The Challenged calls

SoCal Chief · 12-17-2000, 04:25 PM

Obviously this is froma biased source but this is what I saw on those tow challenges by Denver.

The Fumble....
The tip of the ball may have been over the out of bounds line,but it didn't touch it. I don't think it was as clear cut as Moose and Harlan were saying on TV. As for Dennis going Out of bounds, I din't see any replay that showed his foot on the line. Therefore the call on the field stands.

The catch that Smith claimed he caught...
Replays show him with his right hand under it, but look at the back end of the ball. it tilts up, indicating that the front of the ball hit the ground. Again, the call on the field stands.

Wish replay was in effect for the '97 playoff game. Gonzo's TD?

Clint in Wichita · 12-17-2000, 04:30 PM

The fumble I agreed with the announcers, but really there was no "conclusive evidence" to overturn it. It was close.

The challenged catch, you said it exactly right. He got his hands under most of it but the tip hit the ground which is why it rotated upward at the angle it did before he started pulling it in. Again, inconclusive, you can't overturn that call...

milkman · 12-17-2000, 04:33 PM

I didn't think the fumble went out, though Dennis did step out of bounds.

Yhe catch could have gone either way, inconclusive.

chiefs2034 · 12-17-2000, 04:34 PM

The projectory of the ball changed on that
attempted catch. Glad we got that one.

------------------
Chiefs Rock

ColoradoChief · 12-17-2000, 06:16 PM

With the fumble, it might have something to do with what exactly was challenged. They couldn't challenge both his foot and the ball, could they? As for the ball, there was no way you could conclusively tell that it was out. As for the foot, it was definitely out, but does that rule apply in that situation?

As for the catch, it definitely wasn't one IMO, and couldn't be conclusively overturned. The ball bounced up.

12-17-2000, 07:54 PM

There was indisputable visual evidence that Smith had, in fact, not caught the ball--it was freezing cold and the orientation of the ball changed dramatically on the ricochet off the ground/Smith's fingers. Now think about it, if the ball didn't hit the ground, that means that the point of the ball bounced off of Smith's finger-tips. That would have hurt like hell and he would have been nursing his finger tips. Instead, he was yapping it up, insisting he had caught the ball, the two-bit con artist. I bet Easy Ed would have known to at least pretend his fingers were ouchy-wouchy [img]http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

12-17-2000, 04:25 PM	Topic Starter
SoCal Chief Starter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Los Angeles Casino cash: $10004900	Obviously this is froma biased source but this is what I saw on those tow challenges by Denver. The Fumble.... The tip of the ball may have been over the out of bounds line,but it didn't touch it. I don't think it was as clear cut as Moose and Harlan were saying on TV. As for Dennis going Out of bounds, I din't see any replay that showed his foot on the line. Therefore the call on the field stands. The catch that Smith claimed he caught... Replays show him with his right hand under it, but look at the back end of the ball. it tilts up, indicating that the front of the ball hit the ground. Again, the call on the field stands. Wish replay was in effect for the '97 playoff game. Gonzo's TD?
Posts: 94

12-17-2000, 04:30 PM	#2
Clint in Wichita Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	The fumble I agreed with the announcers, but really there was no "conclusive evidence" to overturn it. It was close. The challenged catch, you said it exactly right. He got his hands under most of it but the tip hit the ground which is why it rotated upward at the angle it did before he started pulling it in. Again, inconclusive, you can't overturn that call...
Posts: 4,458

12-17-2000, 04:33 PM	#3
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	I didn't think the fumble went out, though Dennis did step out of bounds. Yhe catch could have gone either way, inconclusive.
Posts: 70,769

12-17-2000, 04:34 PM	#4
chiefs2034 Starter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Houston,TX,US Casino cash: $10004900	The projectory of the ball changed on that attempted catch. Glad we got that one. ------------------ Chiefs Rock
Posts: 358

12-17-2000, 06:16 PM	#5
ColoradoChief Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fort Collins, CO Casino cash: $10004900	With the fumble, it might have something to do with what exactly was challenged. They couldn't challenge both his foot and the ball, could they? As for the ball, there was no way you could conclusively tell that it was out. As for the foot, it was definitely out, but does that rule apply in that situation? As for the catch, it definitely wasn't one IMO, and couldn't be conclusively overturned. The ball bounced up.
Posts: 2,876

12-17-2000, 07:54 PM	#6
aaaaa Guest Casino cash: $	There was indisputable visual evidence that Smith had, in fact, not caught the ball--it was freezing cold and the orientation of the ball changed dramatically on the ricochet off the ground/Smith's fingers. Now think about it, if the ball didn't hit the ground, that means that the point of the ball bounced off of Smith's finger-tips. That would have hurt like hell and he would have been nursing his finger tips. Instead, he was yapping it up, insisting he had caught the ball, the two-bit con artist. I bet Easy Ed would have known to at least pretend his fingers were ouchy-wouchy [img]http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]
Posts: n/a