- Thread starter
- #1
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Both toes were not down....
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.
imac220 said:I thought the rule said, without INDISPUTABLE evidence, a play cannot be overturned. Please correct me if I am wrong
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
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.
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.