Feel Better Cards fans

[beefycheddar]

Both toes were not down....

 

[ffgameman]

Ah, some Steelers fans (some of them, not all) would come up with some other excuse anyway....

 

[ffgameman]

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.

 

[imac220]

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

 

[ffgameman]

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?).

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

 

[imac220]

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?).

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]

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.

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?).

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]

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.

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?).

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.

 

[Brad]

 

[onionring9]

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....

 

[SeattlefantillIdie]

It was one hell of a toss and a catch that is for sure! Especially into traffic as it was! He was in though and it was a good call!

 

[tramers]

well steelers DIDN'T cover the spread .