Buffalo Bills 2022-23

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

This is actually incorrect in this situation. The moment his arm, above the wrist, touched the ground out of bounds, he was down. 

He had possession when that happened.

It's akin to "stepping out of bounds". Think of it this way, his feet went out of bounds before his body touched the ground, that is an immediate whistle and end of play.

I.E. A player foot steps out of bounds a split second before the ball is fumbled. It's a dead ball before the fumble. There are contradicting calls within these rule sections.

No, unfortunately in this instance, because the rules for what constitutes a catch are different than for what constitutes a fumble.  And, yes, what constitutes a catch is to a degree contradictory to the rules for a fumble.  One, you are trying to gain possession.  On the other, you are losing possession.

The only thing those thinking it was a catch can use to justify it is to say that since his hand never left contact with the ball & the ball never touched the ground, he never lost control of the ball.  Which would make it a catch.  And a wide out likely would've gotten the benefit of the doubt.

Not that it matters, but Mac & Cheese thought it was an interception.  He went straight to the bench & took off his helmet.  In his eyes, the drive was done.

[Porous Five Hole]

15 hours ago, SwampD said:

It applies to all the out of bounds. The same thing happens at the end of the endzones, as well.

You should have highlighted that I said the rule is stupid.

Please let me provide my opinion for you to debate (or not), rather than try to re-read the rule to me: it's a stupid rule and three-feet in should = catch. 

[JujuFish]

3 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

This is actually incorrect in this situation. The moment his arm, above the wrist, touched the ground out of bounds, he was down. 

He had possession when that happened.

 

No, he's still in the process of establishing possession at that point. He doesn't maintain it, and therefore it is not an interception.

 

A better argument for it being an interception, I think, is to say that he appears to have tucked the ball away before he contacts the ground, which is explicitly written as satisfying (c) in the rule, as you've pasted earlier. Now that I think about that, I think I might change my mind on the ruling.

[Scottysabres]

27 minutes ago, JujuFish said:

 

No, he's still in the process of establishing possession at that point. He doesn't maintain it, and therefore it is not an interception.

 

A better argument for it being an interception, I think, is to say that he appears to have tucked the ball away before he contacts the ground, which is explicitly written as satisfying (c) in the rule, as you've pasted earlier. Now that I think about that, I think I might change my mind on the ruling.

I stand corrected, he hadn't fully tucked it in. Good eye juju

[Scottysabres]

23 hours ago, inkman said:

I know we all love and breathe sports but I refuse to put one ounce of energy into deciphering what the NFL deems a catch.  

🤣 

They have been all over the place with this one, I admit. Damn confusing. 

[Ogre]

I know the argument is about the validity of the call but that’s a sub point for me.

For the last ten years I have been preaching that calls are going to be BS against us for a while.The team just needs to be good enough to shrug them off and win despite them.

They are doing that now. Look at the uncalled holds by the Pat’s D, didn’t matter. We won. And we’re getting healthy as the rest of the division’s health degrades.

Play smart and the bad calls mean nothing.

 

[Pimlach]

Fun Sunday coming.  No stress and watch KC - Cinci  and Miami - SF.  

[SwampD]

5 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

You should have highlighted that I said the rule is stupid.

Please let me provide my opinion for you to debate (or not), rather than try to re-read the rule to me: it's a stupid rule and three-feet in should = catch. 

I still disagree. Let’s look at it a different way.

Say he caught that in the middle of the field the same way but was touched on the way down. The ball then comes loose when he hits the ground. Is it a fumble or an incomplete pass?

To me, it’s still incomplete.

I think the rule is fine.

[That Aud Smell]

57 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I still disagree. Let’s look at it a different way.

Say he caught that in the middle of the field the same way but was touched on the way down. The ball then comes loose when he hits the ground. Is it a fumble or an incomplete pass?

To me, it’s still incomplete.

I think the rule is fine.

But it didn’t.

[drnkirishone]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

But it didn’t.

Yes it did. Are you really trying to argue that the ball moving across his chest and it rotating in his hand is something he was intentionally trying to do?

Once that ball rotated he had to re-establish control

Edited December 4, 2022 by drnkirishone
Added the control part

[That Aud Smell]

7 hours ago, drnkirishone said:

Yes it did. Are you really trying to argue that the ball moving across his chest and it rotating in his hand is something he was intentionally trying to do?

Once that ball rotated he had to re-establish control

Oof. My mistake. I was stuck in the “ball (came loose and) hit the ground” line of debate.

I just don’t get the logic of how that’s an INT if he stays in bounds but not if he’s out of bounds. I’ve watched it - understand the rule and the distinction it makes - and concluded that that’s a catch and that the rule is dumb.

[Porous Five Hole]

13 hours ago, SwampD said:

I still disagree. Let’s look at it a different way.

Say he caught that in the middle of the field the same way but was touched on the way down. The ball then comes loose when he hits the ground. Is it a fumble or an incomplete pass?

To me, it’s still incomplete.

I think the rule is fine.

You serious, Clark?

If it is in the middle of the field, it’s a catch. Poyer regained control of the bobble without the ball ever touching the ground.  Touching Poyer on his way down changes things? 😂

[Sabres Fan in NS]

16 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Fun Sunday coming.  No stress and watch KC - Cinci  and Miami - SF.  

Go Bengals !!

Go Niners !!

+++++

Did that catch / non-catch have any impact on the outcome of the game ??

/discussion (not that there is anything wrong with that)

Edited December 4, 2022 by Sabres Fan in NS
not a fan of post merging ... not goodly

[That Aud Smell]

21 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

Go Bengals !!

Go Niners !!

+++++

Did that catch / non-catch have any impact on the outcome of the game ??

/discussion (not that there is anything wrong with that)

I don’t think so. In fact, I think the Bills got it back after that call and had their 9-minute killer TD drive. This is more just a discussion on whether what Poyer did should be ruled a catch. 

The more we debate it, the more I can see the logic (?) of differentiating between what happens on the field and what happens off it. But as soon as I see it, my opinion snaps back to believing that was a catch.

[SwampD]

32 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

You serious, Clark?

If it is in the middle of the field, it’s a catch. Poyer regained control of the bobble without the ball ever touching the ground.  Touching Poyer on his way down changes things? 😂

I understand your logic. I also understand the logic of the rule.

I also don’t care.

I think the rule is fine and have no problem with there being different sets of rules for in the field of play and out of it.

[carpandean]

They almost came back against the Vikings, but another L for the Jets.

[inkman]

[GASabresIUFAN]

Bills go from wild card to AFC top seed.  Cinn beats KC and SF beats Miami.

[JujuFish]

9 hours ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

Go Bengals !!

Go Niners !!

Hell yeah!

[shrader]

Pretty much everything went their way this weekend. Baltimore winning is the only thing that even remotely threatens the Bills in the standings. I suppose Cincy does too, but that’s obviously the better outcome of that game. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by shrader

[Taro T]

43 minutes ago, shrader said:

Pretty much everything went their way this weekend. Baltimore winning is the only thing that even remotely threatens the Bills in the standings. I suppose Cincy does too, but that’s obviously the better outcome of that game. 

Needed Cincy to win today.

KC very well might not lose again until they play either the Bills or Cincy again.  But, if they're nice enough to blow another one, then provided the Bills take care of business against the Fish they can screw up one also.

[shrader]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Needed Cincy to win today.

KC very well might not lose again until they play either the Bills or Cincy again.  But, if they're nice enough to blow another one, then provided the Bills take care of business against the Fish they can screw up one also.

No doubt. Cincy is the one interesting scenario at the top of the conference where the Bills don’t control the tie breaker right now. Or maybe they do, I have no idea what comes after head to head. They’re the only team up top that Buffalo hasn’t beaten, or isn’t about to play in the next couple weeks. 
 

edit: Ignore that, I’m an idiot. I forgot that they play the afc central this year. 
 

editx2: My idiocy continues to grow. The afc central doesn’t exist anymore. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by shrader

[ubkev]

5 hours ago, inkman said:

It's been 4 days.

[shrader]

Crap, what the hell happened in the 4th quarter of the Sunday night game?

[JujuFish]

39 minutes ago, shrader said:

No doubt. Cincy is the one interesting scenario at the top of the conference where the Bills don’t control the tie breaker right now. Or maybe they do, I have no idea what comes after head to head.

Conference record is next, which we own over Cincy. That said, we play @Cincy for our penultimate game, so that will take precedence.