Other NFL News

[I-10east]

A Canadian station has the Florida Panthers playing the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl LOL

http://fansided.com/2016/02/03/florida-panthers-super-bowl-television-station-fail/

[I-10east]

My 'favorite' NFL commish of all time, Rog is back at it with this London nonsense again. Notice I'm not correlating this crap with the Jags. A London team would be a logistical catastrophe. It's one thing addressing something that's at the crossroads and within grasp, but to beat London's door down with this propaganda is silly.

Remember, this is the guy that said Stan Kroenke buying land in Inglewood didn't mean anything...So playing a couple of regular season games in London means that a team is coming there overnight....Obviously he's using London as 'the new LA' MAINLY to get stadiums renovated around the league. This imbecile Goodell is gonna drive the NFL off of a cliff with his greed....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/06/goodell-calls-a-franchise-in-london-a-realistic-possibility/

[spuwho]

My 'favorite' NFL commish of all time, Rog is back at it with this London nonsense again. Notice I'm not correlating this crap with the Jags. A London team would be a logistical catastrophe. It's one thing addressing something that's at the crossroads and within grasp, but to beat London's door down with this propaganda is silly.

Remember, this is the guy that said Stan Kroenke buying land in Inglewood didn't mean anything...So playing a couple of regular season games in London means that a team is coming there overnight....Obviously he's using London as 'the new LA' MAINLY to get stadiums renovated around the league. This imbecile Goodell is gonna drive the NFL off of a cliff with his greed....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/06/goodell-calls-a-franchise-in-london-a-realistic-possibility/

UK NFL may be a hit in Goodells pocketbook, but it still is a minor blip in the UK press.

Jarryd Hayne got more press in Australia for just making the 49ers roster then the NFL UK does ever for playing a game.

For the NFL to cross the Atlantic, they are going to have to have some  local talent involved to increase the appeal.

If such a thing as a Beckham for the NFL is possible, then I could see some embracing.

[RattlerGator]

Well, so much for my prediction of a Carolina blowout. Kudos to the Denver defense -- they were magnificent and forced the Panthers to do the one thing that would allow Denver to hang in there: a plethora of mistakes.

I'll also say this: that non-call on the early catch that wasn't (but very clearly was a catch) is not going to stand the test of time and the collective subconscious of the NFL leadership is going to be questioned. They very much wanted a Peyton victory as something of an award for his sterling career and subconsciously may have allowed that to color that call. It was a double-whammy to Carolina; they lost a crucial timeout & challenge early in the game, and it allowed for the defensive score that dictated the game would be played on Denver's terms.

This morning we're talking about the great Denver defense but it is the Carolina defense that was statistically more stout; Denver barely made it to double digits in first downs and late in the 4th quarter had attained only 9 first downs for the entire game. That's incredible. And Denver did not gain 200 yards in the whole game. Carolina made more than 300 *and* they held Denver (and Peyton, by the way) to just 25% efficiency (1 of 4) in the Red Zone (Carolina was 50%, 1 of 2).

To me, it was an incredibly bad call that's hard to explain both on the field (how did the ref "see" a non-catch; he couldn't possibly do so from his angle) and in the review booth.

That said, Denver's a worthy champion and so is Peyton.

[thelakelander]

Lol, I don't know what play you or the broadcasters were watching yesterday. The refs made the right call. That wasn't a catch......or definitely not anything decisive enough to overturn the call on the field. As it happened, I questioned why Carolina would even waste time having it reviewed.

[I-10east]

^^^I agree, it looked like he briefly trapped the ball against the turf.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Lol, I don't know what play you or the broadcasters were watching yesterday. The refs made the right call. That wasn't a catch......or definitely not anything decisive enough to overturn the call on the field. As it happened, I questioned why Carolina would even waste time having it reviewed.

The ball never hit the ground and after the dust settled he had possession...  I don't know how you don't call that a catch.

https://www.youtube.com/v/OxEAZlWdtzw?

[thelakelander]

The nose of the ball appeared to hit the ground at 0:22 of the video you just posted.

[I-10east]

It seems like when a controversial call happens against the favored team 'it's the reason that they lost" but when vice versa than "the underdog was gonna lose anyway, they were outclassed, blah blah blah". I see this time and time again. I think that play (if completed catch) had a very minimal impact with the outcome of the game.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The nose of the ball appeared to hit the ground at 0:22 of the video you just posted.

It may have grazed the tops of the blades of grass, but it was a long way from using the ground to secure the ball...

For the love of everything holy I hope this rule gets revised in the offseason to something a bit less technical.  C'mon catch committee!  You can do this.

[thelakelander]

To me it looked like that's what caused it to shift in his hands as he rolled over. Nevertheless, because of that, there wasn't good of enough evidence of a catch to overturn the call on the field. In any event, in the grand scheme of things, a call the other way wouldn't have changed the outcome. Denver's defensive line was all over Cam like white on rice.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Ironically, the catch/non-catch reminded me a lot of an incident that went against Denver in Super Bowl 21.  Denver, deep in its own end and leading the Giants 10-7 late in the second quarter, hit a pass to Clarence Kay that was ruled to be not a catch and this was not overturned on replay, for reasons I couldn't fathom.  Shortly afterward Elway was sacked for a safety.  Obviously that wasn't the final margin in a 19-point game, but for its momentum effect, I couldn't help but think of it last night.

[RattlerGator]

To me it looked like that's what caused it to shift in his hands as he rolled over. Nevertheless, because of that, there wasn't good of enough evidence of a catch to overturn the call on the field. In any event, in the grand scheme of things, a call the other way wouldn't have changed the outcome. Denver's defensive line was all over Cam like white on rice.

Ennis, you're not remembering that play accurately. I'd love for you find some video that shows the ground causing ANY kind of shift. First, the ball never hit the ground but second, and most importantly, it hitting the ground is irrelevant in that situation where the catch was eventually completed without the ball touching the ground at the point of completion of the play.

You can laugh all you want but there's a very clear reason why the overwhelming majority of the country saw a catch *and* so did the retired ref used by CBS *and* so did the broadcasters. It was an absolutely crazy call.

I didn't care who won the game, and I'm pleased for Peyton (and the three Gators who got a Super Bowl ring). But I don't like bogus calls. And that was a bogus call. Look at this, his hand is underneath the ball clearly -- it was *his* own elbow that obviously moved the ball, not the ground:

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/79EFA1461C1308268714852012032_49568f48231.5.1.7587705435299567916.mp4?versionId=MF2wHU3XDu_ScgZfvY8kTxNxFHYF_cBk

Take a look at these still shots, take a look at whatever you want, it was clearly a catch:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25476895/a-controversial-catch-ruling-pops-up-in-super-bowl-50

To me, you had to *want* to not see a catch on that play for it not to be a catch.

[thelakelander]

I'm commenting off the video replay previously posted in this thread. Watch the video around the 0:22 mark. It appears the nose of the ball contacts the ground and the ball starts to shift afterwards. That alone is enough to not overturn a call made on the field.

https://www.youtube.com/v/OxEAZlWdtzw?

[thelakelander]

Ennis, you're not remembering that play accurately. I'd love for you find some video that shows the ground causing ANY kind of shift. First, the ball never hit the ground but second, and most importantly, it hitting the ground is irrelevant in that situation where the catch was eventually completed without the ball touching the ground at the point of completion of the play.

The refs though otherwise. They probably saw the same thing I saw 0:22 seconds into that video and decided the evidence of a completely clear catch wasn't strong enough to overcome the call on the field.

You can laugh all you want but there's a very clear reason why the overwhelming majority of the country saw a catch *and* so did the retired ref used by CBS *and* so did the broadcasters. It was an absolutely crazy call.

No laughing on my part. I have no vested interest either way. That's what I noticed during the game and why I wasn't surprised the call was not overturned.

To me, you had to *want* to not see a catch on that play for it not to be a catch.

Interesting. I didn't give a damn about the game, the teams or the individual players, but I did see why the call wasn't overturned.