Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Feel Better Cards fans

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

beefycheddar

Super Moderator
Aug 7, 2008
8,055
0
wegotscrewed-1-copy.jpg


Both toes were not down....
 

ffgameman

New member
Aug 7, 2008
6,698
0
Kentucky
After looking at other shots it was still too close to be overturned either way. The ref on the ground can't see the play with the close-up quality that the photographs show.
 

ffgameman

New member
Aug 7, 2008
6,698
0
Kentucky
That was the point I tried to make with my second post. Compelling photography but:

1. Regardless of what pictures we have the refs did not access to them....and cameras can get a better look than the human eye can.

2. Even with the pictures, we can't tell at what point during the catch the one foot was above the ground (ie - did he actually first make the catch - with both feet on the ground - prior to one of the photographs shown?).

imac220 said:
I thought the rule said, without INDISPUTABLE evidence, a play cannot be overturned. Please correct me if I am wrong
 

imac220

New member
Aug 14, 2008
6,828
0
Central PA
ffgameman said:
That was the point I tried to make with my second post. Compelling photography but:

1. Regardless of what pictures we have the refs did not access to them....and cameras can get a better look than the human eye can.

2. Even with the pictures, we can't tell at what point during the catch the one foot was above the ground (ie - did he actually first make the catch - with both feet on the ground - prior to one of the photographs shown?).

imac220 said:
I thought the rule said, without INDISPUTABLE evidence, a play cannot be overturned. Please correct me if I am wrong

Ah, ok. After reading your post again, now I realize what I think you were saying. I mean, he could of put his second foot down after the photo. That I think is an advantage of "slow-mo" video evidence. We just do not know. And hey, it is in the past, it won't change anything now, so us fans and the NFL should just move on, and forget about it.
 

ffgameman

New member
Aug 7, 2008
6,698
0
Kentucky
The refs shouldn't be criticized for that call, but instead the non-calls. The folks in the booth need to be criticized for deciding not to review the last call (fumble), even if it wouldn't have been overturned.

imac220 said:
ffgameman said:
That was the point I tried to make with my second post. Compelling photography but:

1. Regardless of what pictures we have the refs did not access to them....and cameras can get a better look than the human eye can.

2. Even with the pictures, we can't tell at what point during the catch the one foot was above the ground (ie - did he actually first make the catch - with both feet on the ground - prior to one of the photographs shown?).

imac220 said:
I thought the rule said, without INDISPUTABLE evidence, a play cannot be overturned. Please correct me if I am wrong

Ah, ok. After reading your post again, now I realize what I think you were saying. I mean, he could of put his second foot down after the photo. That I think is an advantage of "slow-mo" video evidence. We just do not know. And hey, it is in the past, it won't change anything now, so us fans and the NFL should just move on, and forget about it.
 

imac220

New member
Aug 14, 2008
6,828
0
Central PA
ffgameman said:
The refs shouldn't be criticized for that call, but instead the non-calls. The folks in the booth need to be criticized for deciding not to review the last call (fumble), even if it wouldn't have been overturned.

imac220 said:
ffgameman said:
That was the point I tried to make with my second post. Compelling photography but:

1. Regardless of what pictures we have the refs did not access to them....and cameras can get a better look than the human eye can.

2. Even with the pictures, we can't tell at what point during the catch the one foot was above the ground (ie - did he actually first make the catch - with both feet on the ground - prior to one of the photographs shown?).

imac220 said:
I thought the rule said, without INDISPUTABLE evidence, a play cannot be overturned. Please correct me if I am wrong

Ah, ok. After reading your post again, now I realize what I think you were saying. I mean, he could of put his second foot down after the photo. That I think is an advantage of "slow-mo" video evidence. We just do not know. And hey, it is in the past, it won't change anything now, so us fans and the NFL should just move on, and forget about it.

I agree, in that the refs should not have been blamed on that typical call, and they should have reviewed the Warner fumble, BUT after the replay, I thought it looked like a clean fumble, but that is just me.
 

onionring9

Active member
Administrator
Aug 7, 2008
3,490
12
That picture was taken after both feet touched. I've seen two other pictures that verify his foot was down.

I still wish he missed it though, that or at least replay the last play of the game....
 

Members online

Top