The INT that wasn't
 

What did you guys think of the call to overturn the INT by McIntosh, which regardless was a great read and reaction by him.

I'm still not convinced there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

Totally agree. I don't think it should have been overturned at all. Talk about a game changer. Rocky has quitely become a very solid linebacker, I might add.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I thought that Rocky's hand was under the ball, but I also thought that the refs would overturn the call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

The point of the ball clearly hit the ground and he still did not have total control of the ball as he rolled over. I think the two ints that we missed cost us more.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

Agree here...while it was clear the ball was moving a bit when he turned over, it wasn't on the ground- and looked pinned to his leg. REally, I was 50/50 on it when it went to review...i feel like we are snake bitten when it comes to challenges

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

While in slow motion, you can see the ball hit the ground, I'm not sure how that could have been seen in regular speed. The TV coverage needs to get better at showing the replays in regular speed as well as slo-mo...

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;380346]Agree here...while it was clear the ball was moving a bit when he turned over, it wasn't on the ground- and looked pinned to his leg. REally, I was 50/50 on it when it went to review...i feel like we are snake bitten when it comes to challenges[/quote]
In slow mo they showed the point of the ball hitting the ground and if the ball is moving at all it is not a catch.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I don't think it should have been overturned. We were in Dallas tho.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

It wasn't a catch. It hit the ground.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

After the past couple weeks, the skins secondary should spend some practice time on catching the football. Those are game changers that we are missing with S. Taylor out of the lineup. Fletcher dropped a sure Int too.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I was thinking it was too close to overturn simply based on it touching the ground, but since it was moving around it was clear he didn't control it all the way thru, therefore it was a good call.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Stacks42;380375]After the past couple weeks, the skins secondary should spend some practice time on catching the football. Those are game changers that we are missing with S. Taylor out of the lineup. Fletcher dropped a sure Int too.[/quote]
The one that was over turned was a great try for a tough catch but he droped an easy one and someone else missed an easy int.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

I thought it was fair to overturn it. On the replay I saw the ball touch turf, and then as he rolled it was not secure. That's incomplete.

Great try though, shows how good Rocky is getting.

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Mattyk72;380334]What did you guys think of the call to overturn the INT by McIntosh, which regardless was a great read and reaction by him.

I'm still not convinced there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call.[/quote]

yup would have put us on their goal line with a 10-7 lead, instead cowchips got the ball back and scored to make it 14-10.

i also thought that there was not indisputable evidence to overturn the call but i dont think we saw all the replays or enough of them to really make a call because they cut to commercial break . . . i think the zebras had more looks/angles then the viewers at home. just a guess

what a great game thoo, if only a few things here or there had gone differently .

go skins!

Re: The INT that wasn't
 

[quote=Schneed10;380389]I thought it was fair to overturn it. On the replay I saw the ball touch turf, and then as he rolled it was not secure. That's incomplete.

Great try though, shows how good Rocky is getting.[/quote]
Missing a int shows how good a player is getting. LOL