"Upon further review"... Brown's left foot was in

[Confluence]

game
set
match

to
t-man

 

[Stryker]

The angle of inference means nothing when determining if there is green between the foot and sideline. The fact that green is visible will not change with the angle.

 

[t-man]

The angle of inference means nothing when determining if there is green between the foot and sideline. The fact that green is visible will not change with the angle.

?? So if I'm standing over my own foot, looking down, and I can see a sliver of pavement between the side of my boot and the white line, my buddy, who rides up behind me and to my left, is going to see that same sliver of pavement?

You're on crack.

Joe

 

[t-man]

The angle of inference means nothing when determining if there is green between the foot and sideline. The fact that green is visible will not change with the angle.

Oh, nevermind, you're totally right.

 

[paperclip]

Oh, nevermind, you're totally right.

View attachment 692

View attachment 693

That changes everything.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

That changes everything.

LMAO, good one

 

[t-man]

LMAO, good one

I was just responding to "You can see the same thing when behind and to the left as you can when right on top of it" post. Seems like perhaps, you can't.

Joe

 

[Steeltime]

I am not sure how one can dispute t-man's point. He provides pretty clear visual evidence that the reversal was a blown call. In fact, a very good argument can be made that if the call were no catch because he was out of bounds, the evidence would support a reversal.

Given, however, that the call on the field was a TD, there is no effing way, in any universe, one can say the reversal was the proper call. There just isn't. t-man's disposition of this issue is the worst beating since Rodney King was last struck by a nightstick.

 

[Wingman]

You're right, the view that's from the middle of the field, NOT parallel to the sideline, where you actually can't see the left foot for part of it, AND that's farther away is definately the correct one to use, not the one that's right on the sideline, closer, and shows both feet the entire time. With that logic, you should see if the NFL offices have an opening, it sounds like you'd fit right in. If only they had a WORSE angle, from FURTHER away, that would be even better!

Oh, and the rule states the toe needs to be in bounds, as soon as the toe of his shoe hits blades of grass NOT painted white, he's in, done deal, doesn't matter if it then slides out of bounds, any more than it matters when a guy drags his toe that it slides out of bounds. If you're telling me you can't see that toe hitting the ground from the pics provided, then Antonio Brown needs a magic act, cause that ************ levitated.

Joe

So now being down is touching blades of grass not being in contact with the soil? I guess then if we stop mowing the field it will be even easier to get in bounds. You are clearly going to see only what you want to see. When you look at the VIDEO you can see it does not appear that his toes were actually down. The part of the left foot that comes down in the white is where it is down no scrape no slide no disturbance of the turf before his foot contacts the white, skimming through the blades of grass with out contacting the surface of the field is not the same as dragging the toe. Bryant did a good job of dragging the toe on his catch.

cause that ************ levitated. most people refer to this as running and jumping, that time period while forward motion happens and neither foot is in contact with the ground, easy to see in video but still pictures to make you think it is levitation.

 

[Stryker]

?? So if I'm standing over my own foot, looking down, and I can see a sliver of pavement between the side of my boot and the white line, my buddy, who rides up behind me and to my left, is going to see that same sliver of pavement?

You're on crack.

Joe

Show me the go pro angle where his boot is touching white. We have plenty of angles with his boot clearly in. Not on crack. I prefer whiskey...