The out of bounds call

[john h]

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.

The refs go by the rule there has to be clear and indisputable evidence to over rule the call on the field. That means they do not over rule a call very often on a play like that. I stopped my DVDR on that play and his heel was clearly out unless you assume he was standing on his toes and his heel did not touch the ground while being on one foot. He must have some kind of toes to do this while leaning forward. It is not impossible but improbable in that situation. The refs made the call based on the possibility that it could happen that way. There is no dispute his heel was out of bounds unless one is blind. The dispute is over whether his heel touched the ground while out of bounds. The odds are IMHO there was at least a 75% chance his heel had to hit the ground as he went from an upright position to a leaning forward position. What is really bad about that play is two guys could not even tackle him. The call should have been moot if we had made the easy tackle. We sort of got what we deserved.

 

[Mitch]

The refs go by the rule there has to be clear and indisputable evidence to over rule the call on the field. That means they do not over rule a call very often on a play like that. I stopped my DVDR on that play and his heel was clearly out unless you assume he was standing on his toes and his heel did not touch the ground while being on one foot. He must have some kind of toes to do this while leaning forward. It is not impossible but improbable in that situation. The refs made the call based on the possibility that it could happen that way. There is no dispute his heel was out of bounds unless one is blind. The dispute is over whether his heel touched the ground while out of bounds. The odds are IMHO there was at least a 75% chance his heel had to hit the ground as he went from an upright position to a leaning forward position. What is really bad about that play is two guys could not even tackle him. The call should have been moot if we had made the easy tackle. We sort of got what we deserved.

Excellent points, John. Good post.

The convincing thing for the officials may have been the way the green turf kicked up off of Smith's pivot from the front end of Smith's cleat, and not a speck of it was white...thus they felt they had to accept the sideline official's word that his heel wasn't down.

The other irony is that from where Smith was on that sideline, had another Cardinal defender been there and blasted him out, I bet you the Cards would have been called for a late hit (these same refs would have protected Smith even though they didn't call him out of bounds)...but, alas, a penalty would have been better than an easy TD...and, alas, no other Cardinal was there to defend the play...after watching that play one would really have a hard time ever playing Antrel Rolle at FS again...it was about as weak an effort as one will ever see.

 

[football karma]

these things happen. I dont necessarily think it was a clearly bad call.

Funny -- in the Dallas game, on the Fitz td that was overruled, it wasnt conclusive that he was out of bounds, but certainly reasonably likely. They seemed to use that standard.

With the Smith thing -- one can infer from Smith's motion, etc that he likely touched out of bounds, but there was no conclusive proof he did. This was the right standard to employ.

 

[Mitch]

these things happen. I dont necessarily think it was a clearly bad call.

Funny -- in the Dallas game, on the Fitz td that was overruled, it wasnt conclusive that he was out of bounds, but certainly reasonably likely. They seemed to use that standard.

With the Smith thing -- one can infer from Smith's motion, etc that he likely touched out of bounds, but there was no conclusive proof he did. This was the right standard to employ.

Outstanding analogy, en fuego!

 

[CardLogic]

Here's all I have to add about the discussion: The NFL should have official(s) in the booth judge the replays not the referee.

Well that and don't leave it up to the officials to decide: TACKLE HIM!!!

 

[Russ Smith]

Here's all I have to add about the discussion: The NFL should have official(s) in the booth judge the replays not the referee.

Well that and don't leave it up to the officials to decide: TACKLE HIM!!!

THat's always been my problem wtih the replay rule. The rule says if it's not conclusive one way or another, the original call rules. Even though it was a guess at full speed and the other is a "guess" in slow mo on replay.

Clearly if it's not conclusive the better view is replay but the rule puts the clout with the original call.

 

[Buckybird]

Shouldn't common sense come into play on the replay? Common sense says Smith's foot was out of bounds just as Tony Romo's wasn't trying to throw a pass on the "tuck rule".

 

[seesred]

His yoes were in and the heel was up. A great athletic play.

GBR
40