Posted:
#1
How can the Ref reverse the call when it was clearly a catch when his elbow hit the ground?
0
VTech Backers got Screwed on that TD in OT
...
Search 
Views: 1510
Posts: 23
Posted:
#6
I am the only one who noticed this?
How about the offsides on the kicker before the game winner. He took two steps towards the line of scrimmage before ball was snapped? Clearly OFFSIDES,He would have probably still made the field goal after ball was moved back 5 yards, but you would like to see the correct call made on field.
0
Posted:
#8
Quote Originally Posted by Ice4Blood:
no... read the rules... ball can't move at all if it touches the ground... it clearly (undeniably, indisputably) shifted after it touched the ground...
correct call was made! no question...
better luck on the next one...
no... read the rules... ball can't move at all if it touches the ground... it clearly (undeniably, indisputably) shifted after it touched the ground...
correct call was made! no question...
better luck on the next one...
It could have been called either way. But the fact that it was called a td to start is bullshit that it was reversed. Especially after the interception call back. The ball can touch the ground it cannot aid the reception. I think he clearly had enough control and was down before the ball moved. Which if you read the rules should have been a reception. Let me add the mere fact we can have this converation is enough reason why the call should not have been reversed.
0
Posted:
#9
Quote Originally Posted by mrquija27:
It could have been called either way. But the fact that it was called a td to start is bullshit that it was reversed. Especially after the interception call back. The ball can touch the ground it cannot aid the reception. I think he clearly had enough control and was down before the ball moved. Which if you read the rules should have been a reception. Let me add the mere fact we can have this converation is enough reason why the call should not have been reversed.
They called it a touchdown on the field. There was not indisputable evidence to overturn the call. The kid made a great catch and the official would have made a better call to let it stand than to overturn it. Sometimes the "correct call" isn't the "right call". He should have swallowed his whistle and let the touchdown stand.
0
Posted:
#10
Agreed. If it was ruled incomplete on the field I'd be ok with the call standing as called on the field-they didnt have enough evidence to overturn it. VT had many chances to win, from the poor play calling by the coaches to the costly Turnovers. They deserved to lose, just feel bad becasue that defense played so well.
Quote Originally Posted by mrquija27:
It could have been called either way. But the fact that it was called a td to start is bullshit that it was reversed. Especially after the interception call back. The ball can touch the ground it cannot aid the reception. I think he clearly had enough control and was down before the ball moved. Which if you read the rules should have been a reception. Let me add the mere fact we can have this converation is enough reason why the call should not have been reversed.
0
Posted:
#15
I watched the replay 10 times and still think it was a catch..!
Key Word=Elbow touched the tuff before the ball touches the ground.
Elbow is like your feet...ground did not cause the ball aiding the catch.
Ref called he did not contain controll of the ball..?
Look at frame 2:43 sec...!
Link on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Xh8MlPw38&feature=player_embedded
We will have simular calls for tonight's game..!
0
Posted:
#17
Quote Originally Posted by nflpicker14:
It was obviously not a catch the ball shifted when it hit the ground and helped him secure the ball, therefore not a catch. How is this even a debate?
It was obviously not a catch the ball shifted when it hit the ground and helped him secure the ball, therefore not a catch. How is this even a debate?
it is absolutely shocking to see the responses to this... first off, the whole "indisputable evidence" issue is not an excuse to ignore what evidence there is... second, there was clear and visible evidence that the ball WAS NOT SECURE when it touched the ground...
like nflpicker said... how is this even a debate? there are so many bad calls in games... this was not one of them... i would have been absolutely SHOCKED if that call was not overturned...
there was more than enough "indisputable" visual evidence... end of story! move on... you people are living in a world of delusion...
0
Posted:
#19
Quote Originally Posted by Ice4Blood:
it is absolutely shocking to see the responses to this... first off, the whole "indisputable evidence" issue is not an excuse to ignore what evidence there is... second, there was clear and visible evidence that the ball WAS NOT SECURE when it touched the ground...
like nflpicker said... how is this even a debate? there are so many bad calls in games... this was not one of them... i would have been absolutely SHOCKED if that call was not overturned...
there was more than enough "indisputable" visual evidence... end of story! move on... you people are living in a world of delusion...
it is absolutely shocking to see the responses to this... first off, the whole "indisputable evidence" issue is not an excuse to ignore what evidence there is... second, there was clear and visible evidence that the ball WAS NOT SECURE when it touched the ground...
like nflpicker said... how is this even a debate? there are so many bad calls in games... this was not one of them... i would have been absolutely SHOCKED if that call was not overturned...
there was more than enough "indisputable" visual evidence... end of story! move on... you people are living in a world of delusion...
Sounds like someone was on Michigan.
The ball was secured and that was one of the best catches I have seen in my life all to be wiped out by a terrible reversal.
The fact that we are still talking about it being a catch/not a catch shows that the play was too close to reverse. The call on the field should have stood, no doubt about it. If called no touchdown on field, that's fine, the play stands. Ruled touchdown on the field, should stand as well.
VT got absolutely no calls the whole game, it was pathetic how the game was handed to Michigan. They overturned another close interception by VT earlier in the game as well, if anything they deserved a break from getting anal penetrated the whole game. Can anyone really dispute who the better team in the game was?
9 times out of 10 VT wins this game and does it in fashion.
Mich + refs > VT (If you think otherwise I bet I know where your money was last night, you are blind)
0
Posted:
#23
Quote Originally Posted by Ice4Blood:
whatthePho... you can't freeze frame it to determine this call... that is the whole point... of course the ball will look like it isn't moving if you freeze it on one frame...
ugh! why do i bother with this place? this is not remotely difficult... so obvious they got the call right...
whatthePho... you can't freeze frame it to determine this call... that is the whole point... of course the ball will look like it isn't moving if you freeze it on one frame...
ugh! why do i bother with this place? this is not remotely difficult... so obvious they got the call right...
It was a Push play for most of us last nite...but you got to admit,,,ref was not making the right calls all nite.
Vtech kid made a great catch and should not have been reverse.
Just saying...!
0
Hot Forum Topics
