TXsteeler Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Starless said: Save it for Dez Bryant. Thanks for admitting I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamRod Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 This is great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apparition Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 I'm not going to argue this any further. The video evidence is right in front of you. If you refuse to see what's plainly evident, I'm not wasting any more of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 8 minutes ago, mission27 said: Hands don't just have to be under it they have to be 100% under it, i.e. zero contact with the ground, OR it has to be determined that he had control throughout. The ball was clearly jostled so if it even grazed one blade of grass its an incompletion by the letter of the law (as stupid as that is). Not sure what angle they used to determine it hit the ground, if they just inferred it, or if a ref saw it live and just didn't realize the ball moved that much. Either way seems highly unlikely the ball in that position, moving that way, didn't make some incidental contact with the ground. They 100% inferred it which is against the rules afaik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 8 minutes ago, wackywabbit said: Where? It most likely did hit the ground. I haven't seen a gif that clearly shows it hitting the ground. Can't see the ball touch grass and his right hand is at least partially under the ball. Most likely the right call, but questionable to overturn it. Well given how for one you notice the rotation of the ball as he hits He ground and secondly given how lower part of the ball touches the ground, I’d say that’s pretty clear. Given where his hands are it’s pretty much impossible for the ball to have not touched the ground. Thus that’s why ball can’t move. Watch this video in th highest quality and you see that the lower part of the ball touches the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, RamRod said: This is great This is brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said: They 100% inferred it which is against the rules afaik. It depends on what 'irrefutable' means. If 'irrefutable' means 95% then maybe they were 95% sure from the angles they had and that was enough. If 'irrefutable' means 100% then from the angles we have seen I'd probably agree with you. But in that case, a majority of stuff that gets overturned wouldn't get overturned. Its hard to ever really be 100%. I've always thought of irrefutable evidence as similar to beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not really 100%. It is 'yes, technically there is a small chance we are wrong, but it would be unreasonable to believe that given the evidence.' In practice I think the refs need an angle that gets them to 95% sure, or 98%, or whatever it is, even if there is a technically a very small chance that they are wrong. And if they are that sure they choose to make the call they think is correct. I don't actually have a problem with that tbh, because if the refs are 95% sure I'd much rather they go with that than the 5% just because that's what was called on the field. What I do have a problem with is that a guy can catch a football cleanly, reach for the end zone, lose the ball maybe for a split second and then regain possession and its not a TD. To me that's a much bigger issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said: Well given how for one you notice the rotation of the ball as he hits He ground and secondly given how lower part of the ball touches the ground, I’d say that’s pretty clear. Given where his hands are it’s pretty much impossible for the ball to have not touched the ground. Thus that’s why ball can’t move. Watch this video in th highest quality and you see that the lower part of the ball touches the ground. You can even see it in the screen cap tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, mission27 said: You can even see it in the screen cap tbh Well I thought so too, but that apparently isn’t clear enough for some people smh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, mission27 said: You can even see it in the screen cap tbh By that point he had recovered full control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, Starless said: I'm not going to argue this any further. The video evidence is right in front of you. If you refuse to see what's plainly evident, I'm not wasting any more of my time. Your cognitive dissonance is right in front of me. You can not prove that the ball "moving" wasn't caused by his left hand because all of that happens behind his right arm/hand. There is no exacting evidence that the ball touched the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, TXsteeler said: Your cognitive dissonance is right in front of me. You can not prove that the ball "moving" wasn't caused by his left hand because all of that happens behind his right arm/hand. There is no exacting evidence that the ball touched the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, mission27 said: What is this supposed to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, TXsteeler said: What is this supposed to be? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boyfriend_(Seinfeld) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypher Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 My issue arises with how a situation like this is handled so differently from elsewhere on the field. If this play occurs at the 40, it's likely called a fumble. He secured the ball, turned and extended, which would be construed as a "football move", establishing completion of the catch. The play should have ended the moment the ball crossed the plane, as he had already established possession and performed a "football move". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.