I thought they should have looked at it regardless ...I watched the play in Denver that was ruled as an interception. To me it looked like the Buffalo player caught the ball and it wasn't moving and his knee touched the ground before the defensive player stripped the ball from the receiver. It should have been ruled a completed catch. I think they should have looked at it more closely. I'm not a Bills or Broncos fan.
I think the officials got it right in the Bears/Rams game which was nearly identical to the play in the Bills and Broncos game. I'm not a Bears or a Rams fan.
They according to the Rule book, look at all scoring plays.
Are Turn overs Not in that section as well ????
==========================================================================================================
They should be, what happens if its turned over in the endzone.
Calling the plays a catch or not is way to subjective to what you want to see ...
=========================================================================================================
Back in the College game, Buckeyes WR J. Smith caught a ball, around the goal line, crossed the goal line .. (which makes it a TD as long as any part of the ball touches the Goal line) after crossing the goal line, bobled the ball (did Not Drop the ball ) and they wanted to call it a FUMBLE .... Say WHAT ????
It was called a TD as it should have been .... q. was, WHY would they think thats a FUMBLE, he didn't drop the ball ...