2005-10-03

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts . . .

There is a lot of talk and Monday morning quarterbacking that the Lions were robbed by a bad call at the end of the game yesterday. People such as Peter King (who only caught the misleading highlights on ESPN) have declared that the zebras stole the game from the Lions, and that the Bucs should be 3-1 right now.

The Bucs should be 3-1 right now, but not because Marcus Pollard might have caught a touchdown. Anytime Griese turns the ball over four times and the defense lets Joey Harrington drive on them at the end of the game, the Bucs should lose the game.

But Lions fans, do not blame the loss on the refs. That was clearly not a touchdown.

The ball was still moving while Pollard was in bounds, and the ball did not stop moving until his knee was out of bounds. Exhibit A, notice where the ball is located, high on the arm (about at the wrist).

In this next picture the ball is lower in Pollard's arm, at about elbow level.


In this last picture, the ball is cradled between Pollard's elbow, hand and body. In the first picture the ball has not yet stopped at Pollard's elbow.

The Lions organization, according to ESPN, has tried to argue that there was not enough refutable evidence to overturn the touchdown call on the field. To be clear, the Lions are not asking the NFL to give them a win, they are simply complaining about the officiating in the game.

If you watch the play in slow motion it should be obvious that Pollard did not have control of the ball while he was in bounds. Lions head coach Steve Mariucci believes that Pollard made the catch with his hands before he went out of bounds. But after the ball hits Pollard in the hands it slides down his left arm before it stops when it is held against his body.

I honestly wish I could find video of this play that would make it clear this was a non-catch.

And one last complaint directed against Bucs fans. Don't bring up the Bert Emanuel catch versus the Rams in the NFC Championship Game. That was most likely a catch, and any comparison between the two plays implies that the refs made a bad call yesterday.

2 comments:

Blogger said...

you just can't say that. There was NOT indisputable evidence on the field that the ball was not caught in bounds. If you break it down into pictures it appear he did not have a td, but it is still not 100%

Ski said...

This argument is a perfect example of why Monday Morning Quarterbacking (something which I try to avoid) is one of the worst plagues to strike the modern world. Far worse than telemarketers or internet porn.

When somebody argues there was not indisputable evidence they are basically saying they have no idea what defines a catch, seeing as how the tv cameras had a clear view of the non-catch. The NFL rule books says:

"A forward pass is complete when a receiver CLEARLY possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball."

If you want to argue that there was not enough evidence to overturn the call, then I say there was never enough evidence to call the touchdown in the first place.