Why the Wilcox INT should have stood

[BRoni]

I think the ball did hit the ground, however I agree that there was no evidence to prove it. If someone really thinks that the video we saw contained conclusive proof then I hope they are not my judge if I am ever on trial. The refs having video of another angle that wasn't available to us sure is a convenient excuse.

 

[Hostile]

agreed but i read on here last night that NBC showed an angle that did show it, HOWEVER, FOX didnt have that angle at the time and hence the review officials and ref didnt have it either.
I am not a conspiracy/bias guy at all but i do think that the officials are of poor quality and have been worse than ever this year, for all teams.

I don't believe there is an angle anywhere that shows that ball clearly touching the ground. Why would NBC have it if they weren't even broadcasting the game? Every camera in there belonged to FOX.

Period point blank, I am saying that shot does not exist and if it does exist it would already be posted and we'd all be saying, "Yeah, okay."

 

[unionjack8]

I don't believe there is an angle anywhere that shows that ball clearly touching the ground. Why would NBC have it if they weren't even broadcasting the game? Every camera in there belonged to FOX.

Period point blank, I am saying that shot does not exist and if it does exist it would already be posted and we'd all be saying, "Yeah, okay."

i havent seen it, it was just a post i read on here last night

 

[Hostile]

i havent seen it, it was just a post i read on here last night

I don't doubt you at all. I am simply saying to anyone who says that ball absolutely touched the ground, prove it. So far no one has, and I do not believe anyone will without photoshop skills.

 

[Red Dragon]

The reason the ball went so high was because Avant inadvertently used his right leg and right hand to knock it higher into the air.

 

[Red Dragon]

The ball did hit the ground, in my opinion - it wouldn't have flipped direction so drastically if it hadn't come in contact with the hard surface.

 

[Crown Royal]

The ball did hit the ground, in my opinion - it wouldn't have flipped direction so drastically if it hadn't come in contact with the hard surface.

NFL ref isn't a physicist. Show it hitting on ground.

 

[Red Dragon]

The biggest problem for the Eagles is that Foles threw that ball so low to begin with. Throw that ball just a bit higher and harder and it would almost certainly be a TD.

 

[Hostile]

The ball did hit the ground, in my opinion - it wouldn't have flipped direction so drastically if it hadn't come in contact with the hard surface.

Hands are a hard surface too. I can show you with a volleyball, they call it a pancake, that the ball will bounce up. It went higher after Avant touched it again and pushed it higher. No one can tell me an inflated football can't bounce off a hand.

Like Crown Royal has been saying, show the proof it touched the ground. The refs have to see indisputable proof. Where is it? It isn't about what they believe. It is about what they see.

The overturn was dead wrong.

 

[gimmesix]

I think we all agree that the "overturn" of the INT was inexplainable, .. so can anyone explain it?

Why would the replay booth overturn that play?

Clearly they were wrong, .. why then did they make that call?

I think they overturned it because of the way the ball bounced up, essentially believing the ball could not have taken the initial bounce of his hand but had to have hit the ground.

That being said, it shouldn't have been overturned because of a lack of evidence.

That call, Dez's catch not being reviewed, the lack of a late-hit penalty on the Romo sack and multiple pass interference/defensive holds by Philadelphia's secondary made this another poorly officiated game not favoring Dallas. The end zone hold on Dez (both shoulder pads) was inexcusable.

We did have a couple of noncalls go our way, though, that were borderline (so I was happy about that at least).

 

[Risen Star]

The ball did hit the ground, in my opinion - it wouldn't have flipped direction so drastically if it hadn't come in contact with the hard surface.

Correct. It obviously hit the ground. This is homer fan nonsense.

 

[Hostile]

Correct. It obviously hit the ground. This is homer fan nonsense.

Prove it. You can't. We both know it. This is just hater fan nonsense.

 

[Risen Star]

Prove it. You can't. We both know it. This is just hater fan nonsense.

I don't need to prove it. Even though I did see a replay that showed the tip of the football hit the ground.

My education tells me the ball doesn't bounce like that off of a hand.

Find something else to play victim about.

 

[Tommy]

Hands are a hard surface too. I can show you with a volleyball, they call it a pancake, that the ball will bounce up. It went higher after Avant touched it again and pushed it higher. No one can tell me an inflated football can't bounce off a hand.

Like Crown Royal has been saying, show the proof it touched the ground. The refs have to see indisputable proof. Where is it? It isn't about what they believe. It is about what they see.

The overturn was dead wrong.

May be the worst overturned call I have ever seen. As someone else posted, if that ball was caught for a touchdown there is no way that call would EVER be overturned due to hitting the ground.

 

[Risen Star]

May be the worst overturned call I have ever seen. As someone else posted, if that ball was caught for a touchdown there is no way that call would EVER be overturned due to hitting the ground.

I think it would have been. The replay I saw showed the ball shift and the tip of the football hit the ground.

But I agree with the overall premise that the refs and league hate us, and therefore woe is us.

 

[BaybeeJay]

May be the worst overturned call I have ever seen. As someone else posted, if that ball was caught for a touchdown there is no way that call would EVER be overturned due to hitting the ground.

I don't understand why people are confusing multiple rules on this play. Yes, if he had controlled the ball, they would have called it a completed pass. But they ruled he did not control the ball, and it hit the ground, so it is an incomplete pass.

 

[BRoni]

The ball did move and looks like it hit the ground based on the bounce it takes. You can't see if it hits the ground though. Even if you think it's wrong you have to let the call on the field stand.

I think it was the right call anyway, so I won't cry. What bothers me more is why the booth didn't think it was worth reviewing the Dez catch. It was obviously worth taking a look at.

 

[StarBoyz83]

I dont think it hit the ground at all!

 

[Hostile]

I don't need to prove it. Even though I did see a replay that showed the tip of the football hit the ground.

My education tells me the ball doesn't bounce like that off of a hand.

Find something else to play victim about.

Nothing victim at all. You can't prove it. It is that simple. Hiding behind the don't need to is the same as an admission that you can't and anyone with half a brain knows it. You have not seen any such replay because it would already be posted. It doesn't exist, but since this topic is something anti-cowboys you spring right into it must be true mode. It's tired, it's old, and it's worn out, and no one gives a damn about yet another anti-Cowboys opinion from you or any of the other constant naysayers. If any one of you can show me that ball clearly touching the ground I will admit I'm wrong. But like I already said, you can't. Not from an undoctored photo anyway.

 

[Nightman]

The thing is you can't see it hit the ground. You can interpret the bounce and assume part of the ball was on the ground, but the rule is supposed to be "clear visual evidence" is needed to overturn a ruling made on the field. It is a higher standard and it should be. The overturn was a bad call.