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. Red Dragon

    Red Dragon Well-Known Member

    3,603 Messages
    376 Likes Received
    The Eagles lost. Deal with it.
    AmishCowboy and big dog cowboy like this.
  2. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,464 Messages
    1,590 Likes Received
    You already are. You're puffing out your chest telling another poster you will not answer to me. It's hilarious.

    http://cowboyszone.com/threads/why-the-wilcox-int-should-have-stood.270530/#post-5248860

    Frame one, you can see the shadow of the ball in the grass, clearly it is not therefore touching the grass. The white tips are his fingers in gloves. Pay careful attention to where they are frame by frame. His hand does not grow new fingers.

    Frame two, ball is lower, still see shadow below it. Still not touching the grass.

    Frame three, note the position of Avant's fingers on his left hand. Spread out under the ball. Ball is flattening out. That is called inertia. Know what happens when an object in motion hits an unmoveable stable object? It changes the direction of it's travel.

    Frame four, the white tip you see under the ball is one the glove and of his fingers, preventing it from touching the ground.

    Frame five, his fingers are clearly under it. Unless you think he magically can have 3 fingers under it and stretch his index finger from behind it to under it. He's not Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic 4. Hate to break that to you.

    Frame six, fingers clearly under the ball. This one is irrefutable. Look where the index finger is and therefore was, directly under the football. As I have already explained to you they do not magically appear.

    Frame seven, ball is about to go upward without ever having touched the turf because his hand was under it.

    Yes, I can admit you are being silly. You think fingers shoot under footballs when other fingers on the same hand are all in place and visible. That one just magically grows another finger underneath a football.

    So you admit you haven't seen the ball touch the ground. Right, because the photo evidence shows that it clearly did not, as displayed frame by frame above.

    There you go with that strawman crap again. I never said they hate the Cowboys. I said they got the call wrong because there is no irrefutable visual evidence to support overturning the call on the football field, which was, wait for it, Interception.
  3. Red Dragon

    Red Dragon Well-Known Member

    3,603 Messages
    376 Likes Received

    Some people won't accept logic and facts if they don't want to.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  4. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    48,842 Messages
    3,326 Likes Received
    This literally made me laugh out loud.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  5. Manster68

    Manster68 Well-Known Member

    1,587 Messages
    66 Likes Received
    The main issue with instant replay is that there has to be INDISPUTABLE VISUAL evidence.

    There is NO WAY there was indisputable visual evidence on that play.

    Therefore, the call should never had been overturned.

    Dallas should have had the shutout.
    AmishCowboy likes this.
  6. RoyTheHammer

    RoyTheHammer Well-Known Member

    13,746 Messages
    667 Likes Received
    Honestly, this is really all that needs to be said.

    Did the ball hit the ground? Probably grazed the turf.

    Was there undisputable video evidence of that? Helllz no.

    Play must stand.

    The end.
    Boom likes this.
  7. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,464 Messages
    1,590 Likes Received
    He will, as long as it is anti-Cowboys.

    I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there are people claiming to be Cowboys fans who say more negative stuff about the Dallas Cowboys than any Redskins, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, or any other team's fans than I have ever heard. I have a buddy who hates the Cowboys. Hates them. If I go past him at work wearing a Cowboys t-shirt 20 times a day (it would never be that many, just an example) he will say something every time. I hear less against the Cowboys from him than these guys. I hear him maybe one of two comments a day. So a max of 10 in a week's time, maybe. These guys have that many every day on this forum and Twitter. Fans of other teams spew less bile about our team than some of our fans. That is a sad fact.

    I can pick 20 fans right now, and tell you to search back the last 100 comments for each. That is 2000 comments. if you can find 10% that have something positive to say I will faint dead away. Translate that to a marriage. If you can't say 1 good thing in 10 about your wife do you think it is going to last?

    I will never understand the mentality of that.
    AmishCowboy and Red Dragon like this.
  8. Ratmatt

    Ratmatt Active Member

    884 Messages
    61 Likes Received
    I didn't think there was enough there on the replay to overturn the int.For me it was too hard to tell,so the int should have stood.Now,the idea that the refs,the league,or the league all hate the Cowboys,and are out to get them is just simply stupid.Sometimes you get the breaks,and sometimes you don't.
  9. theogt

    theogt Surrealist Zone Supporter

    43,720 Messages
    434 Likes Received
    To me, it looks pretty convincing it touched the ground.
  10. Airbag

    Airbag Active Member Zone Supporter

    161 Messages
    47 Likes Received
    But can you point to any part of that play watching frame by frame and say "right there, there is no doubt the ball touches the ground. Its irrefutable?"

    From my understanding of the rules the refs have to see that in the replay.

    If it was ruled incomplete on the field then I would agree the call should stand. But you cannot overturn rulings on he field without irrefutable evidence.
  11. daschoo

    daschoo Slanje Va

    2,339 Messages
    78 Likes Received
    If it was called an incomplete pass then thats what should have been the result of the review as all the replays are inconclusive. We've got frame by frame stills on here and folk are arguing as to what they show so how anyone can say the call on the field should have been overturned is beyond me.
  12. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,464 Messages
    1,590 Likes Received
    Every point is 100% correct. This is about replay has to show, with irrefutable evidence, that the call on the field was wrong. Whether it had been a TD catch, incomplete pass, or INT, to over rule the call on the field the evidence must show it.

    Did not happen in this case.
  13. Carharris2

    Carharris2 Well-Known Member

    833 Messages
    314 Likes Received
    The ball didn't bounce off anything period. It came out of his hand and the momentom of him trying to grab it made it go in the air.
    The low trajectory of the throw would not allow it to bounce almost straight up like it did.
  14. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,880 Likes Received
    Kind of proving the point. NFL replay has to show clear evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. Did the Ball hit the ground or not? I don't see any clear evidence that it did or didn't thus the ruling on the field should have stood. Had they called it a TD there would be nothing to prove he did or didn't catch it. The replay shows no clear evidence either way
  15. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,409 Messages
    1,880 Likes Received
    Exactly, Replay does not clearly show yes or no to touching the ground. Replay was set up as it must show irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field and that did not happen.
  16. Carharris2

    Carharris2 Well-Known Member

    833 Messages
    314 Likes Received
    There were several very poor calls other than this absolutely horrible overturn that others have mentioned. The eagles had nothing comparable to complain about. So a reasonable person could conclude the Cowboys got screwed in regards to calls in this game.
  17. Phoenix

    Phoenix Well-Known Member

    4,853 Messages
    336 Likes Received
    Wow. Haven't read through this whole thread, but just wow. For those who claim the ball had to have hit the ground to bounce like it did, prove it did.

    BOTTOM LINE is that the call was ruled an INT. There has to be CLEAR INDISPUTABLE evidence to overturn the call.

    That evidence does not exist. This was just a horrible, horrible misuse of replay by a crew so obviously biased against the Dallas team all game.

    Period.
    speedkilz88 likes this.
  18. WV Cowboy

    WV Cowboy Waitin' on the 6th

    10,571 Messages
    931 Likes Received
    That is the part that I have found so funny in this thread, .. that there are some posters that say they know how a football will bounce in this, or that situation. LOL

    A football will bounce in any direction it darn well pleases. Ha Ha!

    It is just funny that some are trying to prove their point by saying that they know how the football would bounce to back up their opinion.
  19. Phoenix

    Phoenix Well-Known Member

    4,853 Messages
    336 Likes Received
    Right?

    Man. The rule book does not say, I don't believe, for the replay official to use rules of probability or theoretical physics or anything like that to make the call. The deal is for indisputable evidence to overturn. Period. It's not, "well, that nose of the ball MIGHT have touched the ground...heck it probably HAD to in order to bounce like that, so..."

    ERRRR

    The rules say that there must be clear indisputable evidence to overturn! Did the nose hit the ground? Maybe! Is there video to absolutely confirm that fact? I haven't seen it. What I saw was a hand under the ball.

    I said before, if the call had been incomplete on the field, I don't think the available footage could have overturned that call into an INT.

    What we saw was simply NOT "clearly indisputable" in either way - ergo the call should have STOOD as called on the field.

    Theoretical physics be DAMNED.
  20. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    20,417 Messages
    6,470 Likes Received
    What exactly is negative about reviewing whether it was an INT or not?

    Maybe the problem is you and your ilk. The ones incapable of having an honest discussion on the team. You're always in defense mode. Out to prove just how much of a fan you are. Spare me.

    I've still seen no evidence whatsoever that the ball did not touch the ground. I'd like it to be a pick too, but it just wasn't.

Share This Page