- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How Did They Overturn That?
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:27 am
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:27 am
I've heard every single argument about this. I've heard "the process" argument, the argument that he made a football move, the argument that the ball hit the ground, etc.
However, I don't think anyone has come close to showing me an angle that guarantees the ball did or didn't hit the ground. The only angle that would have been conclusive was from the corner of the endzone and the pylon was blocking the view for a split second at contact.
So it seems to me the more "controversial" part of all this is simply the fact that it was overturned. By the "conclusive video evidence" language of the rule, it falls into an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of situation. If you can't guarantee that he did or didn't catch it, then the call on the field (regardless of whether it was called complete or incomplete) should have stood.
For the record I thought he absolutely caught it, but I'm shocked they overturned it and shocked the refs feeling they had conclusive evidence to overturn it hasn't gotten more attention.
However, I don't think anyone has come close to showing me an angle that guarantees the ball did or didn't hit the ground. The only angle that would have been conclusive was from the corner of the endzone and the pylon was blocking the view for a split second at contact.
So it seems to me the more "controversial" part of all this is simply the fact that it was overturned. By the "conclusive video evidence" language of the rule, it falls into an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of situation. If you can't guarantee that he did or didn't catch it, then the call on the field (regardless of whether it was called complete or incomplete) should have stood.
For the record I thought he absolutely caught it, but I'm shocked they overturned it and shocked the refs feeling they had conclusive evidence to overturn it hasn't gotten more attention.
10
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:28 am to FootballNostradamus
quote:
However, I don't think anyone has come close to showing me an angle that guarantees the ball did or didn't hit the ground.
LINK
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:28 am to FootballNostradamus
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:29 am to FootballNostradamus
quote:They showed the angle 30 times during the game.
I don't think anyone has come close to showing me an angle that guarantees the ball did or didn't hit the ground.
I understand arguing whether it's a catch or not, because there is a good argument for both sides, but arguing whether or not the ball touched the ground is dumb and seriously weakens your argument.
This post was edited on 1/12/15 at 8:31 am
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:30 am to lnomm34
yea, this thread is cutting into some great threads and posts. 
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:33 am to Salmon
yea if OP hasn't seen a video of the ball clearly striking the ground then he either isn't watching them or is a Cowboys fan and needs to take the glasses off.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:36 am to FootballNostradamus
nB4karmaisabitch
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:38 am to FootballNostradamus
Because it wasn't a catch. Easy
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:42 am to Tigerstudent08
By the letter of the rule it was not a catch. That being said, the NFL should adjust the rule so that amazing feats of athleticism like that are rewarded. I think 99% of reasonable people, if shown that video, would say he "caught the ball". We are overweighting the significance of that split second where it tucked the ground and ignoring the vast majority of the play where he had control of the ball. Doesn't jive with most peoples internal sense of justice.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:44 am to FootballNostradamus
Should this play have been called back? After all, the ball came out as Hines Ward went to the ground. I don't think he "maintained possession through the fall".
LINK
LINK
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:45 am to FootballNostradamus
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:46 am to Choupique19
Lmao if you're being serious you're an idiot. He clearly ran half the length of the field, broke the plane, and then the ball came out.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:48 am to FootballNostradamus
1. It was at Green Bay.
2. Dallas had received the benefit of a very controversial call the week before vs Detroit. Politics dictated they should not get another controversial call. Half the board would be yelling conspiracy if the catch had been ruled valid.
2. Dallas had received the benefit of a very controversial call the week before vs Detroit. Politics dictated they should not get another controversial call. Half the board would be yelling conspiracy if the catch had been ruled valid.
This post was edited on 1/12/15 at 8:48 am
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:49 am to FootballNostradamus
quote:
For the record I thought he absolutely caught it, but I'm shocked they overturned it and shocked the refs feeling they had conclusive evidence to overturn it hasn't gotten more attention.
for the record, you need to learn the NFL rules
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:57 am to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
Lmao if you're being serious you're an idiot.
His video probably isn't the best example, but I understand a bit where he is coming from. Whether you believe this is a catch or not there are 2 things that are fact 1) Bryant possessed the ball in the air and 2) consciously changed hands the ball was in and possessed it with that hand as well. Then the ground knocked the ball out. To me if by rule it was not a catch then the rule needs to be changed IMO.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 8:57 am to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
He clearly ran half the length of the field, broke the plane, and then the ball came out.
Well exactly how long does one have to run for the "through the fall" part of the rule to be discounted? Be careful with your answer, Dez Bryant took several steps with control of the ball before he reached for the goal line.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 9:01 am to Choupique19
Dez wasn't running, he was falling.
He had two feet touch the ground, but at any point could he have just stood up? No, because his feet hit as he was falling.
Not a catch.
He had two feet touch the ground, but at any point could he have just stood up? No, because his feet hit as he was falling.
Not a catch.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 9:03 am to Choupique19
quote:
Dez Bryant took several steps with control of the ball before he reached for the goal line.
no he did not. he was falling to the ground, not taking steps. The rule needs to be changed but per the current rule it was 100% an incomplete pass, not even arguable really
Posted on 1/12/15 at 9:04 am to LSU316
quote:
Bryant possessed the ball in the air
This right here is the huge problem I have with most of the arguments I'm seeing. This is literally impossible. You can't be deemed to have possession until you've established yourself on the ground with control of the ball.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 9:06 am to TigerSaints318
quote:
Not a catch.
The replay ref got it wrong. As an LSU fan, I know that you know replay officials sometimes blow the call.
The NFL has a huge problem with consistency of calls. They get so wordy with the rules to avoid "difference of opinions" yet just simply watching an NFL game, and listening when the broadcast team goes to their NFL rules expert, you can see a difference of opinion all the time. "I think it's a fumble, the call will stand"... "After further review, the call is reversed"
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News