Hairy call ---thats karma baby

Good call by the officials. Receiver did not have control. Replay helped us there because the Bucs lost their last time out.

Yeah, not even close. Watch it again, as he was coming down he never secured it away, then he hit the ground and it bounced out.

What was close about it to you???
I thought he had control of it while getting 2 feet down,if that calls against us I'm pissed off to my grave about it believing thats a td,but hey,it was for us,I'll take it,time to celebrate!! :food-smil
bring on the seahawks!! :headbange

I think, by and large, given the officiating and the injuries, that we were very lucky to leave Tampa with a victory. If that play had been ruled a TD, it's unlikely we would have even tried to overturn it, much less succeeded.

The instant replay rule is being interpreted this year as it was written - indisputable visual evidence. The play was declared incomplete, there was not indisputable visual evidence to overturn that assessment. Had it been incorrectly declared a touchdown, we would likely have been in the same boat.

I think, by and large, given the officiating and the injuries, that we were very lucky to leave Tampa with a victory. If that play had been ruled a TD, it's unlikely we would have even tried to overturn it, much less succeeded.

The instant replay rule is being interpreted this year as it was written - indisputable visual evidence. The play was declared incomplete, there was not indisputable visual evidence to overturn that assessment. Had it been incorrectly declared a touchdown, we would likely have been in the same boat.

No - that is NOT what the review call was. They didn't say there was no indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call. They said there WAS indisputable visual evidence to UPHOLD the call (not the exact language they used, but they explained why the call was correct, as opposed to explaining why they couldn't overturn the call). That is very different, and we left with a win BECAUSE of the officiating.

I thought he had control of it while getting 2 feet down,if that calls against us I'm pissed off to my grave about it believing thats a td,but hey,it was for us,I'll take it,time to celebrate!! :food-smil
bring on the seahawks!! :headbange

IN the EZ, as in the open field, the receiver has to complete the catch when going to ground. The ground cannot cause a fumble BUT it can cause an incomplete pass. He had both hands moving before he hit the ground and that = incomplete. For or against the Skins, in viewing that replay I agree with the call.

honestly i thought it was far from close. It moved in the one angle.

I thought he had control of it while getting 2 feet down,if that calls against us I'm pissed off to my grave about it believing thats a td,but hey,it was for us,I'll take it,time to celebrate!! :food-smil
bring on the seahawks!! :headbange

2 feet down in the endzone while you're being brought down isn't enough though, you need to demonstrate control throughout and when you hit the ground.

It was a great call by the refs and a good upholding of the call, and a good explanation by the ref.

No way that's a touchdown, like the refer said, you have to have full control even if your knee is down. He had no control of the ball.

Edit: Anyone remember how the refs gave the same kind of TD to Shockey during the Giants game in Seattle? Guess what the NFL did the next day? They applogized appologised to Seattle calling it a touchdown!