The call on the field was a complete pass. But what the call does not indicate is was it completed by catching the ball in the air and completing the catch when he fell and before the ball came loose or was it completed after the ball came loose and moved around a bit and then controlled. If it was called a completed catch by catching and then hitting the ground before the ball came loose then there is no evidence to overturn. If it was called a completed catch after the ball came loose and was fought for and then controlled, then there was grounds to overturn the call. In the replay angle from the back of the endzone a player who has touched out of bounds clearly touches the ball. The problem is that the call on the field does not indicate at which point they are calling the pass complete. So the replay seems to be assuming it was after the ball was loose and then afterwards possessed. That sounds like a logical assumption and a sound reason to overturn. However, the problem is that it is possible the official on the field intended that the catch was completed when he first hit the ground. If that is the case then the explanation given by the replay officials would not apply, because it occcurred after the catch was completed. Fact is they could have possibly overturned a call that was not actually made by the official on the field (they overturned that the ball was caught after it was loose). They could not know what the on the field official intended by the call of a completed catch. Therefore, the fact that the ball was touched by an out-of-bounds player while it was loose, may not have impacted the call on the field. Therefore, there was not enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call, because it was impossible for them to know what was in the mind of the official making the call on the field. The play should have stood as called. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 9/28/2024, 5:50:46 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 9/28/2024, 5:52:17 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 9/28/2024, 5:53:34 PM