Why the Wilcox INT should have stood

[Red Dragon]

Actually I think it hit Jimmy Hoffa.

The Eagles lost. Deal with it.

 

[Hostile]

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

You already are. You're puffing out your chest telling another poster you will not answer to me. It's hilarious.

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.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/why-the-wilcox-int-should-have-stood.270530/#post-5248860

Frame one, you can see the shadow of the ball in the grass, clearly it is not therefore touching the grass. The white tips are his fingers in gloves. Pay careful attention to where they are frame by frame. His hand does not grow new fingers.

Frame two, ball is lower, still see shadow below it. Still not touching the grass.

Frame three, note the position of Avant's fingers on his left hand. Spread out under the ball. Ball is flattening out. That is called inertia. Know what happens when an object in motion hits an unmoveable stable object? It changes the direction of it's travel.

Frame four, the white tip you see under the ball is one the glove and of his fingers, preventing it from touching the ground.

Frame five, his fingers are clearly under it. Unless you think he magically can have 3 fingers under it and stretch his index finger from behind it to under it. He's not Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic 4. Hate to break that to you.

Frame six, fingers clearly under the ball. This one is irrefutable. Look where the index finger is and therefore was, directly under the football. As I have already explained to you they do not magically appear.

Frame seven, ball is about to go upward without ever having touched the turf because his hand was under it.

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.

Yes, I can admit you are being silly. You think fingers shoot under footballs when other fingers on the same hand are all in place and visible. That one just magically grows another finger underneath a football.

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

So you admit you haven't seen the ball touch the ground. Right, because the photo evidence shows that it clearly did not, as displayed frame by frame above.

The Cowboys hating refs got it right.

There you go with that strawman crap again. I never said they hate the Cowboys. I said they got the call wrong because there is no irrefutable visual evidence to support overturning the call on the football field, which was, wait for it, Interception.

 

[Red Dragon]

You already are. You're puffing out your chest telling another poster you will not answer to me. It's hilarious.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/why-the-wilcox-int-should-have-stood.270530/#post-5248860

Frame one, you can see the shadow of the ball in the grass, clearly it is not therefore touching the grass. The white tips are his fingers in gloves. Pay careful attention to where they are frame by frame. His hand does not grow new fingers.

Frame two, ball is lower, still see shadow below it. Still not touching the grass.

Frame three, note the position of Avant's fingers on his left hand. Spread out under the ball. Ball is flattening out. That is called inertia. Know what happens when an object in motion hits an unmoveable stable object? It changes the direction of it's travel.

Frame four, the white tip you see under the ball is one the glove and of his fingers, preventing it from touching the ground.

Frame five, his fingers are clearly under it. Unless you think he magically can have 3 fingers under it and stretch his index finger from behind it to under it. He's not Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic 4. Hate to break that to you.

Frame six, fingers clearly under the ball. This one is irrefutable. Look where the index finger is and therefore was, directly under the football. As I have already explained to you they do not magically appear.

Frame seven, ball is about to go upward without ever having touched the turf because his hand was under it.

Yes, I can admit you are being silly. You think fingers shoot under footballs when other fingers on the same hand are all in place and visible. That one just magically grows another finger underneath a football.

So you admit you haven't seen the ball touch the ground. Right, because the photo evidence shows that it clearly did not, as displayed frame by frame above.

There you go with that strawman crap again. I never said they hate the Cowboys. I said they got the call wrong because there is no irrefutable visual evidence to support overturning the call on the football field, which was, wait for it, Interception.

Some people won't accept logic and facts if they don't want to.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The Eagles lost. Deal with it.

This literally made me laugh out loud.

 

[Manster68]

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.

The main issue with instant replay is that there has to be INDISPUTABLE VISUAL evidence.

There is NO WAY there was indisputable visual evidence on that play.

Therefore, the call should never had been overturned.

Dallas should have had the shutout.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

The main issue with instant replay is that there has to be INDISPUTABLE VISUAL evidence.

There is NO WAY there was indisputable visual evidence on that play.

Therefore, the call should never had been overturned.

Dallas should have had the shutout.

Honestly, this is really all that needs to be said.

Did the ball hit the ground? Probably grazed the turf.

Was there undisputable video evidence of that? Helllz no.

Play must stand.

The end.

 

[Hostile]

Some people won't accept logic and facts if they don't want to.

He will, as long as it is anti-Cowboys.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there are people claiming to be Cowboys fans who say more negative stuff about the Dallas Cowboys than any Commanders, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, or any other team's fans than I have ever heard. I have a buddy who hates the Cowboys. Hates them. If I go past him at work wearing a Cowboys t-shirt 20 times a day (it would never be that many, just an example) he will say something every time. I hear less against the Cowboys from him than these guys. I hear him maybe one of two comments a day. So a max of 10 in a week's time, maybe. These guys have that many every day on this forum and Twitter. Fans of other teams spew less bile about our team than some of our fans. That is a sad fact.

I can pick 20 fans right now, and tell you to search back the last 100 comments for each. That is 2000 comments. if you can find 10% that have something positive to say I will faint dead away. Translate that to a marriage. If you can't say 1 good thing in 10 about your wife do you think it is going to last?

I will never understand the mentality of that.

 

[Ratmatt]

I didn't think there was enough there on the replay to overturn the int.For me it was too hard to tell,so the int should have stood.Now,the idea that the refs,the league,or the league all hate the Cowboys,and are out to get them is just simply stupid.Sometimes you get the breaks,and sometimes you don't.

 

[theogt]

To me, it looks pretty convincing it touched the ground.

 

[Tommy]

To me, it looks pretty convincing it touched the ground.

But can you point to any part of that play watching frame by frame and say "right there, there is no doubt the ball touches the ground. Its irrefutable?"

From my understanding of the rules the refs have to see that in the replay.

If it was ruled incomplete on the field then I would agree the call should stand. But you cannot overturn rulings on he field without irrefutable evidence.

 

[daschoo]

If it was called an incomplete pass then thats what should have been the result of the review as all the replays are inconclusive. We've got frame by frame stills on here and folk are arguing as to what they show so how anyone can say the call on the field should have been overturned is beyond me.

 

[Hostile]

But can you point to any part of that play watching frame by frame and say "right there, there is no doubt the ball touches the ground. Its irrefutable?"

From my understanding of the rules the refs have to see that in the replay.

If it was ruled incomplete on the field then I would agree the call should stand. But you cannot overturn rulings on he field without irrefutable evidence.

Every point is 100% correct. This is about replay has to show, with irrefutable evidence, that the call on the field was wrong. Whether it had been a TD catch, incomplete pass, or INT, to over rule the call on the field the evidence must show it.

Did not happen in this case.

 

[DogFace]

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.

The ball didn't bounce off anything period. It came out of his hand and the momentom of him trying to grab it made it go in the air.
The low trajectory of the throw would not allow it to bounce almost straight up like it did.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

Kind of proving the point. NFL replay has to show clear evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. Did the Ball hit the ground or not? I don't see any clear evidence that it did or didn't thus the ruling on the field should have stood. Had they called it a TD there would be nothing to prove he did or didn't catch it. The replay shows no clear evidence either way

 

[Doomsday101]

Every point is 100% correct. This is about replay has to show, with irrefutable evidence, that the call on the field was wrong. Whether it had been a TD catch, incomplete pass, or INT, to over rule the call on the field the evidence must show it.

Did not happen in this case.

Exactly, Replay does not clearly show yes or no to touching the ground. Replay was set up as it must show irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field and that did not happen.

 

[DogFace]

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.

There were several very poor calls other than this absolutely horrible overturn that others have mentioned. The eagles had nothing comparable to complain about. So a reasonable person could conclude the Cowboys got screwed in regards to calls in this game.

 

[Phoenix]

Wow. Haven't read through this whole thread, but just wow. For those who claim the ball had to have hit the ground to bounce like it did, prove it did.

BOTTOM LINE is that the call was ruled an INT. There has to be CLEAR INDISPUTABLE evidence to overturn the call.

That evidence does not exist. This was just a horrible, horrible misuse of replay by a crew so obviously biased against the Dallas team all game.

Period.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Wow. Haven't read through this whole thread, but just wow. For those who claim the ball had to have hit the ground to bounce like it did, prove it did.

That is the part that I have found so funny in this thread, .. that there are some posters that say they know how a football will bounce in this, or that situation. LOL

A football will bounce in any direction it darn well pleases. Ha Ha!

It is just funny that some are trying to prove their point by saying that they know how the football would bounce to back up their opinion.

 

[Phoenix]

That is the part that I have found so funny in this thread, .. that there are some posters that say they know how a football will bounce in this, or that situation. LOL

A football will bounce in any direction it darn well pleases. Ha Ha!

It is just funny that some are trying to prove their point by saying that they know how the football would bounce to back up their opinion.

Right?

Man. The rule book does not say, I don't believe, for the replay official to use rules of probability or theoretical physics or anything like that to make the call. The deal is for indisputable evidence to overturn. Period. It's not, "well, that nose of the ball MIGHT have touched the ground...heck it probably HAD to in order to bounce like that, so..."

ERRRR

The rules say that there must be clear indisputable evidence to overturn! Did the nose hit the ground? Maybe! Is there video to absolutely confirm that fact? I haven't seen it. What I saw was a hand under the ball.

I said before, if the call had been incomplete on the field, I don't think the available footage could have overturned that call into an INT.

What we saw was simply NOT "clearly indisputable" in either way - ergo the call should have STOOD as called on the field.

Theoretical physics be DAMNED.

 

[Risen Star]

He will, as long as it is anti-Cowboys.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there are people claiming to be Cowboys fans who say more negative stuff about the Dallas Cowboys than any Commanders, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, or any other team's fans than I have ever heard. I have a buddy who hates the Cowboys. Hates them. If I go past him at work wearing a Cowboys t-shirt 20 times a day (it would never be that many, just an example) he will say something every time. I hear less against the Cowboys from him than these guys. I hear him maybe one of two comments a day. So a max of 10 in a week's time, maybe. These guys have that many every day on this forum and Twitter. Fans of other teams spew less bile about our team than some of our fans. That is a sad fact.

I can pick 20 fans right now, and tell you to search back the last 100 comments for each. That is 2000 comments. if you can find 10% that have something positive to say I will faint dead away. Translate that to a marriage. If you can't say 1 good thing in 10 about your wife do you think it is going to last?

I will never understand the mentality of that.

What exactly is negative about reviewing whether it was an INT or not?

Maybe the problem is you and your ilk. The ones incapable of having an honest discussion on the team. You're always in defense mode. Out to prove just how much of a fan you are. Spare me.

I've still seen no evidence whatsoever that the ball did not touch the ground. I'd like it to be a pick too, but it just wasn't.