I was at the game and after all the replays me and a buddy thought there was no way they would overturn it. I believe the whole crowd was shocked when they overturned it. However I am not complaining because the Bengals sure have had their fair share of questionable rulings on replays go against them through the years.

 

I didn't think they would overturn it either. They are saying though that they thought he was touched at the goal line which he clearly wasn't so I can see why the did overturn it.

I saw the overturned TD...and there's no way around it. The refs screwed up. That was not a TD and there's no way they had enough evidence to overturn it.

I saw the overturned TD...and there's no way around it. The refs screwed up. That was not a TD and there's no way they had enough evidence to overturn it.

 

What makes you say that? They said they called him down by contact at the goal line. They didn't call him tripped up by the guy that actually might have tripped him. If they had originally called that or seen that they wouldn't have overturned it. They didn't though.

Jeff Triplett may be the worst ref in the NFL

What makes you say that? They said they called him down by contact at the goal line. They didn't call him tripped up by the guy that actually might have tripped him. If they had originally called that or seen that they wouldn't have overturned it. They didn't though.

 

I'm saying there absolutely was not indisputable evidence that he wasn't touched. He was called down. They has to have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise.

I'm saying there absolutely was not indisputable evidence that he wasn't touched. He was called down. They has to have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise.

 

Oh, there was certainly indisputable evidence he wasn't touched at the goal line. Wasn't even close. If that's where they originally called contact had happened, overturning it was the right call.

 

Now if they're looking at the play as a whole, it was inconclusive whether the guy at the LOS touched him or not, and if that's the contact they were referring to in "down by contact" than overturning it was incorrect.

Oh, there was certainly indisputable evidence he wasn't touched at the goal line. Wasn't even close. If that's where they originally called contact had happened, overturning it was the right call.

 

Now if they're looking at the play as a whole, it was inconclusive whether the guy at the LOS touched him or not, and if that's the contact they were referring to in "down by contact" than overturning it was incorrect.

 

This.

Oh, there was certainly indisputable evidence he wasn't touched at the goal line. Wasn't even close. If that's where they originally called contact had happened, overturning it was the right call.

 

Now if they're looking at the play as a whole, it was inconclusive whether the guy at the LOS touched him or not, and if that's the contact they were referring to in "down by contact" than overturning it was incorrect.

 

When a play is being reviewed all parts of the play is able to be reviewed. So the ref then still messed up by not reviewing the contact in the backfield that made him fall. Which still makes the call wrong.

 

With all that said I love the fact that the Bengals are actually having some of these go their way. We have seen many bad calls go against them in past years.

When a play is being reviewed all parts of the play is able to be reviewed. So the ref then still messed up by not reviewing the contact in the backfield that made him fall. Which still makes the call wrong.

 

With all that said I love the fact that the Bengals are actually having some of these go their way. We have seen many bad calls go against them in past years.

 

But they are saying they didn't call him down by contact there. They are saying they called him down by contact at the goal line.

But they are saying they didn't call him down by contact there. They are saying they called him down by contact at the goal line.

 

Head of officials said the call was blown and should not have been reversed

When a play is being reviewed all parts of the play is able to be reviewed. So the ref then still messed up by not reviewing the contact in the backfield that made him fall. Which still makes the call wrong.

 

With all that said I love the fact that the Bengals are actually having some of these go their way. We have seen many bad calls go against them in past years.

 

 

Even if they reviewed the whole play, if they didn't call him down by the "contact" at the LOS, then they couldn't have said that the lineman touched him. The evidence wasn't there to reverse the on-field call.

But they are saying they didn't call him down by contact there. They are saying they called him down by contact at the goal line.

 

Even if they reviewed the whole play, if they didn't call him down by the "contact" at the LOS, then they couldn't have said that the lineman touched him. The evidence wasn't there to reverse the on-field call.

 

It was the wrong call plain and simple. When a play is reviewed the whole play is allowed to be reviewed, and there was not enough evidence to overturn it. The NFL has even came out and said it was the wrong call and shouldn't have been overturned.

 

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NFL's head of officiating said on Tuesday that referee Jeff Triplette made the wrong call when he reversed a play in the second quarter of Sunday's game between the Indianapolis Colts and Cincinnati Bengals.

 

"It wasn't a correct call," Dean Blandino, the league's head of officiating, said on "Total Access" on the NFL Network. "We made a mistake here."

 

NFL admits officiating error in game between Cincinnati Bengals and Indianapolis Colts - ESPN

 

I am very glad that the head ref did mess that call up though.

It was the wrong call plain and simple. When a play is reviewed the whole play is allowed to be reviewed, and there was not enough evidence to overturn it. The NFL has even came out and said it was the wrong call and shouldn't have been overturned.

 

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NFL's head of officiating said on Tuesday that referee Jeff Triplette made the wrong call when he reversed a play in the second quarter of Sunday's game between the Indianapolis Colts and Cincinnati Bengals.

 

"It wasn't a correct call," Dean Blandino, the league's head of officiating, said on "Total Access" on the NFL Network. "We made a mistake here."

 

NFL admits officiating error in game between Cincinnati Bengals and Indianapolis Colts - ESPN

 

I am very glad that the head ref did mess that call up though.

 

Right, but if they didn't call him down by the contact near the LOS to begin with, there was not indisputable evidence to say that he was in fact touched at the LOS, do you agree?

Right, but if they didn't call him down by the contact near the LOS to begin with, there was not indisputable evidence to say that he was in fact touched at the LOS, do you agree?

 

I agree but the thing is the orginal ruling was down by contact correct? Now they had called the down by contact by the goal line for some reason. However once a play is reviewed the whole play is reviewable. So that means they can go back and look at the backfield too, and so that contact in the backfield does become relevant then. So now that contact in the backfield is part of the review too, and so there also would have to be visual evidence in the backfield too, to show that he wasn't touched. So it doesn't matter that the call was down by contact the goal line, once it is reviewed the whole play can be reviewed and there was no evidence to show that he wasn't touched. So there was nothing to show that the ruling of down by contact was wrong because down by contact is down by contact no matter where it takes place.

 

I definitely see your point. The ref messed up though because he didn't review the whole play like it's suppose to be done, and if he did then that backfield action would become relevant and would also need evidence to show he wasn't touched back there.

I agree but the thing is the orginal ruling was down by contact correct? Now they had called the down by contact by the goal line for some reason. However once a play is reviewed the whole play is reviewable. So that means they can go back and look at the backfield too, and so that contact in the backfield does become relevant then. So now that contact in the backfield is part of the review too, and so there also would have to be visual evidence in the backfield too, to show that he wasn't touched. So it doesn't matter that the call was down by contact the goal line, once it is reviewed the whole play can be reviewed and there was no evidence to show that he wasn't touched. So there was nothing to show that the ruling of down by contact was wrong because down by contact is down by contact no matter where it takes place.

 

I definitely see your point. The ref messed up though because he didn't review the whole play like it's suppose to be done, and if he did then that backfield action would become relevant and would also need evidence to show he wasn't touched back there.

 

I think you're missing my point. The original call was that he was not touched at the LOS, and was touched at the goal line. In order to overturn the first portion, there had to be indisputable evidence that he WAS touched at the LOS. That evidence did not exist. In order to overturn the "down by contact" ruling at the goal-line, they had to see indisputable evidence that he was not touched at the goal-line. That evidence was there. That's why they overturned it IMO. There was no indisputable evidence that he was touched at the LOS, so since they originally called that he wasn't, they couldn't change it.