Why the Wilcox INT should have stood

[Hostile]

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.

That is exactly right, because there would be no irrefutable evidence there either.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

I kind of stand with that. I don't think it should have been overturned by rule (indisputable evidence), but I can live with it because I can't say with absolute certainty that it didn't hit the ground. (My wife said it did.)

However, I can say with absolutely certainty that Dez made that sideline catch. I can say with absolute certainty that he was held by both shoulder pads in plain view of the officials in the end zone and absolutely interfered with on other plays.

We didn't need calls to go our way to win this game, but we certainly have not been helped much by officiating this year.

 

[Risen Star]

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.

Prove to me it didn't hit the ground. You can't.

I'm not interested in showing you anything. I'm telling you the ball hit the ground. The Cowboys did not get screwed. Just like the refs do not hate the Cowboys. The media does not hate the Cowboys. The hall of fame voters do not hate the Cowboys. There isn't a grand conspiracy theory working against a brilliant front office, etc.

I knew the ball hit the ground before I ever saw a replay just by the bounce. It didn't even need a review, IMO.

 

[Nightman]

Prove to me it didn't hit the ground. You can't.

I'm not interested in showing you anything. I'm telling you the ball hit the ground. The Cowboys did not get screwed. Just like the refs do not hate the Cowboys. The media does not hate the Cowboys. The hall of fame voters do not hate the Cowboys. There isn't a grand conspiracy theory working against a brilliant front office, etc.

I knew the ball hit the ground before I ever saw a replay just by the bounce. It didn't even need a review, IMO.

You have to prove him wrong to overturn a call on the field, not the other way around.

 

[Red Dragon]

Let's say there had been no call made whatsoever and that it was ruled neither a completion, incompletion or interception (obviously impossible.) Well then, the officials, forced to choose one way or another, might have reasonably called it an incompletion.


But the call was an interception. To overturn it, there must be indisputable evidence. That high level of evidence simply was not met. The bar is set high, and while someone, if forced to choose one way or another, would have called incompletion, this just didn't meet that high bar of evidence.

 

[Red Dragon]

Prove to me it didn't hit the ground. You can't.
.

You still don't understand. The default call is interception, since that was the ruling on the field. To overturn it, you need strong evidence proving that the ball hit the ground, not strong evidence that the ball didn't hit the ground.

 

[Hostile]

Prove to me it didn't hit the ground. You can't.

I'm not interested in showing you anything. I'm telling you the ball hit the ground. The Cowboys did not get screwed. Just like the refs do not hate the Cowboys. The media does not hate the Cowboys. The hall of fame voters do not hate the Cowboys. There isn't a grand conspiracy theory working against a brilliant front office, etc.

I knew the ball hit the ground before I ever saw a replay just by the bounce. It didn't even need a review, IMO.

Actually I can. Every replay, every still photo clearly shows Avant's hand under the ball, shielding it from...wait for it...the ground. Every...single...one...of...them.

Where am I saying the refs hate the Cowboys. Who brought up the Hall of Fame? What does this have to do with any team's front office? Stick to the topic if you can.

You knew nothing. I'm sure you hoped it was incomplete. You being a big Eagles fan and all. ~wink~

 

[Hostile]

You still don't understand. The default call is interception, since that was the ruling on the field. To overturn it, you need strong evidence proving that the ball hit the ground, not strong evidence that the ball didn't hit the ground.

There was a farmer, had a dog....what the hell was that dog's name?








Bingo!

 

[Crown Royal]

Actually I can. Every replay, every still photo clearly shows Avant's hand under the ball, shielding it from...wait for it...the ground. Every...single...one...of...them.

Where am I saying the refs hate the Cowboys. Who brought up the Hall of Fame? Stick to the topic if you can.

You knew nothing. I'm sure you hoped it was incomplete. You being a big eagles fan and all. ~wink~

Whoaaa OOOOOHHHHHHH!

 

[Hostile]

Whoaaa OOOOOHHHHHHH!

He's from the Philly area and hates them. I just wanted to poke fun. He knows that.

 

[Hostile]

In fact, truth be told if you look at the photos one page 1 of this thread, not only do you see Avant's spread out fingers of his left hand under the ball, but you see his right hand on top of the ball.

So please tell me Physics Professors how did the ground cause it to bounce clear through his top hand? If anything caused that bounce it was him trying to cradle it with his bottom hand to ensure the catch. He then pushed the ball higher when it squirts up from between his hands.

No way, no shape, no how is there irrefutable evidence that ball touches the ground. It was the wrong call. Those who are saying if he makes that catch it is a TD are 100% right, for the exact same reason. He got his hand under it.

 

[Laundry fan]

I should point out that I don't know exactly what the rule in this situation is, but I still want to give some reasons I feel that was an INT:

1. There was simply NO clear and obvious evidence that the football touched the ground. Zooming in it was far to pixelated to actually see the football touch the ground at ANY point in that motion. Assuming that it did and overturning a call was a poor, poor decision. The play should have stood (not confirmed, just stood).
2. IF Avant holds onto the ball, he gets credited with a catch, whether the football touched or not. This is where I don't know exactly what the rule says, but I do know that if he controls it, it counts as a catch, touch or no touch on the ground. This is unfairly biased to the offense (surprise surprise), but it was clear he had a hand under it and was in the process of catching it. If the hand-under rule is enough for a catch, then it should apply to the interception as well.

I thought the exact same thing.

 

[Risen Star]

You still don't understand. The default call is interception, since that was the ruling on the field. To overturn it, you need strong evidence proving that the ball hit the ground, not strong evidence that the ball didn't hit the ground.

Yes, I do understand. I don't have to prove to Hostile from Cowboyzone that the ball hit the ground in order to overturn the incorrect call of an INT. The replay did that for the officials. The obvious bounce should have been enough to convince anyone.

 

[Risen Star]

Actually I can. Every replay, every still photo clearly shows Avant's hand under the ball, shielding it from...wait for it...the ground. Every...single...one...of...them.

Where am I saying the refs hate the Cowboys. Who brought up the Hall of Fame? What does this have to do with any team's front office? Stick to the topic if you can.

You knew nothing. I'm sure you hoped it was incomplete. You being a big Eagles fan and all. ~wink~

Avant's hands are over and under the ball. The ball hits his hands, shifts hits the turf and bounces into the air.

You failed at proving anything. But that was a fun game.

Hold on to your hat here. Sometimes the Cowboys just didn't make the play.

 

[Hostile]

Avant's hands are over and under the ball. The ball hits his hands, shifts hits the turf and bounces into the air.

You failed at proving anything. But that was a fun game.

Hold on to your hat here. Sometimes the Cowboys just didn't make the play.

No sir. Show that ball hitting turf. Show the grass bent. Show it clearly. You cannot do it. Those frames one by one show his left hand under the ball all the way. The pop up into the air is caused by Avant's own hands and his inertia from going to the ground to try and make the play.

You and I both know you cannot and will not show that ball touching the ground. That bit of evidence is necessary for the ruling on the field to be overturned and it does not exist. Nowhere. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to make you right.

Stow the homer accusation stuff. It never has fit me, never will, and you know that too. Whether you'd be brave enough to publicly admit it or not, I can't say.

 

[Hostile]

Yes, I do understand. I don't have to prove to Hostile from Cowboyzone that the ball hit the ground in order to overturn the incorrect call of an INT. The replay did that for the officials. The obvious bounce should have been enough to convince anyone.

No, clearly you don't. All you are doing is saying you are right, but don't have to prove it. The truth is you are not right and you cannot prove it. Big damned difference.

 

[big dog cowboy]

We didn't need calls to go our way to win this game, but we certainly have not been helped much by officiating this year.

Thank you.

 

[Risen Star]

No sir. Show that ball hitting turf. Show the grass bent. Show it clearly. You cannot do it. Those frames one by one show his left hand under the ball all the way. The pop up into the air is caused by Avant's own hands and his inertia from going to the ground to try and make the play.

You and I both know you cannot and will not show that ball touching the ground. That bit of evidence is necessary for the ruling on the field to be overturned and it does not exist. Nowhere. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to make you right.

Stow the homer accusation stuff. It never has fit me, never will, and you know that too. Whether you'd be brave enough to publicly admit it or not, I can't say.

You're right, I will not. Because I don't dance to your tune.

Here, show me all the replays of the fumble and highlight the space in each between the ball and the turf. Show me upright blades of grass. You will do this now.

Or we can just admit this is silly and go by what we saw. Which was the ball hit the turf on replay after hitting Avant's hand and the force of that cause the ball to fly into the air.

But again, I didn't even need to see that. I saw the bounce and immediately knew it wasn't an INT.

The Cowboys hating refs got it right.

 

[Red Dragon]

The obvious bounce should have been enough to convince anyone.

The ball made contact with Avant's leg and other hand, both of which may propelled it higher.

 

[Risen Star]

The ball made contact with Avant's leg and other hand, both of which may propelled it higher.

Actually I think it hit Jimmy Hoffa.