CrazyZeb Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Then don't say both feet, say his knee. He never had control til he was out, come on, admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psutrain Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 when your hand is under the ball you have control of it I can't believe you are still crying about this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 You're kidding me, how many hundreds of times have you seen someone get their hand(s) under the ball, only for the top of the ball to hit the grass and get called incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 It's a tough call and I can see how the ref would have a hard time coming up with conclusive evidence that Dawk didn't have possession. He definitely didn't establish possession prior to his knee hitting ground, that much is certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 That video doesn't change anything for me. When gaining possession, the BALL IS ALLOWED TO MOVE AS LONG AS YOU RETAIN CONTROL. When his knee goes down, the ball is cradled, the play is over. No, that is only the case if the player lands in bounds. The minute a player is OUT OF BOUNDS and the ball is not secured, it is an incompletion. A player CANNOT be falling down with the ball wobbling, slide out of bounds AND THEN secure the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by laurent It's a tough call and I can see how the ref would have a hard time coming up with conclusive evidence that Dawk didn't have possession. He definitely didn't establish possession prior to his knee hitting ground, that much is certain. What you need to look at is the same frame, but blown up in size that was posted earlier in this thread, that white space between the ball and Dawkins is proof that the ball is not secured in his hands. Sure, it is "in his grasp" and had he not slid out of bounds it would have been an INT, but the fact that he is out of bounds before the ball is secured makes it a pretty easy call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by NoCalMike What you need to look at is the same frame, but blown up in size that was posted earlier in this thread, that white space between the ball and Dawkins is proof that the ball is not secured in his hands. Sure, it is "in his grasp" and had he not slid out of bounds it would have been an INT, but the fact that he is out of bounds before the ball is secured makes it a pretty easy call. I don't it's an easy call at all. You have to have conclusive evidence to overturn a call on the field. In this case it could be argued that Dawkins has established possession. The ball is pinned against his chest and no longer moving. He maintains possession even after going out of bounds and the ball never touches the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 PCS, my only point is someone who watches a play slow motion, captures several images, posts them, then later tells me something that I seen with my naked eye never happened is either blind or didn't post it because it didn't support his argument. Shoot, I say post it and let's argue over it. By covering it up (not posting ALL the evidence) you make it seem as if you are afraid of honest discourse about the entire play. :doh: I should kick the **** out of you..... but I just have to laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by NoCalMike The funny thing is, in live "real-time" I thought it was an INT and that was the right call, but the replay obviously shows that Dawkins didn't have control of the ball until he was on the ground out of bounds which BY RULE is an INCOMPLETION, now if the ball was in the other hand and you couldn't clearly see the movement of the ball wobbling around, then it would make it a much tougher call to make even with replay, but those still pics tell the storry. Dawkins did NOT have control of the ball until he slid out of bounds. that's why they have replay.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by psutrain of course you missed a few frames there when his knee touched in bounds. You need to have irrefutable evidence for the call to be overturned on the field was there? NO I have the game on TIVO and would gladly send you a copy to show you that his right leg never came down. Although it was a poor throw, it was also a poor call as a interception a couple of levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by flexxskins I have the game on TIVO and would gladly send you a copy to show you that his right leg never came down. Although it was a poor throw, it was also a poor call as a interception a couple of levels. Not necessarily a bad call initially, but clearly should have been overturned with a review of the replay. Again, going back to the explanation after the review, I would like to know what the official was looking at when "reviewing" this. To say he had both feet in bounds makes no sense with regard to this particular play, and if he meant a knee and a foot, which was also clearly wrong, but would be closer to a real explanation, he should have said that. He supposedly had just come from watching this play over and over again in order to make the right call. How can you come out to the field and forget that you never once saw both feet hit the ground in bounds with possession of the ball, no matter what else you saw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 "Unfortunately, this won't be overturned" - Joe Theisman. Man, talk about some fair coverage. I thought announcers were supposed to at least ACT like they are fair when calling a game. Doesn't TO have his arm around Springs, too. So, wouldn't that be pass-interference as well...and yes it does matter what happens after that...if Springs did pass interference, then TO did, it would be offsetting, doesn;t matter the order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird is da word Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 What does this matter...it is over. The Eagles won. You don't know if you would have won, tied, or lost otherwise. You all are a bumnch of doubting thomas' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 On the PI.. Your allowed to touch the receiver and in no way did Springs impede TO on that play. Springs is looking back for the ball and any contact whotsoever is incidental. As a matter of fact from a different angle other than the one provided in the pic (go figure). TO grabs jersey at Springs chest to control him..period end of story. On the INT.. One knee equals 2 feet. While I agree that the refs assessment that he had both feet down was compeltely wrong and laughable. I'd have to award Dawkins that catch. Although the ball actually touches ground if you'll look at it again but it really is so hard to see and such a good play to overturn IMHO. Not to mention Ramsey should not thrown that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyRules Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 Sigh. I don't know, PCS. Seriously, to battle back from 10 down in the fourth quarter.....you almost have to set yourself up to kick that FG. Not if you want to win the game outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by psutrain oh my god if I hear about refs one more time. All teams will have bad calls in a game. BAD TEAMS WILL DWELL ON THEM EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are not a good team. Go on different fan sites and you will find the same thing...people complaining about the officiating. Good teams overcome bad calls. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skns4life Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Craig EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are not a good team. Go on different fan sites and you will find the same thing...people complaining about the officiating. Good teams overcome bad calls. Period. Craig...i no one is arguin that we are a good team(at least i'm not)...i just think we should get a fair game called and a fair shot at beating a team like the Philadelphia Eagles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark327 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by AzSkinsFan63 On the PI.. Your allowed to touch the receiver and in no way did Springs impede TO on that play. Springs is looking back for the ball and any contact whotsoever is incidental. As a matter of fact from a different angle other than the one provided in the pic (go figure). TO grabs jersey at Springs chest to control him..period end of story. On the INT.. One knee equals 2 feet. While I agree that the refs assessment that he had both feet down was compeltely wrong and laughable. I'd have to award Dawkins that catch. Although the ball actually touches ground if you'll look at it again but it really is so hard to see and such a good play to overturn IMHO. Not to mention Ramsey should not thrown that one. in your first statement i agree completely , .what the picture in that doesn't show is when T.O.'s hand is up in Springs throat during that also . on your second statement , one knee does equal 2 feet but if you watch Zebs replay not only do you see the white in between the ball and dawkins hand . you can also see the ball is rotating !!!! that is not pocession. therefore he is not in control ,and it is and should have been called incomplete . :2cents: :dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by psutrain oh my god if I hear about refs one more time. All teams will have bad calls in a game. BAD TEAMS WILL DWELL ON THEM Hey, just because your team (I'm guessing the Dolphins) sucks with or without bad officiating doesn't give you authority to be a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 "Unfortunately, this won't be overturned" - Joe Theisman. Man, talk about some fair coverage. I thought announcers were supposed to at least ACT like they are fair when calling a game. Its funny that the picture of TO grabbing Springs by the throat before this isnt posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by mark327 in your first statement i agree completely , .what the picture in that doesn't show is when T.O.'s hand is up in Springs throat during that also . on your second statement , one knee does equal 2 feet but if you watch Zebs replay not only do you see the white in between the ball and dawkins hand . you can also see the ball is rotating !!!! that is not pocession. therefore he is not in control ,and it is and should have been called incomplete . :2cents: :dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck but, it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by bird is da word What does this matter...it is over. The Eagles won. You don't know if you would have won, tied, or lost otherwise. You all are a bumnch of doubting thomas' F*ck you, troll. :troll: :loser: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark327 Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by CowboyzSuckAzz but, it wasn't. CSA , thats why the :2cents: was at the end of my post :cool: :dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donno5 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I don't have the stomach to read 10 pages about the new league conspiracy against the Skins, but let me just state for the record that those of you here who are claiming that wasn't a pick are the homeriest homers in the universe. I did catch one post where the word TiVo stuck out, so I read that one where the poster claims he's seen on tape that Dawk's knee wasn't down. Well, your TiVo must have broken, because mine showed a knee (which equals 2 feet) down very clearly with his hand under the ball. Quit whining. You look pathetic. Your franchise is too proud to have this drivel represent you. End sermon. Onward with your conspiracy theories.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhhorus Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Originally posted by NoCalMike Now correct me if I am wrong but don't the rules state that you have to have control of the ball as you are landing on the ground? To me it looks like he and the CB are both trying to grab the ball, and as Dawkins as falling down he the ball starts wobbling in his arms, it is still not being controlled when his knee hits, but then recovers after he has hit the out of bounds marker. Shouldn't that be an INCOMPLETION? I thought you had to have control of the ball as you hit the ground.......The reason I am bringing this up is that the Sacramento sports main guy(who does Kings games and is a huge NY Giants fan ugh) was lambasting the officials and saying that he was in Indiana with some Pacers and Kings players and they were all watching the game, and there wasn't a single person who thought that the INT would stand and they couldn't understand why it wasn't overturned.......... :puke: he had possession. The question is whether he had any feet down. He didn't. He had a knee down in the end zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.