In his usual postgame press conference, Bills coach Sean McDermott expressed concern about the process used to uphold a critical overtime interception ruling that likely decided the playoff game between Buffalo and Denver. Then, something unusual happened.
McDermott had more to say. Specifically, McDermott called Jay Skurski of the Buffalo News from the team plane. Here’s the full transcript of a rare coach’s pool report, as forward to PFT by Skurski.
“That play is not even close. That’s a catch all the way. I sat in my locker and I looked at it probably 20 times, and nobody can convince me that that ball is not caught and in possession of Buffalo. I just have no idea how the NFL handed it, in particular, the way that they did. I think the players and the fans deserve an explanation, you know?”
“That play is not even close. That’s a catch all the way. I sat in my locker and I looked at it probably 20 times, and nobody can convince me that that ball is not caught and in possession of Buffalo. I just have no idea how the NFL handed it, in particular, the way that they did. I think the players and the fans deserve an explanation, you know?”
Q: “Did you read the pool report?”
“Yeah, [Bills P.R. chief Derek Boyko] sent it to me. I just got it. I wish I would have gotten it before my press conference.”
Q: “Is there any recourse here for you? What can you do?”
“Here’s the deal, right? The fans deserve more. The players certainly deserve more. They deserve an explanation, and it’s a shame that a game is decided on a call like that, and there is no time spent with the head official going underneath the hood or to the replay booth, right? To the monitor. I don’t understand how that works. I don’t understand how that could be the case when it’s such a close play, so basically there is one person ruling on that play or, only New York ruling on that play? I don’t agree with that. If that’s the case, I don’t agree with that — that that is the best approach to decide a game like that.”
Q: “You’ve always been cautious about commenting on officiating. Why do you feel in this situation that it is so important to share how you feel about it?”
“Because I only speak up when there is a wrong. In this case, it happened to be to our team. We win with class and we lose with class in Buffalo. That’s how we handle our business, but when I’m looking at the replay myself and I’m being objective and I’m saying, ‘you can not convince me that that was not a catch, Buffalo possession, ball at the 20. You can’t convince [me].’ I’m speaking up because I feel strongly that that was a catch and that possession should have been ball belongs to Buffalo. I can’t agree with their assessment of a change of possession or whatever the statement was. I can’t agree with that. We’re not just going to sit here and take it, is what I’m saying. We’re not just going to sit here and take it. I’m pissed off about it, and I feel strongly as I’ve looked at it in review in my own locker that it’s a catch, possession Buffalo, and that the process should have been [long pause] … handled differently. I don’t understand why the head official who is at the game does not get a chance to look at the same thing people in New York are ruling on.”
McDermott may or may not be accurate regarding his interpretation of the play itself. (Under the standard the NFL applied and defended to overturn the same outcome and make it a catch by Aaron Rodgers in the Week 14 Steelers-Ravens regular-season game, McDermott is absolutely right.) The broader question — especially in an age of legalized, normalized, and heavily monetized gambling — is whether there should have been a more deliberate and transparent process for reviewing such an important play.
Apparently, there was an expedited review. Not a full and formal review. (There’s no mention in the official NFL game book of any review of the play.) Given that the replay assistant or the league office can perform an expedited review, it’s impossible to know who made such an important decision, unless the NFL tells us.
It goes back to the basic construction of the current replay-review process. The goal, more than a decade ago, was to ensure consistency in the application of the rules and the relevant standard by taking the final say from the referees and centralizing it in New York. And if NFL V.P. of instant replay Mark Butterworth — who explained the Rodgers ruling — would have been able to handle a full review of the question of whether Bills receiver Brandin Cooks had caught the ball and was down by contact before it came loose and was intercepted by Broncos cornerback Ja’Quan McMillian, would Butterworth have applied the same standard and reasoning that he applied in the Steelers-Ravens game? Would Butterworth have performed the pool report after the game, instead of referee Carl Cheffers? Would Butterworth have contradicted himself from the Rodgers play?
Cheffers shouldn’t have handled the official post-game pool report, because Cheffers didn’t personally make or review the call. Whoever decided the call was correct should have explained it — and, ideally, should have explained why and how the standard changed from December 7 (the day of the Week 14 Steelers-Ravens game) to January 17.
