No but the rule says you need conclusive evidence. If you can never see the ball hitting the ground, the call was reversed on an assumption by the refs which is NOT how the rules owrks. Now there might have been angle I missed or they saw that showed the ball on the ground, but if there was no angle the reversal was incorrect.
IMO it was a catch, and it cost us the game. They're all out to fuck the Jets over, what else is new?
No, but LTJF is right, the rules are the rules.... no conclusive evidence, no overturn of the ruling on the field, it's that simple.
Seeing the receiver and the closest defender both without the ball is conclusive enough. You don't need to see it bouncing on the ground to rule it incomplete.
No it isn't. That isn't conclusive because you are making an assumption there. There is no visual evidence of the ball hitting the ground. The ball could have been resting on their legs, chest, etc even though it's a very low shot. You can't overturn a catch with that. What you can do is confirm an incompletion with that lack of evidence, but you can't overturn a catch.
I'm still pissed about the non-fumble/fumble call. It was complete bullshit. That was a clear fumble.
Except for the awkward moment when you do need to see the ball on the ground to rule it incomplete/overturn the ruling on the field.
Ehh. In realtime I thought incomplete. I didn't think the replay again was conclusive enough to overturn, but I have less of a problem with that one.
I was at Gillette, just leaving now, they showed 4 different replays and one showed the ball clearly hit the ground. The ball was out. Should have caught it nevertheless. _
I was at Gillette, just leaving now, they showed 4 different replays and one showed the ball clearly hit the ground. The ball was out. Should have caught it nevertheless. _
No you don't,for the same reason you don't have to see the puck in the net in hockey if logically that's the only place it can be. They have the same standard ("indisputable visual evidence.")
You need to see the puck cross the line fully on the replay, otherwise it's not a goal. I'm not sure what you are talking about? Can you explain further? My understand with goal reviews in the NHL is they need to see the puck cross the line unless they see the puck in the goal.
Can't speak to that, all I know is what they showed on the jumbo screen. It was pretty clear, although the 3 other views were inconclusive. _
