Dansby's pick

[D-Dogg]

Not enough evidence either way, thus the field ruling would stand regardless of it being called INC or INT.

From a physics standpoint, the momentum of the human's forearm could easily cause the ball to move high and backwards, just as the ground could have as well. There is absolutely no cut and dry on that call.

 

[Shane]

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

#1 do you have the formula that proves this?

#2 like AJ said I in 40 years have never seen a ball hit the ground and bounce completely backwards on a throw. A high lofting punt yes? Yes. A throw? never.

It hit his forearm.

 

[Shane]

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.

Yep. Never seen it a ball bounce like that on a throw and you never will. it would have went into the body not straight back the other direction from which it was thrown.

 

[john h]

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.

The refs ruled it did not hit the ground so it did not hit the ground. Next case?
I think over a years time all the bad calls generally even out for most teams.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

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.

Probably don't remember but there was a UofA-UW game that Foles threw a pass that bounced off the foot/turf of a wide receiver and ended up being picked and returned for a TD essentially costing Arizona the game. Considering I was on the wrong side of a 50/50 play in Seattle just like yesterday's I was more than happy to take the call. Here's a Youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NFsMTPvSjQ

 

[PDXChris]

Portland is considered a Seattle market. All sports breaks on the radio refer to the game as being decided "on an INT that did or did not hit the ground".

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Portland is considered a Seattle market. All sports breaks on the radio refer to the game as being decided "on an INT that did or did not hit the ground".

If that was true, we'd already be calling it the Immaculate Interception.

Why would anyone think that their offense, which had done very little all game, would march downfield and ultimately get eight points or more?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[PDXChris]

If that was true, we'd already be calling it the Immaculate Interception.

Why would anyone think that their offense, which had done very little all game, would march downfield and ultimately get eight points or more?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yup, exactly. I am off this week, but considered waking up early just to listen to the Seahawk homer station. Thankfully the local station I listen to only talks local and hates anything Washington. The only bad thing is that they are all drinking the Trailblazer Kool-Aid and get reminded daily about how they fleeced us on the Aldridge trade. (I am a Bulls fan)

 

[Broseph]

Wasn't enough evidence to turn the call over on the field. Every replay I saw showed that it could of went either way which means it cannot be irrefutable evidence.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

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.

Absolutely. Have you ever seen a punt bounce and give the receiving team better field position? It is rare, but it does happen.

 

[Shane]

Absolutely. Have you ever seen a punt bounce and give the receiving team better field position? It is rare, but it does happen.

A punt and a throw are not even close to the same in either trajectory or velocity. I challenge anyone to go out and throw a thousand footballs all with good velocity and try to get a football as soon as it hits the ground on its first impact and see if it bounces back in the direction from which it was thrown. Its not going to happen.

Good luck.

 

[ajcardfan]

Absolutely. Have you ever seen a punt bounce and give the receiving team better field position? It is rare, but it does happen.

Punts are end-over-end, almost all of the time. And, a punter putting a spin on the ball is much different than how a passer can.

But, don't take my word for it. Go out and throw 1000 hard spiral passes that go 20 yards and you tell me how many bounce up high and in the reverse direction of the throw. I bet you 100$ you can't duplicate it.

 

[ajcardfan]

A punt and a throw are not even close to the same in either trajectory or velocity. I challenge anyone to go out and throw a thousand footballs all with good velocity and try to get a football as soon as it hits the ground on its first impact and see if it bounces back in the direction from which it was thrown. Its not going to happen.

Good luck.

Great minds think alike shane. I hadn't read your post when I posted mine.

 

[desertdawg]

Dansby just keeps getting his hands on the ball, with the Larry gloves he can even keep his hands on the ball now and it's awesome. I think a lot of it does go to daily practice routine, catches like a bazillion balls every day during the week. Smart talented player with some serious instinct. The play couldn't be turned over with what they had on film so I danced.

 

[Shane]

Great minds think alike shane. I hadn't read your post when I posted mine.

Yessir! I would offer up a 100 bucks too nobody could do it. It's just not possible.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Yessir! I would offer up a 100 bucks too nobody could do it. It's just not possible.

I'll make it 100 pounds Stirling.

 

[Hollywood]

The funny part is that I think the refs ruled it an INT so it COULD be reviewed. I herd on the radio today that 2 of them thought it was incomplete and one thought it was an interception. Turnovers are all reviewed but an incomplete pass cant be.

I think the ref said INT knowing he would get to look at the replay and make sure he got it right...and then the video wasn't clear so he stuck with the call.

 

[ajcardfan]

Dansby just keeps getting his hands on the ball, with the Larry gloves he can even keep his hands on the ball now and it's awesome. I think a lot of it does go to daily practice routine, catches like a bazillion balls every day during the week. Smart talented player with some serious instinct. The play couldn't be turned over with what they had on film so I danced.

Even more awesome, I heard on the postgame show that Dansby took about a dozen throws on the sidelines to practice his catches immediately BEFORE they went out for that last series. He also is catching about 50 to 100 balls after every practice.

The guy is totally expecting to get his hands on passes and he wants to capitalize. And, then that is exactly what happens in Seattle and he seals the deal with an INT.:smiliefan:

 

[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.

Spot on Bert.

 

[devilalum]

What's amazing to me is that with all the HD cameras reviews are usually "stands" and not "confirmed."