The Reversed TD Call

[ryanbabs]

Am I the only person that questions whether this should've been overturned or not? It was called a TD in play and how can you definitely say the ball of his hand didn't land inbounds PRIOR to his fingers touching out of bounds? It seems this would be the natural way of catching yourself during a fall as well. I know there is a little homerism involved, bit I was curious why this was never discussed as at least a possibility.

One of these days (or years) things like this will start going our way hopeffully. Every time we play the Giants the ball continuously bounces their way.

 

[Canadian BoyzFan]

Am I the only person that questions whether this should've been overturned or not? It was called a TD in play and how can you definitely say the ball of his hand didn't land inbounds PRIOR to his fingers touching out of bounds? It seems this would be the natural way of catching yourself during a fall as well. I know there is a little homerism involved, bit I was curious why this was never discussed as at least a possibility.

One of these days (or years) things like this will start going our way hopeffully. Every time we play the a Giants the ball continuously bounces their way.

Thats not the rule

 

[Hostile]

They got the call right. Sadly.

 

[Chinfu]

Its the one motion, for example the ball of your foot lands first in bounds but your toe comes down out of bounds as your foot plants. It would be ruled out.

I was going crazy trying to justify it myself but it was the correct call.

 

[lane]

his palm hit before his fingers.

horrible reversal.

 

[AmericasTeam31]

his palm hit before his fingers.

horrible reversal.

That doesn't even matter. A hand down in bounds doesn't establish you as "in bounds"... Now, if you could prove that his butt/hip or forearm hit the ground before his fingers hit the line then you've got a case. But that's like saying "the toes of his foot hit the ground in bounds before the heel, nevermind the fact that the other foot came down out of bounds."

 

[Tabascocat]

It doesnt matter if the palm hit first, he was out. For example, lets say miles catches a ball on the side and the heel of the foot lands first followed by the toe. He is still OOB, there is no way to dispute this, Dez was not in play and he did not "drag" his hand over the line, he landed on it.

 

[TX_Yid]

You couldn't tell for sure that his fingers even touched the ground, it was white on white.

That was the only reason for not reversing the call and I couldn't convince myself either.

 

[17yearsandcounting]

You couldn't tell for sure that his fingers even touched the ground, it was white on white.

That was the only reason for not reversing the call and I couldn't convince myself either.

I thought it was pretty clear.

 

[demdcowboys#1]

Unfortunately it was the correct call. Gosh....so close, yet no cigar. Absolutely heart breaking.

 

[MagicMan]

yeah unfortunately, it was the right call....if Dez had kept both hands on the ball, it would have been a catch, But its just a reflexive action to put one hand down coming down on your butt. Too bad his fingers landed on the line.

 

[phildominator]

Dez needed to establish possession. Even 'two complete hands on the ground' doesn't establish possession.

 

[superonyx]

You couldn't tell for sure that his fingers even touched the ground, it was white on white.

That was the only reason for not reversing the call and I couldn't convince myself either.

The part that I thought was wrong is that it seems like the conclusive and indisputable visual evidence seems like it no longer exist. With Dez wearing a white glove and the best angle they could show from behind made his fingers look like a blur I just didn't how they could overturn the call on the field.

It the first time in years that I got several text messages from my eagles fans friends that the cowboys got robbed on that one. I understand the rule I just don't see how the ref could overturn the call based on the visual evidence. I could not see his fingers ever clearly touching the ground on the white line.

 

[jimmy40]

The part that I thought was wrong is that it seems like the conclusive and indisputable visual evidence seems like it no longer exist. With Dez wearing a white glove and the best angle they could show from behind made his fingers look like a blur I just didn't how they could overturn the call on the field.

It the first time in years that I got several text messages from my eagles fans friends that the cowboys got robbed on that one. I understand the rule I just don't see how the ref could overturn the call based on the visual evidence. I could not see his fingers ever clearly touching the ground on the white line.

the only way that's not overturned is if you could see green between his hand and the white line.

 

[Clove]

Seeing is believing. And I saw it with my own eyes. He was out. You can't rely on miracles to get you places.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

You are probably the only one.

However it was a great catch, and a daring throw.

I was certainly thinking initially... that was a hell of a comeback to win the game.

Once the replay showed...it was clear he was out.

 

[links18]

Shades of the Keyshawn Johnson catch in the back of the endzone in Seattle in 2004. We got the call on that one however.......

 

[AdamJT13]

Am I the only person that questions whether this should've been overturned or not? It was called a TD in play and how can you definitely say the ball of his hand didn't land inbounds PRIOR to his fingers touching out of bounds?

It wouldn't matter. A hand on the ground inbounds does not establish possession, but a hand on the ground out of bounds means you're out of bounds.

 

[EPL0c0]

@MikePereira "For those asking about wrist touching first, it makes no difference. Must get 2 feet down or another body part other than the hands. "

 

[AdamJT13]

Shades of the Keyshawn Johnson catch in the back of the endzone in Seattle in 2004. We got the call on that one however.......

That should have been a touchdown anyway, because there was a force-out rule then. It exposed a flaw in the way that rule was called, however, because the refs would never signal a "potential" force-out when ruling that the catch was made in-bounds. For example, if a receiver jumped up, caught the ball and would have landed in bounds but got forced out of bounds while in the air, they'd call a force-out and say it was a catch. But if the same receiver had instead been pushed and still appeared to get both feet in, they'd call it a catch and forget about the force-out. Then if they went to a replay review and discovered that one toe landed on the edge of the line, they'd reverse it to an incompletion -- even though it was because of a force-out. There was no provision that allowed the official who made the call or the replay official to retroactively say that it was a force-out, even if they clearly knew that it was if the receiver landed out of bounds.

On that play, Keyshawn's hand or elbow came down out of bounds, but only because he was forced out by the DB. According to the rules then, it should have been called a touchdown even if he landed out of bounds.