The out of bounds call

[Cbus cardsfan]

My directv signal was messed up and i couldn't see the replay at all. I know alot of people are saying he was out for sure but is that the "homer" coming out or was he blatantly out. I can't see a ref,who gets graded and wants to be in the playoff rotation, just ignoring an obvious call. I don't remember the announcers saying anything about a blown call but,again, my reception was bouncing in and out.

 

[Pariah]

I think he was in for sure. It was really close, but I don't think there was any doubt about it.

 

[TJ]

I honestly believe officials have become lazy on calls like this ever since the inception of replay. I've seen multiple plays in the past eight years where it seems like the play is dead, then the ball carrier keeps going and no whistle is blown. Prior to instant replay, those plays are blown dead without hesitation. Its almost as if the refs are saying to themselves "whatever, the other team will throw the red flag anyway."

Either way, he was out of bounds. The only people that didnt think so were the officials, and thats all that counts

 

[SunsTzu]

I think the biggest gripe is that the Fitz play that was called back in the 'Boys game showed conclusive evidence and the Smith play didn't. Having seen that play called back 2 weeks ago certainly made me think the Smith play would be overturned.

 

[NeverSayDieFan]

I thought he was in...

He was on his toe when he pivoted up-field. His toe was in; his heel was out but the heel NEVER touched the ground. Sounds like I just described the hokey-pokey! LOL

 

[CardShark]

From the best view they showed, I thought back part of the ball of his foot was out. Some are saying the divot was in, which it was, but for anyone that ever actually looked at a divot after the step, they are caused by the toes pushing into the ground, not the ball of the foot which is going to be the point of support. It would be a mootpoint if Rolle had actually tried tackling the man. He didn't even hit him solid. He hit behind him, giving him a clear path to the endzone.

 

[LVG]

Both my brother and I spent a good 15 minutes looking at it on the 62" HDTV. From one angle, which appeared to be the upper right camera, it looks like his foot cam down out of bounds, but, when it comes up, the divot left is clearly in bounds.

Looking from another angle, which appears to be the Cards end zone at the time shooting down the sideline, it appears that the entire foot comes down, then the heel up, then Smith pushes off of the toe of his foot, thus leaving the in bounds divot.

Go here: select the Steve Smith highlights for the game, and watch from about 2.30 on to about 3.20 - it will show you everything I was talking about.

The announcers stated that it was clear Smith was out of bounds before the challenge was called. After the challenge was dismissed, one of the announcers stated that "Steve Smith must have the strongest arch in his right foot known to man."

We got hosed on the play. It's apparent when looking at all of the different angles and combining them together.

[edit] - 2.36 - replay showing location of foot above.

2.56 - field level camera shot showing Smith's entire foot was down, not just his toe.

 

[nashman]

We got screwed should be used to it!

 

[Buckybird]

To me, his foot looked out of bounds but they ruled it a TD and the replays they had were not 100% undisputeblebecause his heel was off the ground. Common sense says he stepped out of bounds. Was it me or did anyone ever see the refs signal a TD? We still should have overcome the refs.

 

[TheHopToad]

It was one of those plays that all rested on how it was called on the field. If they had ruled that he stepped out of bounds, then replay wouldn't have overturned that either.

I thought he was out, but it was close.

 

[bg7brd]

It was one of those plays that all rested on how it was called on the field. If they had ruled that he stepped out of bounds, then replay wouldn't have overturned that either.

I thought he was out, but it was close.

I agree completely. The replay didn't show "conclusively" that he stepped on the line. If they would have tackled him they woudn't have put the game in the refs hands.

 

[PJ1]

Just the amount of debate in this thread tells you we can't complain. Nothing obvious and it didn't go our way.

 

[ajcardfan]

Just the amount of debate in this thread tells you we can't complain. Nothing obvious and it didn't go our way.

I agree. I understand how it was upheld. I still don't understand how Larry's was turned over two weeks ago against the Cowboys. If anything, that was even less clear.

 

[HeavyB3]

If our defenders would have done a better job shoving him out of bounds this all doesn't matter. Don't tap someone and assume they'll go out, shove the holy living crap out of them and knock them clearly off the field.

 

[vince56]

Ya'll are nuts. He was clearly out of bounds.

This whole argument reminds me of the fans after the first loss in Major League. "The trajectory of the ball..."

 

[Unsterblich856]

http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outofboundsfl6.jpg

(I can't post links, so remove the spaces)

Either he has the toes of a god, or the ref is blinder than a bat.

 

[Dback Jon]

You must be registered for see images

(I can't post links, so remove the spaces)

Either he has the toes of a god, or the ref is blinder than a bat.

I can - hmm, didnt work

http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outofboundsfl6.jpg

 

[Sandan]

I think he was in for sure. It was really close, but I don't think there was any doubt about it.

Doubt here.

I think he was out for sure

 

[Unsterblich856]

I can - hmm, didnt work

Make sure you delete all the spaces.

 

[Sandan]

Fixed it

 

[Cheesebeef]

i thought it was too close to overturn and not an obvious OMG he's out of bounds when it happened. The fact that one of y'all had to watch it over and over again on a 62 inch screen to make sure "you knew what happened" says it all to me. It was a close play where the whistle didn't go our way but our ATROCIOUS tackling could have prevented from even happening.

 

[Russ Smith]

i thought it was too close to overturn and not an obvious OMG he's out of bounds when it happened. The fact that one of y'all had to watch it over and over again on a 62 inch screen to make sure "you knew what happened" says it all to me. It was a close play where the whistle didn't go our way but our ATROCIOUS tackling could have prevented from even happening.

Totally agree. I didn't see the game but I've watched the replays on NFL net and on NFL.com.

I THINK he's out, but it's not conclusive, the problem is the replay system says stick to the original call if it's not conclusive, so the ref had no choice there. If I had to guess I say he stepped out, but you can't prove it from the angles they had to look at.

Once again the 2 big pass plays of the game against us to the TE (set up the first Smith TD) and to a WR in the flat who should be tackled or forced out but isn't.

 

[LVG]

i thought it was too close to overturn and not an obvious OMG he's out of bounds when it happened. The fact that one of y'all had to watch it over and over again on a 62 inch screen to make sure "you knew what happened" says it all to me. It was a close play where the whistle didn't go our way but our ATROCIOUS tackling could have prevented from even happening.

What took so long was that we were trying to figure out how in the heck the ref could allow it to stand. I dunno if the ref can take two camera angles into consideration (e.g. this shot plus this shot means he was out of bounds), or if each shot must be considered on it's own.

I thought it was cut and dry when you took the angle from above plus the angle down the sidelines, one shows his foot OB, the other shows his foot completely down on the turf.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

i thought it was too close to overturn and not an obvious OMG he's out of bounds when it happened. The fact that one of y'all had to watch it over and over again on a 62 inch screen to make sure "you knew what happened" says it all to me. It was a close play where the whistle didn't go our way but our ATROCIOUS tackling could have prevented from even happening.

I said he was out as soon as it happened.



I also said that they should overturn it, and they didn't. What do I know.

Same type of thing happened in the NYG/Pit game. Jacobs is stopped at the goalline. One camera angle is inconclusive. Another clearly shows that the ball crosses the plane of the goalline.

I'm really starting to wonder which camera angles the ref gets to see. From what I understood, they should get all the same replays as we do. Sure as hell doesn't look like it though.

 

[Totally_Red]

Some refs don't follow the conclusive evidence role,(see Peter Morelli). Some do (see Walt Coleman). The Cardinals got the short end of both calls IMO.

It shouldn't have come down to that because Rod Hood and/or Antron Rolle should have pushed him completely out of bounds or made the tackle in bounds.

The refs missed an obvious P.I. on DRC in the endzone so it wasn't all biased in Carolina's favor.