Clete Blakeman doesn’t know what a catch is.

[OriginalPantherDan]

I didn’t realize until this morning that it was ruled an INT initially (I MAY have been jumping around like a lunatic at the time, not gonna lie). How the hell does that get overturned?! Some bullshit there. 

[therealmjl]

7 hours ago, beastson said:

The call was interception. His hand is underneath the ball. There's definitely no clear evidence the ground caused the catch. It took them a long ass time to review it too, you have to uphold the call

 

 

this....

the amount of time it took to review this play is indicative of there being no indisputable evidence to overturn; so, therefore, by rule the call stands

was total BS. 

glad it didn't matter.

[Chaos]

Terrible call.  What's worse are the hands of our DBs.  Bradberry can't catch, Reid botched this one, and the very next play the ball hit Mike Adams right between the 2 and the 9 and he dropped it. 

[Daddy_Uncle]

And fug that nerd Dean Blandino saying it wasn't a catch. What a loser dick hole

[Castavar]

It was absolute bullsh*t. There was absolutely no clear evidence to overturn that. What was even more annoying was Charles Davis and Kenny Albert going off about how it was CLEARLY going to be overturned  and how our defense needs to get ready to go back on the field. Like bruh, were we watching the same catch? It was too damn close to clearly say whether it was a catch or not, so the call should have stand. This felt too damn scripted. It's like no way in hell the NFL was going to allow Reid to to have that game winning int if they could help it.

[hepcat]

1 hour ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

And fug that nerd Dean Blandino saying it wasn't a catch. What a loser dick hole

I'm just waiting for the day that dude gets busted for child porn. He looks the part.

[CarolinaNut]

9 hours ago, beastson said:

The call was interception. His hand is underneath the ball. There's definitely no clear evidence the ground caused the catch. It took them a long ass time to review it too, you have to uphold the call

 

 

To overturn that call with that evidence is blatant cheating.  Bottom line!

[Wolfpack352]

8 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Must be irrefutable evidence to overturn a call.  Thinking doesn't cut it.

If they ruled an incomplete than it would have stayed an incomplete but they rule INT and it should have stayed an INT. 

This!  Point blank!  Nothing else to it.

[sharkkiller]

I am surprised ol' Clete didn't call Peppers for roughing the passer cause he hit his throwing hand too hard.

[rodeo]

9 hours ago, beastson said:

The call was interception. His hand is underneath the ball. There's definitely no clear evidence the ground caused the catch. It took them a long ass time to review it too, you have to uphold the call

 

 

watching that over and over and over. pisses me off so much. that ball does not hit the ground.

[Burnout189]

I was telling my wife while watching that replay that there was no way in hell they had CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn that call, but that it would still happen bc it's the Panthers.

[trueblade]

 

[CPF4LIFE]

The key is it took them damn near 10 minutes to review it.....if it takes you that long THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS OVERTURNING IT.  NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. 

[BrianS]

I would love to have that stuff be available after the fact.  I want to know, specifically, which angle was reviewed that showed *conclusive* evidence that the ball hit the ground.

Look, like most people on here, I just don't know.  I look at the footage and if someone asks me "Did the ball hit the ground?" I have to answer honestly and say "Maybe.  But maybe not.  It's definitely possible his hand was under it.  Also possible it wasn't.  I just can't tell."

In which case, by rule, whatever is ruled on the field stands.  Interception.  Game over.