Was It Tipped - You Make The Call

[percyhoward]

A member of the receiving team may not run into a kicker unless contact is after he had touched ball in flight.

This is what settles it once and for all.

People are thinking that once the ball is touched, the kicker can be run into (like a pass interference that gets called back because of a tipped ball)...This rule clearly states that he can't, unless the player who touched the ball is the same player who ran into him.

"Unless HE had touched the ball," is not the same as "unless the ball had been touched."

Since Peppers didn't touch the ball, then ran into Cundiff, it's a penalty.

And TD, is that a picture of a football in between two hands, or a football behind two hands?

 

[Yeagermeister]

Henceforth this will be known as....The magic football theory.

BACK AND TO THE FRONT
BACK AND TO THE FRONT
BACK AND TO THE FRONT
BACK AND TO THE FRONT

:laugh1:

 

[Sitting Bull]

This is what settles it once and for all.

People are thinking that once the ball is touched, the kicker can be run into (like a pass interference that gets called back because of a tipped ball)...This rule clearly states that he can't, unless the player who touched the ball is the same player who ran into him.

"Unless HE had touched the ball," is not the same as "unless the ball had been touched."

Since Peppers didn't touch the ball, then ran into Cundiff, it's a penalty.

And TD, is that a picture of a football in between two hands, or a football behind two hands?

1. I also firmly believe the ball was grazed- good thing replay booths are not HDTV yet!
2. That is a very interesting rule interpretation. I wonder if they refs factored this, because it sure seemed like they were only checking for "tippage."
3. Seems like the kicker often gets creamed on jailbreaks/badly blocked balls; yet I don't recall reviews of who hit the kicker vs. who blocked the kick. This is very interesting.
Either way, the good guys won.

 

[CowboyChris]

i never knew you could challenge a call like that, infact it was a booth review, i never expected them to even review the play, i wonder if someone can look up the rules on whether a tipped FG can be reviewed?

 

[Chevyman08]

The ball was not touched. Let it die!!

 

[Qwickdraw]

Ball never changed direction or rotation, bottom line is on replay you have to have absolute visual evidence and there clearly was nothing in the replay that was going to overturn the call on the field.

Exactly.

And I hope the officials never have to make a call based on a picture as blurred as that one.

A for effort but Im dizzy looking at it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Before you read this, know that I watched the game and even after watching the video of the game again, I firmly supported the fact that the ball was not tipped at all by either player. However, my opinion has now changed.

I know a billion "experts" are going to chime in and disagree, but based on what I found out by breaking the video of the kick down frame by frame, I firmly believe he tipped it .. he just didn't get enough of it to make a noticable difference. I do not believe the call could have been overturned without extensive frame break down like I did so the ruling on the field was the only possible outcome.

If you watch the laces on the football, you will see the ball shift a little to the right just as it passes his hand. It just worked out for the Cowboys that when the ball glanced off his hand, it was at the absolute perfect angle that it had to be to minimize the deflection.

If you go back and put the kick from the moment it leaves Cundiff's foot until the moment it passes the line of scrimage into a video loop, watch it over and over in repeat mode, you will notice the slight deflection in the ball using the laces as the directional guide.

Don't believe me? Doesn't really matter .. the ruling on the field says it was not touched, the running into the kicker penalty stood and the Cowboys won the game so it doesn't really matter.

-Scott

Reality,

I thought it was tipped from the first time I saw the replay. If you watch it close you can't deny that there was a slight deflection or movement of the ball as it moved between Lucas' hands. It is very, very slight but it's clearly there on the video tape. I have no problem admitting that. But I really never thought the ref would overturn the call because it was so slight as to not be conclusive evidence enough to overturn the call.

I think what confused some people is that the announcers kept talking about Peppers and looking at Peppers' hands and body, (it clearly didn't touch him), when in reality Lucas was the guy to be watching.

All that being said, we beat them fair and square.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This is what settles it once and for all.

People are thinking that once the ball is touched, the kicker can be run into (like a pass interference that gets called back because of a tipped ball)...This rule clearly states that he can't, unless the player who touched the ball is the same player who ran into him.

"Unless HE had touched the ball," is not the same as "unless the ball had been touched."

Since Peppers didn't touch the ball, then ran into Cundiff, it's a penalty.

And TD, is that a picture of a football in between two hands, or a football behind two hands?

Percy,
Are you sure about the rule on that? I didn't know that was the rule. In any event didn't Lucas and Peppers roll into Cundiff?

 

[percyhoward]

Percy,
Are you sure about the rule on that? I didn't know that was the rule. In any event didn't Lucas and Peppers roll into Cundiff?

I offer exhibit 6a

Superpunk got it right. Since both Lucas and Peppers ran into Cundiff, the only way it isn't a penalty is if they both touched the ball. Officially, the penalty was on Peppers anyway, and Lucas is the one who claims to have touched the ball.

 

[CowboyDan]

the angle of the flight of the ball didn't change nor was there a wobble. So no it wasn't

EXACTLY!

or as they say in the Guiness comercials................BRILLIANT!

 

[Nors]

If the replay is not legit, you must acquit

I sweated major.... That gets over ruled our season ended right there......

The journey continues!

 

[The30YardSlant]

As it passes Lucas' right arm/Peppers' left side, something causes it to shift to the left ever so slightly. Considering the wind was not a real factor, I have to believe one of them got a piece of it.

However, we lost the Washington game to a bad call (holding on Flozell) so it all evens out at some point.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I offer exhibit 6a

Superpunk got it right. Since both Lucas and Peppers ran into Cundiff, the only way it isn't a penalty is if they both touched the ball. Officially, the penalty was on Peppers anyway, and Lucas is the one who claims to have touched the ball.

So I guess they were looking at the replay to see if BOTH players touched the ball before they rolled into Cundiff? That's interesting. Perhaps the ref should have explained that to the crowd and saved everyone a lot of second-guessing. Somehow I wonder if the refs were loking for that in the replay.

 

[notherbob]

It's still inconclusive because when you shank a ball like that one was, the ball zig-zags a little in flight as it stabilizes from the mis-hit - sweet hits don't do that. If Cundiff shanked it, erratic movement of the ball is normal. If you've ever kicked, you'll know what I'm talking about as the ball takes off and settles into its flight pattern. If you hit them right, it's smooth but if you don't, it's kinda ragged. That could explain the ball changing direction even if untouched.

Also interesting is that I read both players said they touched it. Hmmmm.

 

[Nors]

Still looks to me like ball veered slightly after touched....

 

[Waffle]

1. I also firmly believe the ball was grazed- good thing replay booths are not HDTV yet!
2. That is a very interesting rule interpretation. I wonder if they refs factored this, because it sure seemed like they were only checking for "tippage."
3. Seems like the kicker often gets creamed on jailbreaks/badly blocked balls; yet I don't recall reviews of who hit the kicker vs. who blocked the kick. This is very interesting.
Either way, the good guys won.

This is what I think too. When FOX showed the slow-mo replay, it looked to me that the ball ever so slightly changed trajectory. I was concerned enough to tell my wife that they were going to "overturn" the call.

Glad they didn't!

 

[Nors]

Damn I wish I had Tivo'd but I watched it enough to come to the conclusion it was slightly blocked.

 

[Waffle]

Damn I wish I had Tivo'd but I watched it enough to come to the conclusion it was slightly blocked.

Agreed. I've watched the slow-motion replay on DVD several times. If you zoom your eyes to look ONLY at the ball, it looks untouched. If you pan your eyes back a bit and look at a larger portion of the screen while watching the replay, you can see the top of the ball change directions ever so slightly, IMO.

I can see why it's inconclusive though.

 

[Nors]

Damn good call - our season lives on!

 

[marsbennett]

the angle of the flight of the ball didn't change nor was there a wobble. So no it wasn't

I believe the ball did change direction. Salisbury was on the boob tube with a different camera angle and indicated he was sure the ball had been touched. It was a touch and we got a gift from on High.