PDA

View Full Version : Question to anyone who thought Wilson call was legit.


|Zach|
09-09-2007, 10:45 PM
If that play happened in the endzone do you call it a TD?

L.A. Chieffan
09-09-2007, 10:46 PM
Only if it was against us.

Direckshun
09-09-2007, 10:46 PM
No, because that would mean something positive occurred in favor of the Chiefs, which is prohibited in the NFL playbook.

See "Two-Point Conversions, Preseason."

unlurking
09-09-2007, 10:47 PM
If that play happened in the endzone do you call it a TD?
Yes

Ebolapox
09-09-2007, 10:47 PM
I flipped off the tv at that point. I did that quite a lot today, but that was one of the more memorable flipoffs.

unlurking
09-09-2007, 10:48 PM
No, because that would mean something positive occurred in favor of the Chiefs, which is prohibited in the NFL playbook.

See "Two-Point Conversions, Preseason."
ROFL

|Zach|
09-09-2007, 10:50 PM
Yes
You think that would have been called a touchdown? I hate to ask it again but hell...I think there is no chance that is called a TD.

unlurking
09-09-2007, 10:53 PM
You think that would have been called a touchdown? I hate to ask it again but hell...I think there is no chance that is called a TD.
He had two feet down. He tucked the ball. He turned around.

Yeah, I call it a touchdown.

Now that being said, I was watching at the bar and could not be 100% sure he wasn't bobbling the ball, but it looked like a great catch to me.

Fruit Ninja
09-09-2007, 11:01 PM
It really doesnt matter what anyone thought anymore. Didnt matter anyways, we still got our shit pushed in.

evolve27
09-09-2007, 11:03 PM
No, because that would mean something positive occurred in favor of the Chiefs, which is prohibited in the NFL playbook.

See "Two-Point Conversions, Preseason."

ROFL

Logical
09-09-2007, 11:31 PM
:hmmm:

I think so, but the point is it would be questionable under the best of circumstances.

vincent
09-09-2007, 11:32 PM
I flipped off the tv at that point. I did that quite a lot today, but that was one of the more memorable flipoffs.

Did you also tell the tv to "die sometime soon" and proceed to run away?

unlurking
09-09-2007, 11:33 PM
Did you also tell the tv to "die sometime soon" and proceed to run away?
hahaha

Never miss a chance!

As long as he didn't spill the ketchup on his weiner.

vincent
09-09-2007, 11:35 PM
He had two feet down. He tucked the ball. He turned around.

Yeah, I call it a touchdown.

Now that being said, I was watching at the bar and could not be 100% sure he wasn't bobbling the ball, but it looked like a great catch to me.

what the hell would qualify that as being a great catch...

Huard threw it right to him. He didn't have to dive or even move his feet...

all he had to do was catch it and hold on...

IMO he did neither...

kcpasco
09-09-2007, 11:40 PM
Is doesn't matter, we weren't gonna win this game even if it was overturned.

unlurking
09-09-2007, 11:40 PM
what the hell would qualify that as being a great catch...

Huard threw it right to him. He didn't have to dive or even move his feet...

all he had to do was catch it and hold on...

IMO he did neither...
He caught it high with his hands extended a good distance from his body, and very quickly went to tuck it and make the turn. It was a very fluid and graceful move I thought. If he had been slower, he probably would have held on to the ball and been hit in the back.

Logical
09-09-2007, 11:55 PM
OK I just reran it in slow mo on my TIVO and definitely would have been a TD, but whether he made a football move after both feet came down is an entirely different question. Man that was a bang bang play. Seems like it should have been reversed upon further review, but I got to watch it 10 times and I still was not absolutely sure.

Stinger
09-09-2007, 11:58 PM
but I got to watch it 10 times and I still was not absolutely sure.

Which is probably why it stood. It was called a fumble on the field and not conclusive evidence in the Officals mind to overrule the call.

unlurking
09-10-2007, 12:00 AM
OK I just reran it in slow mo on my TIVO and definitely would have been a TD, but whether he made a football move after both feet came down is an entirely different question. Man that was a bang bang play. Seems like it should have been reversed upon further review, but I got to watch it 10 times and I still was not absolutely sure.
If it would have been a TD, it was a fumble.

I don't like the result, but there are a shitload of real problems on the Chiefs to bitch about, I don't have time to complain about the officials too.

Deberg_1990
09-10-2007, 12:45 AM
OK I just reran it in slow mo on my TIVO and definitely would have been a TD, but whether he made a football move after both feet came down is an entirely different question. Man that was a bang bang play. Seems like it should have been reversed upon further review, but I got to watch it 10 times and I still was not absolutely sure.

Its just an incredibly difficult call to judge. like i mentioned before, if ten different crews called it, 5 would have overturned, and 5 would have let it stand.

Third Eye
09-10-2007, 03:19 AM
Its just an incredibly difficult call to judge. like i mentioned before, if ten different crews called it, 5 would have overturned, and 5 would have let it stand.
I disagree. As stated above by someone else, I think that the ruling on the field is what determined the outcome. If it had been called incomplete, it would have been upheld just like since it was ruled a fumble, that ruling was upheld. It was just too close to overturn on review.

mikey23545
09-10-2007, 04:52 AM
No way.

Wilson did not catch the ball and turn. It was very obvious he was <i>already</i> turning his body as the ball arrived. The ball and the defender and Wilson all arrrived at the same point at the same time, ball hits ground. An "incomplete" ruling by the officials every time, except in the strange Football Universe the Chiefs dwell in....

patteeu
09-10-2007, 07:00 AM
He had two feet down. He tucked the ball. He turned around.

Yeah, I call it a touchdown.

Now that being said, I was watching at the bar and could not be 100% sure he wasn't bobbling the ball, but it looked like a great catch to me.

There was no bobbling, but he tucked the ball and turned around before/as he put his second foot down. It was really close and I'm not surprised that they didn't overrule the call on the field, but IMO, it's hard to say that he first had possession (which doesn't occur until the second foot touches) and then "made a football move" because the ball was knocked loose just as the second foot touched.

I think it's a legitimate complaint for Chiefs fans to have, but I also think it was so close that it's hard to say the officials got it wrong whichever way they called it. I think the whole "football move" rule is absurd to begin with and in the absence of that rule, I think the call would have been clearly correct.

StcChief
09-10-2007, 07:09 AM
not enough evidence to over-rule call. that was wrong in the first place.

kepp
09-10-2007, 07:15 AM
No way that was a catch. It didn't even seem like they took very long to review it either. They must've had some secret angle they were viewing it from.

HonestChieffan
09-10-2007, 07:19 AM
This sounds like a bunch of MU fans....lets not blame refs. It wasnt gonna matter. It didnt matter.

Demonpenz
09-10-2007, 07:20 AM
Hang on to the ****ing ball and don't let the refs decide

kepp
09-10-2007, 07:28 AM
This sounds like a bunch of MU fans....lets not blame refs. It wasnt gonna matter. It didnt matter.
Losing momentum doesn't matter?

penguinz
09-10-2007, 07:28 AM
You do not have to make a football move. You just have to have possession with both feet on the ground.

htismaqe
09-10-2007, 07:41 AM
You do not have to make a football move. You just have to have possession with both feet on the ground.

Incorrect.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-041027jerrymarkbreitsanswers,1,2294973.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines

I heard the Sunday Night Football crew discussing the review of a catch and fumble. They made reference to "the receiver must have possession, control and make a football move." Could you define "a football move" as it relates to a catch? --Steve Supica, Canton, Mich.

When a catch is made by a receiver who comes down with both feet on the ground, the "football move" would be: stretching for a first down, diving out-of-bounds or running with the ball. If the "football move" is accomplished, and the receiver is then hit and the ball comes out, it is ruled a catch and fumble, instead of an incomplete forward pass.

Bugeater
09-10-2007, 08:53 AM
Incorrect.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-041027jerrymarkbreitsanswers,1,2294973.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines

I heard the Sunday Night Football crew discussing the review of a catch and fumble. They made reference to "the receiver must have possession, control and make a football move." Could you define "a football move" as it relates to a catch? --Steve Supica, Canton, Mich.

When a catch is made by a receiver who comes down with both feet on the ground, the "football move" would be: stretching for a first down, diving out-of-bounds or running with the ball. If the "football move" is accomplished, and the receiver is then hit and the ball comes out, it is ruled a catch and fumble, instead of an incomplete forward pass.
I think he meant you don't have to make a "football move" in the endzone for a TD, which I'm pretty sure is correct.

|Zach|
09-10-2007, 09:15 AM
This sounds like a bunch of MU fans....lets not blame refs. It wasnt gonna matter. It didnt matter.
There is nobody here blaming the refs.

We are discussing and aspect of the football game. This is a message board.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2007, 09:27 AM
Which is probably why it stood. It was called a fumble on the field and not conclusive evidence in the Officals mind to overrule the call.

Yes but at what point does a call on the field actually translate to a call on the field. That is, the refs know they have instant replay. Thus, they can call a play on the field TO make it review-able - to cover their asses. This seems like one of those plays.

Had they called it incomplete, I don't think the Texans would have reviewed it and had they, I bet it would have stood with an incomplete.

I just don't like the refs let it go so they can go back and "make the right call". We've all seen how that turns out. (See, Ron Blum)

dtebbe
09-10-2007, 09:45 AM
If that play happened in the endzone do you call it a TD?

No way it's a TD, unless it's Antonio Gates or Marvin Harrison catching it.

DT

38yrsfan
09-10-2007, 09:59 AM
It is all part of being a Chief or Chiefs fan .... we grow with each adversity (or some cra* like that) :)

I was more curious about the offensive pass interference call but did get to see any replays.

HemiEd
09-10-2007, 10:04 AM
It was a "bang bang" play. I honestly think his momentum is what turned him around and do not think the catch was complete.

beach tribe
09-10-2007, 10:08 AM
No.

Hailchief
09-10-2007, 10:08 AM
Get over it guys....Its over