to catch the ball and start running before they can hit them is DEFINITELY easier. In the old days it was "you might as well catch it--he's gonna hit you anyway." Defensive backs actively and heavily relied on the fact that as long as they didn't arrive early a punishing hit had a good chance of jarring a ball loose and was perfectly legal. Receivers don't "hear footsteps" any more because they know they're off limits until they've got the ball and turn to run. That's in addition to taking away hand checks 20 years ago. Yes, receivers have it easier now than in the old days; it's been getting progressively easier for them for decades. Short of bringing back Stickum or banning tackling altogether so it really IS the flag football many DBs call it, I can't imagine how receivers could have it easier.

They can't trap it, but if they show control then hitting the ground isn't punished considering just how impossible it is to keep the ball from touching the turf, even when in COMPLETE control. So I don't think the rule is bogus.
I disagree, but in this case it's irrelevant, because when the ball tips forward and then back as it hits the ground the receiver very obviously lacks control.

[sneakers]

It was oh so close.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5RDuCzhJ6DI/TuXvpmgoFeI/AAAAAAAAACM/uZrIPINx4vY/s1600/barber+catch+OT.gif

That was a potential game deciding play. Even if they didn't overturn it, it should have at least been reviewed.

You could call it either way.

[wayninja]

It was a catch.

No one got screwed.

Disagree, that most certainly was not a catch. The ball can hit the ground, but he definitely wasn't controlling it with his forearms.

But like you said, who gives a shit? If we had lost, I'd be freaking out, we didn't. It just makes the win that much sweeter.

[I Eat Staples]

It looked like the ball touched the ground before Barber had complete control. I don't think it was a catch, and it definitely should have been reviewed.

Another piss poor job by the officials. The NFL needs to expect more from their employees.

[Skacorica]

It looked like the ball touched the ground before Barber had complete control. I don't think it was a catch, and it definitely should have been reviewed.

Another piss poor job by the officials. The NFL needs to expect more from their employees.

Totally agree - it was obvious the ball moved after hitting the ground.

However, worst refereeing of the day goes to the Vikings game refs - how did they not see the facemask on webb?