Gints 2nd td

[Yeagermeister]

It didn't look like a catch to me but I'm biased.

 

[SibannacRex]

I think it was close but in my view I think he did get his hands under the ball and did not allow it to hit the ground. Having said that the initial ruling was incomplete and I did not see enough to overturn it so I was surprised when it was changed

 

[WV Cowboy]

Was definitely a catch, I think some of you need to stop being homers and searching for ways the Giants should have lost.

I am definitely a homer sometimes when the action is live, (I initially always want things to work Dallas' way) but I try never to be a homer on a replay. It is what it is.

I think he had one end of the ball between his hands, but the back end of the ball hit the ground and popped up, like someone else mentioned above.

And since it was initially ruled incomplete, I was surprised to see them reverse it.

All in all, I don't really care one way or the other.

I also thought JR. was pushed out of bounds in the EZ on the last play of the Ariz/Cleve game.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm not being a homer, I am just saying that since they ruled it incomplete on the field, it should've stayed that way. There was *nothing* conclusive about the tape to show it was a catch. And if they would've been ruled it a catch on the field there was no way it should've been overturned.

I agree. My gut feeling was he caught it but the ruling on the field was incomplete and I saw nothing that was prove positive that it was a clean catch and according to the rules it has to be conclusive to overturn the call. I was not upset about it one way or the other and do not hate the Giants and do not expect them to take care of our business so being a homer or not has nothing to do with my view points

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Looking at it over and over again right now....his arms aren't closed when the ball initially comes in and by the way the ball bounces up, I tend to think that it didn't come up that hard from bouncing off of flesh and muscle. Obviously a moot point, but there is nothing there to "clearly" call it a catch. The ball bounces up with certainty, unlike a bobble. Call should've stood as incomplete in my book, sure isn't enough that I'm seeing here and I'm looking for a way to call it complete, just to play Yomick's advocate

That because "when the ball initially comes in" it hits his hands and his starts to close right after that.... not only do his arms start to close... he rolls over to take ball away from ground....

not that we are debating it :laugh2:

 

[HoustonSucks]

there were three replay angles. One from the right side of the field. One from the left. and one from behind. the first two angles it looks like his arms come under the ball. In the third angle - the one from behind you clearly see the nose of the ball hit the ground and bounce up. It depends which of the replays you saw what you believe. I thought it was a cra p call.

 

[sillycon]

there were three replay angles. One from the right side of the field. One from the left. and one from behind. the first two angles it looks like his arms come under the ball. In the third angle - the one from behind you clearly see the nose of the ball hit the ground and bounce up. It depends which of the replays you saw what you believe. I thought it was a cra p call.

There was nothing clear about that third angle either. I can't blame the ref for the initial call since in realtime, it does look like it bounced off the turf. The replays didn't show anything CONCLUSIVE that it was a catch. So in that respect, I thought overturning it was a bad call. That said, in the end, I do think it WAS a catch. It appeared that he got his hands/arms underneath the ball.

 

[dallasfaniac]

I just watched the highlight for the first time and it only shows one angle.

It looks like his hands come together on the ground, the ball bounches off of them hitting his chest, his elbows come together on the ground and the ball rests on top of his arms.

It looks like a good catch, however, I can see how it looks like it could possibly touch on the initial bounce since his elbows hadn't come together yet and also on the subsequent bounce off his chest. His elbows are close together, but since it was point down it might have squeezed through enough to touch because there was a tiny gap between his elbows.

Like I said, it looked like a good catch, however I don't think it showed enough to overturn the call on the field.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

the one from behind you clearly see the nose of the ball hit the ground and bounce up.

Uh... no.

 

[Kaika]

I'm not being a homer, I am just saying that since they ruled it incomplete on the field, it should've stayed that way. There was *nothing* conclusive about the tape to show it was a catch. And if they would've been ruled it a catch on the field there was no way it should've been overturned.

 

[JackMagist]

I watched the replays and reran them many times in slow motion. What I saw was the ball bouncing off his hands into his chest and then going nose down in a position that it could not have attained without the other end hitting the ground. It was ruled incomplete and there was not "INDISPUTABLE" visual evidence that the ruling was wrong. Therefore it shopuld NOT have been overturned. The Gints got handed a gift on that one IMO.

 

[trueblue1687]

Was definitely a catch, I think some of you need to stop being homers and searching for ways the Giants should have lost.

WELL!!! You go, boy! Snap those fingers when you say that!