Booth review?

[proline]

I thought the angle from the corner of the endzone showed that the ground helped Wayne make that catch and that the ball moved a little bit. I was kind of surprised the call on the field was upheld. What did you guys think?

 

[Shinywalrus]

Looked like a good catch to me. My conspiracy theorizing mind actually thought it was sufficiently clear that the goal of the review was to save the Colts a timeout.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

I was also surprised the red flag wasn't thrown on Lee's pick 6. He was clearly out of bounds, but not sure if the ball had broke the plane or not.

 

[tomson75]

I was also surprised the red flag wasn't thrown on Lee's pick 6. He was clearly out of bounds, but not sure if the ball had broke the plane or not.

FYI, he was not clearly out of bounds. It may have looked that way from the normal game view, but when they showed the replay from the camera looking down the sideline you could see that his entire body cleared the goal line on the inside of the pylon. Plain as day.

 

[starfrombirth]

I was also surprised the red flag wasn't thrown on Lee's pick 6. He was clearly out of bounds, but not sure if the ball had broke the plane or not.

We saw different things then. I saw that he clearly crossed the goal and went out via the endzone.

 

[Doomsday101]

I thought the angle from the corner of the endzone showed that the ground helped Wayne make that catch and that the ball moved a little bit. I was kind of surprised the call on the field was upheld. What did you guys think?

I think it was close and since the call on the field was a catch I don't think there was enough to over turn the call.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

I thought the angle from the corner of the endzone showed that the ground helped Wayne make that catch and that the ball moved a little bit. I was kind of surprised the call on the field was upheld. What did you guys think?

I knew there was nothing there to overturn the call on the field, though I initially thought it was incomplete.

I don't see how Indy should have gotten their timeout back though. The timeout and the booth review should be mutually exclusive IMO. Inside of two minutes only the booth can initiate the review. So by taking a timeout the Colts essentially threw the red flag and were 'rewarded' by being given their timeout back.

 

[proline]

We saw different things then. I saw that he clearly crossed the goal and went out via the endzone.

The plane of the endzone extends out of bounds. I'm pretty sure that if you leap at the two and land out of bounds, but past the pylon, then that is a TD.

 

[Number82]

The plane of the endzone extends out of bounds. I'm pretty sure that if you leap at the two and land out of bounds, but past the pylon, then that is a TD.

Not if the ball doesn't make it into the endzone. If you dive out of bounds, but hold the ball to your size over the endzone it's a score.

 

[Stautner]

I knew there was nothing there to overturn the call on the field, though I initially thought it was incomplete.

I don't see how Indy should have gotten their timeout back though. The timeout and the booth review should be mutually exclusive IMO. Inside of two minutes only the booth can initiate the review. So by taking a timeout the Colts essentially threw the red flag and were 'rewarded' by being given their timeout back.

That's waht I thought. Seems like a goofy glitch in the rules to me. Indy should not get to keep it's timeout simply because the refs decided to reveiew the play after the timeout had been called.

Maybe the rule is that the decision to review is deemed to have occurred as soon as the play is over, therefore the refs timeout for the review technically would have already been in place before the Colts called the timeout.

As for the Sean Lee play, my first reaction was that it was questionable if he was in bounds, but the shot down the sideline was very conclusive that he got the TD and the right call was made.

 

[tomson75]

Not if the ball doesn't make it into the endzone. If you dive out of bounds, but hold the ball to your size over the endzone it's a score.

True, but this doesn't apply here as Lee's whole body (and the ball) crossed the goal line in bounds before landing out of bounds. His entire body passed to the left of the pylon before he was pushed out of bounds to the right.

It's not eve questionable...the replay on nfl.com shows it clear as day.

 

[Stautner]

True, but this doesn't apply here as Lee's whole body (and the ball) crossed the goal line in bounds before landing out of bounds. His entire body passed to the left of the pylon before he was pushed out of bounds to the right.

It's not eve questionable...the replay on nfl.com shows it clear as day.

I'm not sure if Lee may have had a leg hanging over the sideline, but that doesn't constitute out of bounds unless it touches the ground, an clearly the ball and the bulk of his body had crossed the end zone in bounds before any portion of his body touched out of bounds.

 

[Doomsay]

I thought the angle from the corner of the endzone showed that the ground helped Wayne make that catch and that the ball moved a little bit. I was kind of surprised the call on the field was upheld. What did you guys think?

Had the argument with some people watching the game with me. Seemed like they should have shown it from a better angle. The ball clearly moved.

 

[Stautner]

Had the argument with some people watching the game with me. Seemed like they should have shown it from a better angle. The ball clearly moved.

Doesn't matter if the ball moves as long as his hand is between the ground and the ball. I never saw the ball touch the ground.

 

[Number82]

True, but this doesn't apply here as Lee's whole body (and the ball) crossed the goal line in bounds before landing out of bounds. His entire body passed to the left of the pylon before he was pushed out of bounds to the right.

It's not eve questionable...the replay on nfl.com shows it clear as day.

Agreed. I wasn't arguing that. I was just stating the rule in regards to the goaline "extending"