The INT that wasn't

[MTK]

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.

[12thMan]

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.

[SouperMeister]

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

[firstdown]

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.

[Dlyne8r]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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?

[BrunellMVP?]

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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

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

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.

[BDBohnzie]

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...

[Ocliw]

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

[redsk1]

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

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by redsk1

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

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 indisputable evidence that the call was wrong. Rocky might not have had possession, but I cannot say it was indisputable.

[Stacks42]

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Stacks42

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.

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.

[Paintrain]

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.