Was Adams in or out? | Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images
Did the refs make the right calls?
The first quarter of the San Francisco 49ers vs. Green Bay Packers Thursday Night Football game featured two close calls on potential touchdown catches.
Both were ruled TDs on the field but required replay reviews. Davante Adams of the Packers had his score upheld, but River Cracraft of the Niners had his overturned and wiped away.
The question, Niners Nation, is: Did the refs get these calls right?
First up is Adams, who caught a 36-yard pass from Aaron Rodgers.
— Green Bay Packers (@packers) November 6, 2020
A couple more angles of the play, with an emphasis on checking his points of contact after the catch.
— The Checkdown (@thecheckdown) November 6, 2020
Clearly Adams only gets one foot down, but he also gets an elbow down before rolling out of bounds and that counts as a second point of contact instead of the other foot. The question, then, is whether the elbow was in bounds when it landed.
Quick take: Grudgingly agree that this was the right call. His elbow appeared to leave a divot on the ground, and at quick glance it looked like it was all in the green and not the white of the chalk.
What do you think? Vote in the poll, and then continue reading to see Cracraft’s play.
Next we have Cracraft. He’s only in this game because all the team’s receivers got hurt and they needed to draw from their practice squad, but he nearly scored his first career touchdown on a 4-yard pass from backup quarterback Nick Mullens.
In #GBvsSF, the ruling on the field was a catch and TD – 49ers wide receiver River Cracraft controls the ball with two feet down, but loses control when he contacts the ground, making it incomplete. pic.twitter.com/7BXMcW3oK9
— NFL Officiating (@NFLOfficiating) November 6, 2020
In this case, Cracraft definitely got both feet in bounds. However, the problem is that he dropped the ball after hitting the ground. The Fox broadcast crew explained that, if he’d had time to make some kind of football move in between the catch and the drop, then perhaps it could have been upheld, but that instead he didn’t have control long enough to seal the reception.
Quick take: The broadcast’s explanation sounded reasonable, but perhaps someone in the comments has more to say?
What do you think? To the poll!