Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by links18, Nov 11, 2012.
I hate it when conspiracy theories clash.
You mad genius!
Close call go with the ruling on the field.
Now who is in denial, no way does that show the ball moving.
It is laughable.
You are wrong, have been the entire time, and yet keep posting make believe.
Can't tell who is more full of it, you or Theogt.
There is not one frame showing his right hand coming off that ball. The ball was tucked the ENTIRE time.
Hasn't this pond been fished dry?? Can't someone close it, I think points have been made.
I certainly didn't see this thread hitting 20 pages when I started it. Nature of our society I suppose, people will argue interminably about anything. :laugh2:
It didn't say it showed the ball moving, did I? Go back and read my post. Your lack of attention to detail is problematic.
I'm not sure that last picture is actually the laces......just a crappy picture.
Here's a different angle and the laces are clearly above his forearm just as they were when he tucked it prior to hitting.
Personally, when I thought Buck and Aikman said the ball "rolled", I didn't think they meant ONLY that the ball spun but rather than it started behind his forearm as he was diving and then came up and over the top of his forearm after he hit.
Forearm between the ball and the camera
Forearm now behind the ball after being dragged under him.
In this shot, you can see just the tippy-tip of the laces.
I really don't know. When I saw it, I thought it was moving free of his possession for just a split second.
After having looked at it too many times to count I'm really not sure.
I think the supination of the arm as it was dragged under him is what gives the appearance of the ball spinning in spot but at the same time there appears to be a split second at which the laces rotate faster than his arm. His arm rotates about 90 degrees, maybe more, as you can see his thumb on top of the ball in the first picture and when he lands the entire back of his hand ends up touching the ground.
I don't think it's definitive either way. My instinct tells me the ball did turn a little more than it probably should have but the pictures with the laces on top of the forearm tell me that even if it did turn, it wasn't much at all.
I think it's one of those that stays however it's called.
Lack of attention to detail huh?
You fail at reading. Those two frames are during the process of the ball moving. They don't show the ball moving.
Here is the link to the stills I posted.
3rd quarter 31:09 is the full video.
Anyone who can watch that and not see control is delusional.
You've certainly talked yourself into seeing control.
Nice back peddle.
Did not talk myself into anything.
This angle shows him holding the ball throughout the catch.
Combine that with the laces staying in the EXACT same relationship to his arm during the entire catch from the front angle and it is pretty obvious he caught and controlled the ball.
And FYI that is what the on field and reviewed call said.
Why don't you two just make out already....
What the hell? Why would I claim that a still picture shows a ball moving? The gif and the video showed that.
Unless someone can show me a visual of the incompletion through the radio broadcast of the play, that's a completion.
~double checking helmets~
The ball moved, if it didn't he would have not had the need to bring his other hand up to bring it back into his body. But does it hit the ground during the movement? I don't know, you can't tell from the angle we have to look at, which makes the evidence inconclusive, so the call stands. I know some of you will point to the stills where it appears the ball is on the ground, but is it? The angle of the shot could just make it appear as if it is as the shot is not on true gound level, but from an downward angle. All in all, two professional (whatever) officals took at a look at it and decided the call the stands. All this other stuff is nonsense, it was a catch, period.
I'd like to say that I don't give a rat's ***! It's about time we had a questionable call go our way. I think they still would've won this game if it had been a touchdown or not, given the special team and defensive scores, so the point is moot.