Questionable NFL officials?

[Runscott]

The call against Green Bay last year where Golden Tate was given a touchdown was the first time I wondered about this, and I was pulling for Seattle, so no bias. When the official has the advantage of multiple slow-motion views of a play, and still clearly gets it wrong, you have to ask yourself if the guy under the hood has something on his mind other than getting the call right. It's almost as if an opportunity presented itself and the official took it.

The first bad review in today's game was the Green Bay catch that clearly hit the ground, yet was upheld. Not even questionable, it could be nothing other than an intentional error - there is no other explanation other than blindness or substance abuse. After that review, I was dead-certain that Bryant's catch would be reversed, and my guess is that the official was wiping sweat off his forehead when given the opportunity by McCarthy to go under the hood and reverse the call.

We have had this sort of thing with professional boxing, with NBA referees, with FIFA officials and with Olympic judges - thinking that NFL officials are immune to it is naive in my opinion.

[HRBAKER]

Or maybe it wasn't a catch at all in Bryant's case.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not a Dallas fan so no bias, but I thought Bryant clearly had possession of the ball and was stretching out his arm towards to goal line.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Or maybe it wasn't a catch at all in Bryant's case.

Gee, Jeff - ya think?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a Dallas fan so no bias, but I thought Bryant clearly had possession of the ball and was stretching out his arm towards to goal line.

The reverse was based on the rule that you have to maintain possession to the ground. I thought the three steps he took after catching it, would mean that if he dropped it when he hit the ground, it would be a fumble.

I have no explanation for the first call, which was clearly incorrect, or the other call I mentioned that involved Golden Tate. I missed Jeff's succinct smart-ass explanations for those two.

[HRBAKER]

Can't comment, I didn't see them.
I'm just going on the fact that the in-house guru called exactly what was going to happen before the refs came back. And that is exactly what they did.

Didn't mean to be a smart ass.

[HRBAKER]

So you are saying that the "man under the hood" intentionally gave the Packers a catch in spite of the visual evidence and then was relieved when he got a chance to show he couldn't blow it two times in a row when the Bryant review came up?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Can't comment, I didn't see them.
I'm just going on the fact that the in-house guru called exactly what was going to happen before the refs came back. And that is exactly what they did.

Didn't mean to be a smart ass.

Okay, I'm sorry Jeff. I'm a bit over-emotional at the moment, as I really prefer to see the game played on the field, not behind a review curtain.

Also, I have to admit that I heard the in-house guy say the same thing that you mentioned. I disagreed with him, but there is some legitimacy to the call because at least he called it prior to the review. The three steps Bryant took after the catch sealed it for me. I don't think the announcers or the official considered those steps.

Regarding the first call, which most definitely was botched, the in-house guy also called that a clear catch and said that the receiver clearly had his hands under the ball. I could easily see from the first replay (the same one the in-house guru saw) that the ball was on the ground, not within his hands. I outwardly vocalized that the in-house guy was a moron. They then showed a back angle and the two in-house guys said that "maybe" it wasn't a catch. The back-view actually showed the tip of the ball bounce on the ground. At that point my thinking was that both of the in-house guys were morons.

The review official then ruled it a catch. I can let the in-house guys off, since they aren't officials and have the right to be as stupid as anyone else watching the game, but the official is paid to know the rules. No excuses for him other than intoxicants or bribery.

So even if Bryant's catch could be called "questionable", the first call was not questionable at all.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So you are saying that the "man under the hood" intentionally gave the Packers a catch in spite of the visual evidence and then was relieved when he got a chance to show he couldn't blow it two times in a row when the Bryant review came up?

Haha. No. I'm saying he either intentionally blew the first call, or was blind or drunk. I can't think of any other explanation. I'm also wondering if the announcers haven't been told to quit criticizing the replay official; otherwise, they would have made a bigger deal about the first call (the Packer catch).

Yes, I do think there could be something fishy going on, and reversing the 'Bryant catch' could have helped accomplish whatever that fishy goal was.

Edited to add: it's a relief to be able to blame a huge Cowboy loss on something other than Jason Garrett's horrible play-calling and clock management, or Romo's panic-induced interceptions. Against the two of them, I thought Garrett's 4th-down call was the right one, but the wrong play, primarily because they would have scored too fast and Rodgers had driven the field the last two times, for touchdowns. I also thought he should have kept running the ball during the set where Romo was sacked twice. Garrett frequently abandons the run when it is working well, but Harbaugh did the same thing yesterday when Flaco threw the long interception - they were driving the ball well and on pace to run the clock out and win, then inexplicably threw a long pass to a short man who was double-covered. I guess these guys crack under pressure sometimes and just do stupid things. I would hate to have their job.

[Runscott]

I just googled 'Dez Bryant three steps' to see if anyone else was thinking the way I was. Here's what I found at deadspin:

Officials reversed the call because they determined Bryant was still in the process of making the catch when the ball was jarred loose by the ground. (Read that sentence again; football officiating as a demonstration in real-time casuistry is the sort of thing that could make even gamblers swear off the sport eventually.) The Cowboys lost their goal-line situation, possession, and, eventually, the game.

Watching a replay from the sideline, it's unclear when the process ends. Bryant takes three steps; Bryant has possession of the ball; Bryant stretches out for the end zone. When Bryant chooses to reach for the end zone, doesn't that complete the process? Do any of us know anymore? Is football now necessarily an exercise in epistemology?

[CMIZ5290]

The call on Bryant's catch was puzzling to me. Had it been ruled incomplete on the field like that, I could somewhat better understand it, but to over turn it, not so sure. Having said that, Dallas got all of the calls in the Detroit game, very lucky to win that game...

[jiw98]

The calls last week were also questionable in the Cowboy - Lions game. It's possible that if the correct calls were made in that game Dallas wouldn't have been playing this weekend.
I think the games should be decided by the players, not the officials. Unfortunately the officials in every sport seem to be getting calls wrong more frequently. Maybe it's more noticeable to the fans now because of all the different angles they show on the TV. Technology has changed the way we view games.

[Runscott]

Yes, the officials blew the pi call last week. But that wasn't a review using replays. Big difference. I was surprised the Cowboys did as well as they did this year and I fully expected Rodgers to drive the field if the Cowboys got the Bryant call. Despite all that, let the games be decided on the field.

[itjclarke]

Per the current rules, IMO the Bryant call was correct. As is, you need to maintain control through the act of the catch, which includes going to the ground if you've lost your balance while catching the ball. Bryant goes up, makes a great catch, but after the leap it was clear he was on his way down, three steps or not. Had he caught the ball, landed, been balanced and ran three steps, then it's a catch... and there'd have been no fumble since he'd have been ruled down by contact prior to the ball's coming loose.

This said, I don't like the current catch rules and I think they've made it too ambiguous.. see Calvin Johnson's potential game winner 2-3 years ago, wiped out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T19FUdG42EU.. that is maybe worst reversal ever.. or at least worst since the infamous Bert Emanuel reversal in the 1999 NFC Championship game.

IMO, NFL should simplify the rule to eliminate these debates. Possession and 2 feet down= catch, possession and an elbow, knee, butt down=catch

Adding-- the PI thing against Detroit was nuts. I didn't think it was necessarily blatant, "have to throw a flag" PI. It did look really bad on TV because the LB didn't look back, but face guarding is not PI, and both players had hands on each other. It's also not all that surprising to see a flag picked up, but what was shocking to me was they ANNOUNCED IT... then picked up the flag and reversed the call without explanation. I've never ever ever seen refs actually announce a call then change their minds... and not explaining it made it look far worse.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Per the current rules, IMO the Bryant call was correct. As is, you need to maintain control through the act of the catch, which includes going to the ground if you've lost your balance while catching the ball. Bryant goes up, makes a great catch, but after the leap it was clear he was on his way down, three steps or not. Had he caught the ball, landed, been balanced and ran three steps, then it's a catch... and there'd have been no fumble since he'd have been ruled down by contact prior to the ball's coming loose.

IMO, if Bryant has the ball in has left hand, and he's obviously stretching out his arm for the goal line, he has control. It's kind of hard to stretch out your arm for the goal line if you don't have control.

[Runscott]

I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on the first call I described (Packer catch that was upheld). If it hadn't been for that one, I would be less inclined to think the replay official is in someone's pocket.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

IMO, if Bryant has the ball in has left hand, and he's obviously stretching out his arm for the goal line, he has control. It's kind of hard to stretch out your arm for the goal line if you don't have control.

Watch the video I posted.. Calvin Johnson ruling is worse.

Like I said, I don't agree with the rule, but it was called today as it's been called the past few years. I watched from a bar, no audio and thought they'd overturn it based on any number of other similar examples I've seen. It doesn't matter to them that he has control from the high point, to the point he stretches. Anything/everything through his falling, rolling, whatever, is considered part of the act of making the catch. The balls must be controlled through the finish of that act.. In this case the ball moves when it's touching the ground.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on the first call I described (Packer catch that was upheld). If it hadn't been for that one, I would be less inclined to think the replay official is in someone's pocket.

IMO, that should have been overturned Scott, no question.

[familytoad]

I think that both calls were wrong and I always root against Dallas (unless they are playing Denver or SF, that's when I hope they both lose!)

The call with Cobb from GB was really quite obvious from the back view, but not easy to tell from the front. Replay officials shouldn't have got that call wrong, although I only suspect conspiracy when Peyton Manning is playing.

The call with Dez Bryant is probably correct within the 2014 set of rules, but if so, I have to say then that it's a TERRIBLE rule!

I also strongly disagree with defensive holding when a defender grabs a jersey for a nanosecond on a play a dozen yards from the real play. This is absurd.
There must be a better way to determine whether a defending player interferes or truly impedes an actual offensive play from completing.

The plays are all subjective anyway, so just allow the athletes to compete!

True interference should be called. Not the crap I see get called on every Manning incompletion. The new rules have to go. If "sissifying" is a word, that's what they are doing

They apparently are trying to make it safer for the players. I see no evidence that injuries are less with the new rules, but I do know that the games are seemingly *all* being strongly influenced by questionable calls. Calls that would not have been considered years ago!

It's really not that hard to tell when a guy catches a ball (Bryant did) or when someone interferes on a pass play (see the "picked up flag") they have been doing it since the implementation of the forward pass. This is the worst interpretation they have ever used.

[clydepepper]

There was one angle that did show the ball slip from his grasp...however, I always thought that the ground could not cause a fumble...so I would side with, as much as it bothers me to say so, Dallas on this one.

Last week's call was definitely worse, but this one directly effected the outcome of the game.

All that being said....GO PACK!!

[itjclarke]

The ground can indeed cause a fumble- ex: if a player is running in the open fields and trips (without being touched) and loses the ball after it hits the ground, it is a fumble. That said, this is totally different than Bryant call, and per current rules the ground can absolutely, 100% be cause for an incompletion call.

I'll say again though, I personally don't like the way they interpret these rules. I agree with most/all of what Brian says about rule changes. I don't however blame the refs as much as I blame the hyper reactive league rules committee and the commish. They've tried to make far too many drastic (and unrealistic) changes in too short a period, and the refs are being put in an increasingly difficult situation... especially with non reviewable calls like "hit on defenseless receiver", "leading with the crown", etc. So many of these calls completely change games- Niners lost to the Saints on a PF call last year, and in doing so lost home field throughout the playoffs due to the fact Ahmad Brooks' sack/fumble/recovery was reversed because Brees' head bucked back on the hit. No helmet to helmet, and prob 95% of Brooks' impact is on Brees chest (the only remaining target area on a QB) with the other 5% being about neck high (Brooks is probably 4-6 inches taller), but Brees head whipped back and made it look like he'd been smacked up high. All of this occurs in about 0.1 sec, and an official watching several things at once must make this determination immediately.

On that topic of shrinking target area on QB, one of my favorite ref highlights this season was Ed Hochuli (the totally ripped ref) called an "illegal hit to the chest" on a 3rd down hit of Russell Wilson. The hit was legal and was delivered to the ONLY legal area left, yet what would have been 4th down and an ensuing FG attempt turned into 1st down, followed by a game sealing TD. This year also saw league (commish) imposed points of emphasis on calling defensive holding (mostly cuz Seahawks were holding so much), illegal hands to face, etc. With this, the officials feel more and more pressure to NOT miss these calls, so in turn make far more of them. It's becoming harder and harder to watch... and if the league continues to insist on enforcing these, they need to allow a booth official to review the hit (sort of like college), and do in real time, independent of challenge.

This stuff is supposed to be for safety, but it is a joke because there's a clear pecking order on who's safety matters. Based on rules, QB is 1, WR is 2... then maybe O and D linemen. However, rules to protect one offensive player can make the game more dangerous for the other defensive player. I do not envy the predicament of a modern day DB. They've all played and been coached a certain way their whole lives (15-20 years), and have had to drastically change over the past 2-3... and frankly a lot of these changes are nearly impossible to execute. So many of these collisions happens in a split second and I've seen several of the following--- DB lowers target area but WR immediately lowers head too, thus DB's head hits WR's head--- 15 yards against DB for head to head... or worse, DB pulls up a little bit on what would have been a big hit, and gets laid out by a WR, TE, RB who's still allowed to lower his head (see Adrian Peterson)... or even worse, he try to pull up in an awkward way and blows out his knee. Over the next few years, maybe these rules will work and the rate of concussions will go down.. but I think in trade, the rate of severe leg injuries will go up because a safety knows he won't get flagged and can still make the tackle if he goes low (see TJ Ward).

[frankbmd]

All games should be played in a large studio, the day before they are aired. 273 cameras should be utilized with super Slo mo capability. 533 officials should review each play and determine the outcome of the play by majority rule. An equal number of officials with partisan leanings for each team should be on the panel. 7 officials from Montana and Vermont will be designated tiebreakers.

On game day viewers would be treated to a pre-called game shown in real time speed without the benefit of any replay footage. Games would be aired in about ninety minutes using this format with the extra 30 minutes being split equally between announcer comment and analysis, cheerleader shots, Lambeau leaps (or the equivalent), candid camera type footage of Tony Siragusa and Erin Andrews on the sidelines, and blimp footage of local shopping malls. Commercials would be small overlays in the corner of the screen as in real "futbol" games where the clock runs continuously.

Problem solved.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I just googled 'Dez Bryant three steps' to see if anyone else was thinking the way I was. Here's what I found at deadspin:

Officials reversed the call because they determined Bryant was still in the process of making the catch when the ball was jarred loose by the ground. (Read that sentence again; football officiating as a demonstration in real-time casuistry is the sort of thing that could make even gamblers swear off the sport eventually.) The Cowboys lost their goal-line situation, possession, and, eventually, the game.

Watching a replay from the sideline, it's unclear when the process ends. Bryant takes three steps; Bryant has possession of the ball; Bryant stretches out for the end zone. When Bryant chooses to reach for the end zone, doesn't that complete the process? Do any of us know anymore? Is football now necessarily an exercise in epistemology?

Bryant takes two steps. He goes up, his right foot comes down slightly behind the five. He takes one step with the left, another with the right while he's lunging forward. He keeps possession clearly on the way down. If he doesn't reach out to try and score, there's no question in my mind it's a catch. But when he tried to do that, the tip of the ball hit the ground, it popped up in the air, and whatever he did from that point on didn't matter. He didn't complete the motion of the catch.

Remember, he has to establish possession before he can make a football move. Possession on a ball in the air entails establishing both feet in bounds in the NFL, not just one like in college football. So, while he made two "steps", I'm wondering if they didn't consider the first as establishing possession, and he has to make a football move after that. Who knows what the hell is going on in their minds. Welcome to the NFL in the Roger Goodell era. I sometimes think the guys in New York are throwing dice to determine the outcome of a challenge, or review.

It's a completely messed up rule. It's a rule that has completely burned Green Bay on at least three different occasions that I can think of in the last two years. And as soon as I say what happened, I posted on my Facebook that I was 100% sure that it would be overturned. There was not a doubt in my mind because I've seen it too many times before.

Cowboy fans said "the ref gave Green Bay the game" over and over.

Um, no, they didn't. The refs didn't give Green Bay an 80 and a 90 yard TD Drive, or surrender 430 yards of offense. The Cowboys had the absolute best situation they could have ever hoped for. They got the very best quarterback in the game, who relies heavily on creating outside of the pocket when the play breaks down, immobile. Rodgers only slipped out of the pocket twice all day, the second time was the game winning pass to Richard Rodgers that threaded the needle between two closing Cowboy defenders. And with Rodgers unable to run, and his best receiver double covered all day, they still couldn't stop him. The Cowboys were so worried about Jordy Nelson that Cobb and Davante Adams both went off for over 100. Eddie Lacy, too.

The Cowboys were also gifted their first touchdown. On second and eight, they got Tramon Williams for a ticky tack pass interference call when his feet tangled up with Terrance Williams. He put his right hand out, but didn't in any way impede, or grab Williams, but the line judge called him anyway. His feet got tangled up, and Williams fell down. The funny thing is that the exact same play happened in the Colts-Broncos game in the third quarter, and no penalty was called. Even Mike Pereira, the ex-head of NFL officials, said it was a ticky tack call. That gave Dallas, with the best O line and running back in the NFL, a first and goal at the 1.

Green Bay repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. On that touchdown drive I just referenced, our idiot middle linebacker Brad Jones basically mugged Demarco Murray though he completely didn't have to. There were two Packers waiting to stop the screen on third down. The Cowboys would have punted deep in their own territory. Then there was the ridiculous personal foul on T.J. Lang that gave the Boys another first down. And the one I went nuts over, when the Packers were trying to run out the clock, Andrew Quarless gets a false start on first and ten. Why the hell the tight end is getting a false start on a play that everybody in Green Bay knows is a run...is beyond me.

The Cowboy fans have nothing to hang their heads about, at least the real fans, not the bandwagon fans that jump back on the Cowboy train whenever they start doing better. They have a really good young team, and a Head Coach I really respect. Jason Garrett is a class act.

As for Tony Romo, I hope this puts an end to the ceaseless criticism of him. He played a great game. It's amazing how after nine years in the league, he finally figured it out!

Actually, he finally got some help. He got a real offensive line, and a running back that could take over the game. And, Dallas ran 15% more than they did last year. That kind of patience should pay dividends next year.

Good luck to the Cowboy fans. Great season, and I fully expect to meet you in the playoffs again next year. I must admit, though, that this win helped to soften the disappointment of all those losses at Dallas in the mid 90s. Rodgers is the man!

[nolemmings]

I was very surprised by the play call. Fourth and two and you throw the deep sideline pass, with your whole season on the line. It's a low percentage play, and although the game has changed and there are gunslingers throughout the league, I find the decision questionable. You need a near perfect pass, route and catch, plus less than great coverage for that play to work. I know he saw single coverage and the box was crowded, but call something there that gives you a safer throw and catch for the first down. Even if the Bryant pass works you score and leave Rodgers with nearly four minutes to get his team a FG to either tie or win the game, depending on whether you convert the two-point play. They ended the first half similarly, throwing on third and one when Murray had been successful running it multiple times in that situation--leading to fourth down, a missed FG and Packer points.

[Runscott]

Todd, my thoughts exactly. Flacco and the Ravens did the same thing in a similar situation, and it cost them as well.

Later last night I saw a call reversed in the Bronco game that really left me scratching my head: the punt returner 'catches' the ball, is hit as he is catching it, falls to the ground and the ball dribbles out. It was initially ruled a fumble, but was overturned.

[Jayworld]

I guess my bias is more toward the officiating, in any sport, as I grew up in an officiating family (my father was a college football official for over 20 years), so I have been exposed to hundreds of in-person games and have seen good officiating and bad officiating. Usually the bad officials are vetted out for their performance by not getting a schedule from their conference for the next year. It is always a year-to-year deal. It still irritates me to hear, see, or read someone criticizing officials without knowledge of the game rules. It's easy for all of us to be "arm-chair officials." Unfortunately, many television viewers rely on the commentary of the play-by-play and color commentators who (in most instances) have very rudimentary knowledge of the rules and thus can present a biased ignorant viewpoint of the rule or rules in question. Dan Dierdorf and Brent Musburger are two commentators that rarely knew or understood the rules. In Dierdorf's situation, it was ignorance; in Musburger's, it was ego.

Officials have to undergo rigorous training, both physical and mental, and in the case of college officials, the crew arrives 5+ hours prior to game time in the stadium to have a "pre-game," which is actually a "skull session," in which the crew goes over the rules and discusses just about every type of scenario that MAY happen in the upcoming game based upon plays run by the opposing teams, including trick plays. Plus, the Referee and Umpire visit each team dressing room prior to the game to meet with the coaches, meet the captains, and discuss with the coaching any possible trick plays to be on the alert for. This is important for two reasons:

1. The coach determines from the Referee and Umpire if the proposed trick play(s) is legal
2. The officiating crew is aware of such a play in case it occurs in the game so that the right call can be made.

Officials train themselves both individually and within the crew to be at the right place at the right time to give the best call in any scenario and also depend on their crew mates for help in cases where vision is blocked, the official is out of position (in many cases, because an official has been knocked to the ground, etc.).

Having said all this, it seems the NFL rules committee complicates things more and more each year with new rules, new interpretations of rules, etc. The officials are paid to enforce the rules that the rules committee comes up with. 30 years ago or so, the better college officials (those that continually graded out at the top in their positions) stayed in the college game and those that graded out lesser went to the pros, in many cases. In one particular case, an outstanding college official went to the NFL for a couple of seasons, did not like the experience, and returned to the college ranks.

NFL officials live all over the country; therefore, crews are made up of men that live in different geographic locations and the fellowship just does not exist in the same was as the college game. For example, Big 12 officials are generally from the same geographic region as the teams, so in many cases the officials can see each other or meet to discuss officiating much easier than an NFL crew, who often times see each other only once a week for the game. Before all the re-alignment in the conferences in college, many of the college were even more geographically located and thus the officiating crews were even closer; i.e old Southwest Conference.

Also, in many cases, those that are instant replay officials may come from the following ranks:
1. Former NFL official
2. Former college official that was not good enough to get to the NFL
3. League representative with officiating knowledge and rules knowledge
4. Former retired college official
In each case, the person has studied and has been trained on the NFL rules.

[Runscott]

Jay, I have officiated soccer, basketball and softball (adults). In all cases, during training it was emphasized that if we are doing our job right, we should barely be noticed. We are not players in the game.

Unfortunately, the NFL has focused attention on the officials through use of instant replay, to the point that we know their names.

[Jayworld]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Jay, I have officiated soccer, basketball and softball (adults). In all cases, during training it was emphasized that if we are doing our job right, we should barely be noticed. We are not players in the game.

Unfortunately, the NFL has focused attention on the officials through use of instant replay, to the point that we know their names.

Scott, I totally agree. My father always told his crew, "If we are doing our job correctly, no one will notice we are there..." I firmly believe that. In fact, if the officials do their job at the highest level, then officiating does not even enter into the discussion. Officiating in the NFL and college football has decreased in quality over the past 20 years or so.

I personally don't like instant replay....

[Tabe]

Quite frankly, I have no problem with the rule. In fact, I think it makes it much clearer and easier to determine catches than what the rules were before. It's really simply - make the catch and either make a move (if you're not going to the ground) or hold on to it (if you are going to the ground).

In this case, Bryant was going to the ground. 2 steps, 3 steps, 12 steps, none of that matters - because he was going to the ground the whole time. Since he was going to the ground, he has to hold onto the ball. He didn't. No catch.

To me, this is an incredibly obvious overturn and I am amazed at the number of people arguing vehemently that it's a catch. It seems crystal clear to me that it wasn't a catch.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Quite frankly, I have no problem with the rule. In fact, I think it makes it much clearer and easier to determine catches than what the rules were before. It's really simply - make the catch and either make a move (if you're not going to the ground) or hold on to it (if you are going to the ground).

In this case, Bryant was going to the ground. 2 steps, 3 steps, 12 steps, none of that matters - because he was going to the ground the whole time. Since he was going to the ground, he has to hold onto the ball. He didn't. No catch.

To me, this is an incredibly obvious overturn and I am amazed at the number of people arguing vehemently that it's a catch. It seems crystal clear to me that it wasn't a catch.

Of course it is.

Was the first play I described just as incredibly obvious to you?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Of course it is.

Was the first play I described just as incredibly obvious to you?

The Broncos/Colts punt return? In that case, I think the replay officials blew it. Dude got crushed as soon as he touched the ball. That was a fumble all the way and the refs blew it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The Broncos/Colts punt return? In that case, I think the replay officials blew it. Dude got crushed as soon as he touched the ball. That was a fumble all the way and the refs blew it.

That too. But I was referring to the Cobb (I think it was Cobb) catch that should have been overturned.