1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Why the Wilcox INT should have stood

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Crown Royal, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    That is exactly right, because there would be no irrefutable evidence there either.
  2. gimmesix

    gimmesix Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life

    9,003 Messages
    693 Likes Received
    I kind of stand with that. I don't think it should have been overturned by rule (indisputable evidence), but I can live with it because I can't say with absolute certainty that it didn't hit the ground. (My wife said it did.)

    However, I can say with absolutely certainty that Dez made that sideline catch. I can say with absolute certainty that he was held by both shoulder pads in plain view of the officials in the end zone and absolutely interfered with on other plays.

    We didn't need calls to go our way to win this game, but we certainly have not been helped much by officiating this year.
  3. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    21,031 Messages
    7,514 Likes Received
    Prove to me it didn't hit the ground. You can't.

    I'm not interested in showing you anything. I'm telling you the ball hit the ground. The Cowboys did not get screwed. Just like the refs do not hate the Cowboys. The media does not hate the Cowboys. The hall of fame voters do not hate the Cowboys. There isn't a grand conspiracy theory working against a brilliant front office, etc.

    I knew the ball hit the ground before I ever saw a replay just by the bounce. It didn't even need a review, IMO.
  4. bkight13

    bkight13 Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    2,334 Messages
    633 Likes Received
    You have to prove him wrong to overturn a call on the field, not the other way around.
    Carharris2 likes this.
  5. Red Dragon

    Red Dragon Well-Known Member

    3,654 Messages
    406 Likes Received
    Let's say there had been no call made whatsoever and that it was ruled neither a completion, incompletion or interception (obviously impossible.) Well then, the officials, forced to choose one way or another, might have reasonably called it an incompletion.


    But the call was an interception. To overturn it, there must be indisputable evidence. That high level of evidence simply was not met. The bar is set high, and while someone, if forced to choose one way or another, would have called incompletion, this just didn't meet that high bar of evidence.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  6. Red Dragon

    Red Dragon Well-Known Member

    3,654 Messages
    406 Likes Received
    You still don't understand. The default call is interception, since that was the ruling on the field. To overturn it, you need strong evidence proving that the ball hit the ground, not strong evidence that the ball didn't hit the ground.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  7. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    Actually I can. Every replay, every still photo clearly shows Avant's hand under the ball, shielding it from...wait for it...the ground. Every...single...one...of...them.

    Where am I saying the refs hate the Cowboys. Who brought up the Hall of Fame? What does this have to do with any team's front office? Stick to the topic if you can.

    You knew nothing. I'm sure you hoped it was incomplete. You being a big Eagles fan and all. ~wink~
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  8. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    There was a farmer, had a dog....what the hell was that dog's name?








    Bingo!
  9. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    10,148 Messages
    532 Likes Received
    Whoaaa OOOOOHHHHHHH!
  10. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    He's from the Philly area and hates them. I just wanted to poke fun. He knows that.
  11. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    In fact, truth be told if you look at the photos one page 1 of this thread, not only do you see Avant's spread out fingers of his left hand under the ball, but you see his right hand on top of the ball.

    So please tell me Physics Professors how did the ground cause it to bounce clear through his top hand? If anything caused that bounce it was him trying to cradle it with his bottom hand to ensure the catch. He then pushed the ball higher when it squirts up from between his hands.

    No way, no shape, no how is there irrefutable evidence that ball touches the ground. It was the wrong call. Those who are saying if he makes that catch it is a TD are 100% right, for the exact same reason. He got his hand under it.
  12. Laundry fan

    Laundry fan Member

    33 Messages
    10 Likes Received
    I thought the exact same thing.
  13. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    21,031 Messages
    7,514 Likes Received
    Yes, I do understand. I don't have to prove to Hostile from Cowboyzone that the ball hit the ground in order to overturn the incorrect call of an INT. The replay did that for the officials. The obvious bounce should have been enough to convince anyone.
  14. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    21,031 Messages
    7,514 Likes Received
    Avant's hands are over and under the ball. The ball hits his hands, shifts hits the turf and bounces into the air.

    You failed at proving anything. But that was a fun game.

    Hold on to your hat here. Sometimes the Cowboys just didn't make the play.
  15. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    No sir. Show that ball hitting turf. Show the grass bent. Show it clearly. You cannot do it. Those frames one by one show his left hand under the ball all the way. The pop up into the air is caused by Avant's own hands and his inertia from going to the ground to try and make the play.

    You and I both know you cannot and will not show that ball touching the ground. That bit of evidence is necessary for the ruling on the field to be overturned and it does not exist. Nowhere. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to make you right.

    Stow the homer accusation stuff. It never has fit me, never will, and you know that too. Whether you'd be brave enough to publicly admit it or not, I can't say.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  16. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,551 Messages
    1,908 Likes Received
    No, clearly you don't. All you are doing is saying you are right, but don't have to prove it. The truth is you are not right and you cannot prove it. Big damned difference.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  17. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    49,680 Messages
    3,901 Likes Received
    Thank you.
  18. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    21,031 Messages
    7,514 Likes Received
    You're right, I will not. Because I don't dance to your tune.

    Here, show me all the replays of the fumble and highlight the space in each between the ball and the turf. Show me upright blades of grass. You will do this now.

    Or we can just admit this is silly and go by what we saw. Which was the ball hit the turf on replay after hitting Avant's hand and the force of that cause the ball to fly into the air.

    But again, I didn't even need to see that. I saw the bounce and immediately knew it wasn't an INT.

    The Cowboys hating refs got it right.
  19. Red Dragon

    Red Dragon Well-Known Member

    3,654 Messages
    406 Likes Received
    The ball made contact with Avant's leg and other hand, both of which may propelled it higher.
  20. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    21,031 Messages
    7,514 Likes Received
    Actually I think it hit Jimmy Hoffa.

Share This Page