Dansby's pick

[Dan H]

I really thought it hit the ground and I'm surprised it wasn't more controversial. But I guess it makes up for some of the awful calls in Philly.

 

[gmabel830]

Seahawks msg board was whining about it.. trust me

 

[Cardiac]

I would bet it hit the turf as well has the WR's arm but replay couldn't prove it to me or the refs so it is what it is. Very cool that Los made the pick because it took athleticism and good hands.

 

[football karma]

I have watched it like five times now in slo mo: I think it hit his arm.

If any of the ball hit the ground-- it was some tiny portion, too small to be seen

 

[CtCardinals78]

Seahawks msg board was whining about it.. trust me

So was Petey. He was complaining about having a few gripes with the calls today, but then again I wouldn't expect anything less from PC.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Seahawks msg board was whining about it.. trust me

So are my friends and family back in Washington.

I have dubbed it "The Magic-Rubber Theory", and I expect a Jim Garrison-esque attorney to sue over it at some point.

 

[Shane]

I say it hit his forearm front view is as conclusive as you can get an can't see it hit the ground at all.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Let's say it was called an incomplete, it would not have be a TD to win the game. They only had one drive all game worth anything so what makes them think after that crap pass they were cheated. There was no visual proof and the dust kicked up from the rubber was clearly from the WR's elbow. It was called a int on the field...one, one questionable call for them which was handled right by the ref after they were losing with little time left against a defense which tore them apart all game. I have a suggestion for Hawk fans, Wilson throws a more accurate pass and there is no discussion

 

[Proteus]

It looked like it hit the ground to me. The replay seemed too inconclusive to me to overturn whatever the call on the field was though.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I am still trying to figure out what the crew was talking about when they said the ball would bounce differently if it had hit only his arm. Anybody understand that?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[GatorAZ]

We'd be complaining if the roles were switched. We got the break.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Glad we got that call after a couple of earlier questionable/phantom calls went against us.

 

[Bert]

We'd be complaining if the roles were switched. We got the break.

I wouldn't, I always try to be objective and when you have 6 HD camera angles, NONE of which can show the ball hitting the ground conclusively, the play stands as called.

It was 100% the right thing to do and if it had been ruled incomplete that would have stood as well.

Refs got it right.

 

[8ndkorner]

I wouldn't, I always try to be objective and when you have 6 HD camera angles, NONE of which can show the ball hitting the ground conclusively, the play stands as called.

It was 100% the right thing to do and if it had been ruled incomplete that would have stood as well.

Refs got it right.

Bert, Bingo!

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I am still trying to figure out what the crew was talking about when they said the ball would bounce differently if it had hit only his arm. Anybody understand that?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The ground is much harder than a forearm. Logically, you wouldn't think that a ball would bounce that high off of a body part that wasn't in motion very much.

I'd agree except that there was nothing conclusive that it did. If I had to wager, I'd say that it didn't but it was very 'bang bang' as they say. It could have gone either way.

I wouldn't, I always try to be objective and when you have 6 HD camera angles, NONE of which can show the ball hitting the ground conclusively, the play stands as called.

It was 100% the right thing to do and if it had been ruled incomplete that would have stood as well.

Refs got it right.

Agreed. It wasn't conclusive either way. Under the way that the rules are written, you have to leave the play as stands.

 

[ajcardfan]

The ground is much harder than a forearm. Logically, you wouldn't think that a ball would bounce that high off of a body part that wasn't in motion very much.

I'd agree except that there was nothing conclusive that it did. If I had to wager, I'd say that it didn't but it was very 'bang bang' as they say. It could have gone either way.



Agreed. It wasn't conclusive either way. Under the way that the rules are written, you have to leave the play as stands.

Have you ever seen a passed ball hit the ground pop up that high in the air AND go backwards? The only way it changes velocity that dramatically is by human intervention, IMO.

That said, I completely agree it was one of those plays that wasn't going to be overturned regardless of the call. It just wasn't clear enough.

 

[Totally_Red]

Have you ever seen a passed ball hit the ground pop up that high in the air AND go backwards? The only way it changes velocity that dramatically is by human intervention, IMO.

That said, I completely agree it was one of those plays that wasn't going to be overturned regardless of the call. It just wasn't clear enough.

Classic case of the call has to stand because their is no conclusive evidence to overturn it. It may or may not have hit the ground, but the Seahawks wouldn't have won the game anyway IMO.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Glad we got that call after a couple of earlier questionable/phantom calls went against us.

This. Things have to even out at some point.

 

[Cardiac]

I agree the Seahawks wouldn't have won the game even if the interception was overturned. The reasons I was thankful it was upheld are it ended the stress and let me get into celebration mode and Los got another pick for his resume this year.

 

[blindseyed]

Feel bad for the Hags oh wait didn't they win that game against the Packers on a bad Hail Mary call? Yeah I really feel bad for them

 

[football karma]

The ground is much harder than a forearm. Logically, you wouldn't think that a ball would bounce that high off of a body part that wasn't in motion very much.


.

a contrarian view: the WR was diving for that ball and moves his arm under the ball. As the ball is coming down, his forearm starts to flex up to make the catch.

The combo of the arm being right on ground ( thus no "give") and a slight upward movement of the arm pops the ball straight up.

 

[BigRedRage]

I am still trying to figure out what the crew was talking about when they said the ball would bounce differently if it had hit only his arm. Anybody understand that?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

A ball would never bouncelike that off of a forearm, the physics of the bounce say it hit the ground but the replay didn't show it. We got lucky.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jbeecham]

A ball would never bouncelike that off of a forearm, the physics of the bounce say it hit the ground but the replay didn't show it. We got lucky.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

Have you ever played volleyball? That play looked very similar to someone diving to dig a spiked ball.

You could just as easily argue that you could throw 100 balls and physics would say that 99% of them wouldn't hit the ground & bounce high and backwards.

 

[Russ Smith]

I can't recall very often seeing a throw hit the ground and bounce straight forward like that one?

I thikn it hit his arm, I think it probably hit some turf too, but it didn't just hit the turf.

That ball was on a line going forward, hit the turf, and then bounced straight forward?

I'd be willing to bet a QB couldn't do that on purpose let alone on accident without making a bunch of throws.

 

[GimmedaBall]

Looked to me as if it hit both the ground and the arm at the same time.

The controversial play shouldn't diminish the fact of the Cardinal Defense dominating the game. A good lesson for PP is the focus that Dansby kept on the ball as he made the INT. Don't watch the video screen with your back to the ball. Wait for the replay when the play is over.