What were Aikman, Buck and Pereria talking about on the Dez TD?

[skinsscalper]

Originally Posted by theogt

It clearly wasn't a catch. But it was a make up for that earlier Eagles non-TD.

I was going to post the exact same thing.

[blindzebra]

The replay they were showing right before the ref came back was from the other endzone and the ball never hit the ground.

[marchetta]

Originally Posted by SDCowboy85

It never hit the ground though. It hit his forearm and moved while still on his arm.

Exactly! Sure, the ball moved while on his forearm. But, there was never any indisputable visual evidence that the ball actually touched the ground.

[theogt]

This is the point at which the ball is rolling between Bryant's body and the ground. Of course it's touching the ground. How can anyone say it didn't touch the ground? Hell the ball is on the ground and Bryant doesn't even have a hand on it.

[Idgit]

Whatever it was, it couldn't have been all that clearly a non-catch, because it stood up on the field, and it stood up under review.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Whatever it was, it couldn't have been all that clearly a non-catch, because it stood up on the field, and it stood up under review.

One person's judgment (with a strong bias) isn't very convincing to me. That was about as clear a non-catch as they come on replays.

[BRoni]

There was not enough evidence to over turn it. End of story.

[Boyzmamacita]

Originally Posted by theogt

This is the point at which the ball is rolling between Bryant's body and the ground. Of course it's touching the ground. How can anyone say it didn't touch the ground? Hell the ball is on the ground and Bryant doesn't even have a hand on it.

If he established possession before this point, it's a touchdown, right?

[Proximo]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

The replay they were showing right before the ref came back was from the other endzone and the ball never hit the ground.

THIS.

The very very last view they showed definitely showed that he clearly caught the ball. I personally wasn't completely sure until I saw that last shot. I don't know why they didn't show that angle earlier, but to me it erased any doubt that he caught the ball. When they showed that angle you could see that there was no way the ball touched the ground, and they called it a TD on the field, so there was NO WAY they should've overturned it.

[ConstantReboot]

Originally Posted by theogt

It clearly wasn't a catch. But it was a make up for that earlier Eagles non-TD.

If it was clearly INC then the there wouldn't be any argument. But there is a debate on this TD. I think it should stand because it never hit the ground and he had control on the ball all the way.

If it was overturned it would have been as much as a controversy because there was no evidence at all to overturn it.

[baj1dallas]

Originally Posted by Everlastingxxx

The ball clearly rolled. I’ll take it, helped my fantasy teams.

same here, 6 much needed points for me. But I thought they would overturn, the ball clearly rolled and looked like his arm was not under it.

[Lodeus]

This is a discussion I feel should be on the Eagles forums.

[links18]

Originally Posted by theogt

One person's judgment (with a strong bias) isn't very convincing to me. That was about as clear a non-catch as they come on replays.

At least two refs called it good on the field and it survived review. Whatever it was--it wasn't clearly anything.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by Boyzmamacita

If he established possession before this point, it's a touchdown, right?

Nope.

[skinsscalper]

Originally Posted by Boyzmamacita

If he established possession before this point, it's a touchdown, right?

On a play where a player is going to the ground you have to maintain possession THROUGHOUT the entire process. Since the ball wasn't secured completely before going to the ground, he didn't establish possession.

The refs blew the call, but I'll take it.