The INT that wasn't
 

What did you guys think of the call to overturn the INT by McIntosh, which regardless was a great read and reaction by him.

I'm still not convinced there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

Totally agree. I don't think it should have been overturned at all. Talk about a game changer. Rocky has quitely become a very solid linebacker, I might add.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I thought that Rocky's hand was under the ball, but I also thought that the refs would overturn the call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

The point of the ball clearly hit the ground and he still did not have total control of the ball as he rolled over. I think the two ints that we missed cost us more.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

Agree here...while it was clear the ball was moving a bit when he turned over, it wasn't on the ground- and looked pinned to his leg. REally, I was 50/50 on it when it went to review...i feel like we are snake bitten when it comes to challenges

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

While in slow motion, you can see the ball hit the ground, I'm not sure how that could have been seen in regular speed. The TV coverage needs to get better at showing the replays in regular speed as well as slo-mo...

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;380346]Agree here...while it was clear the ball was moving a bit when he turned over, it wasn't on the ground- and looked pinned to his leg. REally, I was 50/50 on it when it went to review...i feel like we are snake bitten when it comes to challenges[/quote]
In slow mo they showed the point of the ball hitting the ground and if the ball is moving at all it is not a catch.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I don't think it should have been overturned. We were in Dallas tho.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It wasn't a catch. It hit the ground.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

After the past couple weeks, the skins secondary should spend some practice time on catching the football. Those are game changers that we are missing with S. Taylor out of the lineup. Fletcher dropped a sure Int too.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I was thinking it was too close to overturn simply based on it touching the ground, but since it was moving around it was clear he didn't control it all the way thru, therefore it was a good call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Stacks42;380375]After the past couple weeks, the skins secondary should spend some practice time on catching the football. Those are game changers that we are missing with S. Taylor out of the lineup. Fletcher dropped a sure Int too.[/quote]
The one that was over turned was a great try for a tough catch but he droped an easy one and someone else missed an easy int.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I thought it was fair to overturn it. On the replay I saw the ball touch turf, and then as he rolled it was not secure. That's incomplete.

Great try though, shows how good Rocky is getting.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Mattyk72;380334]What did you guys think of the call to overturn the INT by McIntosh, which regardless was a great read and reaction by him.

I'm still not convinced there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call.[/quote]

yup would have put us on their goal line with a 10-7 lead, instead cowchips got the ball back and scored to make it 14-10.

i also thought that there was not indisputable evidence to overturn the call but i dont think we saw all the replays or enough of them to really make a call because they cut to commercial break . . . i think the zebras had more looks/angles then the viewers at home. just a guess

what a great game thoo, if only a few things here or there had gone differently .

go skins!

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Schneed10;380389]I thought it was fair to overturn it. On the replay I saw the ball touch turf, and then as he rolled it was not secure. That's incomplete.

Great try though, shows how good Rocky is getting.[/quote]
Missing a int shows how good a player is getting. LOL

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It was clear it hit the ground on one angel they showed. It was the right call as much as I hate to admit it.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It was the right call by the refs, great effort by Rocky.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;380343]The point of the ball clearly hit the ground and he still did not have total control of the ball as he rolled over. I think the two ints that we missed cost us more.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. Thanks to HDTV, the video was very hard to dispute. Unfortunate for us, but good idea to challenge the call and overturn the on-field ruling. And yes, the two INT's we couldn't capitalize on could have buried the the Cowpokes. Somehow we just can't seem to reel these in even when they are practically thrown right to our LB's and DB's gut. Is it luck, or lack of athleticism?

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

it was the right call but the skins always get screwed in one way or another when they play the cowboys in dallas do'nt they?i hate those jamfs,i'd love to piss on the cowboy helment at midfield!

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It was amazing how fast that replay showed up on the screen. I mean the ref didn't even blow his whistle and there were already 3 replays running. It wasn't a pick but at least let the play end first.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It was a huge game changer but the minute I saw the replay I knew it would be over-ruled. His hands were not below the ball. Its too bad because I think had that play held-up the Skins would have won the game.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

A TD after the INT that was reversed and we would have been up 17-7. It's tough to think about what could have been. Sigh.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=firstdown;380402]Missing a int shows how good a player is getting. LOL[/quote]

Boy did you miss the point. Did you see the read and reaction as he read Romo and dove in front of the receiver? Impressive.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

There are some people pointing to the fact that the ball wasn't secure when Rocky hit the ground. From my understanding, that is not reason alone to overturn the call. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, whether it moves or not is irrelevant. The ball can either touch the ground, but be secure -- in which case it's a pick. Or, it can avoid touching the ground and be insecure -- in which case it's also a pick.

Am I wrong?

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=firstdown;380402]Missing a int shows how good a player is getting. LOL[/quote]

Dude made a great play on the ball and very nearly had the game changing play. He came off of his man, dove, and undercut the ball. Amazing play...well, very very good, almost amazing. Better be careful FD, if you bring more of this negativity I'm going to have to call for you to turn in your fan card...:)

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;380506]There are some people pointing to the fact that the ball wasn't secure when Rocky hit the ground. From my understanding, that is not reason alone to overturn the call. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, whether it moves or not is irrelevant. The ball can either touch the ground, but be secure -- in which case it's a pick. Or, it can avoid touching the ground and be insecure -- in which case it's also a pick.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

I think that's right. But in Rocky's case, it touched the ground and when he rolled over we saw it was insecure. So it was both in the same play, which means incomplete.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;380334]What did you guys think of the call to overturn the INT by McIntosh, which regardless was a great read and reaction by him.

I'm still not convinced there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call.[/QUOTE]

from what i saw it was a interception ..there wasn,t enough i thought to overturn the call but we are talking about dallas here too.yes i,m still a bit miffed over that one.

replays showed the ball didn,t touch the ground but i guess that blind hog we call an official saw his shadow yesterday in dallas.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Schneed10;380498]Boy did you miss the point. Did you see the read and reaction as he read Romo and dove in front of the receiver? Impressive.[/quote]
If you noticed I put the "LOL" after it as I was joking. I knew what you were saying.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=birdz4gibbs;380528]from what i saw it was a interception ..there wasn,t enough i thought to overturn the call but we are talking about dallas here too.yes i,m still a bit miffed over that one.

replays showed the ball didn,t touch the ground but i guess that blind hog we call an official saw his shadow yesterday in dallas.[/QUOTE]

I don't want to distract from the thread, or nitpick, but I am curious why you substitute commas for apostrophes. Is it habit? Did somebody swap the comma and apostrophe keys on your keyboard? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It looked like an interception to me. I did not see enough evidence in the video replay to overturn the call. But then again, I am biased.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I'm going to have to say that the refs made the right call. There is no way that ball didn't hit the ground.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=hail_2_da_skins;380545]It looked like an interception to me. I did not see enough evidence in the video replay to overturn the call. [B]But then again, I am biased[/B].[/quote]You are correct in that it depends on who is looking at it. I totally saw the movement of the ball and [B]THOUGHT[/B] it hit the turf without having control of the ball. Was that enough to over-turn it? Not sure.

I can also see how Redskins fans would see it the other way around, or at least argue that there weren't enough evidence to reverse the call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;380352]In slow mo they showed the point of the ball hitting the ground and if the ball is moving at all it is not a catch.[/QUOTE]

For me, the video showed that the ball was stable when it hit the ground and started moving when he flipped over. That the ball started moving when he flipped over is of no consequence.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=redsk1;380358]It wasn't a catch. It hit the ground.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if it hits the ground, it only needs to be in the player's control/possession when it touches the ground.

I think you can debate the issue, but that's precisely why the call should NOT have been overturned. A call can be overturned only if there is [B]indisputable [/B]evidence that the call was wrong. Rocky might not have had possession, but I cannot say it was indisputable.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

i can say that ball did hi tthe ground and it wasn't an INT. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it but that was not a catch and in the end the right call was made.

I am really impressed by rocky for the play but disappointed he didn't think getting the extra 3 yards to reach the endzone wasn't important enough. Maybe he was scared to get hurt but he really could have tried to get those yards, ESPECIALLY after seeing our goal line offense last week. He just jogged out at the end there.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It was REALLY close. But I did think they would overturn the call on the field.

Especially with our luck, getting a call to go our way. SLIM CHANCE.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;380402]Missing a int shows how good a player is getting. LOL[/QUOTE]

Reading the qb perfectly and acrobatically diving in front of a bullet pass shows how good he is getting. You have to say, of the three players the Skins have traded up to get - Campbell, Cooley, and Rocky - the track record is pretty good, even though I questioned every single move at the time.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65;380670]Reading the qb perfectly and acrobatically diving in front of a bullet pass shows how good he is getting. You have to say, of the three players the Skins have traded up to get - Campbell, Cooley, and Rocky - the track record is pretty good, even though I questioned every single move at the time.[/QUOTE]

I was pretty pissed about all three moves. Just goes to show you how I would probably be a really bad GM in the real world. At least in Madden's world, I'm a god.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

Im sure if it were the cowpokes that made the int they would have let the play stand as an int saying there was not enough conclusive evidence to overturn it.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;380674]I was pretty pissed about all three moves. Just goes to show you how I would probably be a really bad GM in the real world. At least in Madden's world, I'm a god.[/QUOTE]

I remember watching the draft all drunk with some friends when they choose Campbell. I kept saying, guys, they aren't crazy, they are taking Mark Clayton. Then he went a few picks earlier. When they took Campbell the room was silent for 5 minutes, that quiet finally being broken by the sound of my friend throwing up on his Ramsey jersey.

I was pissed about Rocky too, but he's just getting better and better. Just goes to show if you choose guys with the right character, hard-workers committed to improving their craft, it will work out ok. Say what you want about Gibbs, but he's always understood that.