After watching the play a few more times, it does kind of look like the hand was under the ball. I'm still surprised it wasn't given a booth review. They only showed one angle as well. It's hard to tell if the hand was fully under the ball at the time he hit the ground or if he slipped it under right after. Anybody have access to any other angles on that pick other than the 1 they showed on the replay?
the ball hit the ground, the shot wasn't as clear as the holmes one but it was clear enough to at the very least have the ref take a look under the hood.
I don't remember the Holmes play offhand, but Byrd's play was an INT. I don't doubt that. If Holmes' play was like that, then they both should have been catches, not incompletions. But who ever accused the refs of being consistent? Refresh my memory on the Holmes catch/non-catch. Was it reviewed?
What does matter is whether the ground helped make the catch. If the hand was under the ball at the moment they hit the ground and the ball didn't move, then it's a catch. I have yet to see any camera angles that show his hand under the ball at the instant of impact. It looked close enough to go under the hood and review to me at least. Maybe the other guys saw something we couldn't because the angle they showed on TV wasn't conclusive. It was at least worth a look.
I think they both should have been incomplete, the Holmes play was a clearer angle but the plays were similar. at the very least the ref should have been under the hood.
I have never seen so many cry babies in my life. People need to stop thinking we are better then we are. We are the 3rd youngest team in NFL so games like yesterday will happen. Plus Geno is a rookie and there no way u can judge him by 10 games.
Unless they had another angle they didn't show us, it would have been very difficult to overturn the call on the field. Not nearly as clear-cut as the Holmes trap. http://www.nfl.com/videos/buffalo-bills/0ap2000000282838/Jairus-Byrd-picks-off-Geno-Smith
Well, like I've maintained, I think that it was a clean INT after watching it in slow motion a half-dozen times. I'm perfectly aware of the rules that apply. Here is the thing: it was called an INT on the field. At the very least, there was not "sufficient evidence to overturn the call" anyway IMO. Those type of deals happen all the time where the call on the field determines the review no matter what. I think that was the case this time at the very least, but I think it was a clear INT myself anyway, again. To me, Byrd had control of that ball. No excuses, regardless. that pass deserved to be picked off, and it was.
