Was his exact wording that the were challenging that the runner was down by contact or that he was down by contact at the goal line? Because he was down by the contact at the LOS.

Was his exact wording that the were challenging that the runner was down by contact or that he was down by contact at the goal line? Because he was down by the contact at the LOS.

 

It depends on what was originally called. If the call on the field was that he was down by contact at the goal line, they made the correct call by overturning it.

That's what I'm asking, what did he say? They usually announce something like "Cincinnati is challenging the ruling that the runner was down by contact", perhaps adding prior to breaking the plane. If that's the wording (and I believe it's standard procedure to announce it like that), then it doesn't matter specifically where he was down by contact.

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.

 

I am not missing the point, you are here. Down by contact is down by contact no matter where it happens at. It doesn't matter what the original point of the review was, once it is reviewed the whole play is up for review. So no he would need visual evidence also to show he wasn't touched in the backfield too. So if he reviewed the backfield action like he was suppose to do on a replay, then he would see what we saw and that was that he probably was touched. Which means down by contact in the backfield also comes into play. So now that down by contact in the backfield is also in question, and there was no evidence to show that he wasn't touch. It means there is sitll no visual evidence to overturn it. He would need complete visual evidence that he was not touched throughout the play once it is reviewed. It does not matter that the original reason why it was challenged was because of the goal line. It would now then take visual evidence to show he wasn't touched in the backfield too.

 

Which is the reason why the NFL has said the call was wrong. The NFL usually tries to find ways to back its officials if they can, but when the come out and even say it was wrong. That is saying something.

Was his exact wording that the were challenging that the runner was down by contact or that he was down by contact at the goal line? Because he was down by the contact at the LOS.

 

It depends on what was originally called. If the call on the field was that he was down by contact at the goal line, they made the correct call by overturning it.

 

During the game he said the play was being challenged to see if he was down by contact. That is what he annouced at the game. After the game when asked about it, he said they were only looking to see if he was touched by the goal line. Which is still wrong because a ref is suppose to look at the whole play once it is reviewed. So now he would need completely visual evidence that he was never touched throughout the play to overturn it. Obviously there was not visual evidence he was never touched, so the play should not have been overturned. It does not matter what the original challenge was once the review begins.

That's what I'm asking, what did he say? They usually announce something like "Cincinnati is challenging the ruling that the runner was down by contact", perhaps adding prior to breaking the plane. If that's the wording (and I believe it's standard procedure to announce it like that), then it doesn't matter specifically where he was down by contact.

 

It was a booth a review, so they didn't announce anything.

During the game he said the play was being challenged to see if he was down by contact. That is what he annouced at the game. After the game when asked about it, he said they were only looking to see if he was touched by the goal line. Which is still wrong because a ref is suppose to look at the whole play once it is reviewed. So now he would need completely visual evidence that he was never touched throughout the play to overturn it. Obviously there was not visual evidence he was never touched, so the play should not have been overturned. It does not matter what the original challenge was once the review begins.

 

So you're telling me that if Gio breaks a tackle at the LOS, runs untouched another 30 yards, slips, falls, gets up and then scores, they can say he was down by contact? Just because that guy (supposedly) touched him doesn't make him down by contact if he takes another 5 steps than falls.

It was a booth a review, so they didn't announce anything.

 

Gotcha.

 

So you're telling me that if Gio breaks a tackle at the LOS, runs untouched another 30 yards, slips, falls, gets up and then scores, they can say he was down by contact? Just because that guy (supposedly) touched him doesn't make him down by contact if he takes another 5 steps than falls.

 

But your logic is not sound here. No, if he broke a tackle then reestablished himself, that's not the same as this. In this, it is clear that SOMETHING caused him to stumble and he never regained steady footing, leading to him to fall down. I've seen it as well where someone makes contact and the guy takes several steps but momentum is clearly taking him down.

 

The point where he began to stumble was immediately when he was (supposedly) touched. That means you need indisputable evidence that he was not touched to overturn it. Because the official looked only at the specific video beyond that point, rather than what caused him to begin to fall in the first place, he saw no evidence.

Gotcha.

 

 

 

But your logic is not sound here. No, if he broke a tackle then reestablished himself, that's not the same as this. In this, it is clear that SOMETHING caused him to stumble and he never regained steady footing, leading to him to fall down. I've seen it as well where someone makes contact and the guy takes several steps but momentum is clearly taking him down.

 

The point where he began to stumble was immediately when he was (supposedly) touched. That means you need indisputable evidence that he was not touched to overturn it. Because the official looked only at the specific video beyond that point, rather than what caused him to begin to fall in the first place, he saw no evidence.

 

All of that sounds fine and dandy except the ref after the game said they called him down by contact at the goal line. He was asked if he reviewed where the only contact might have happened and he said they didn't b/c they were reviewing if he was down by contact at the goal line. I am with UKMF here that if their original call was down b/c of contact at the goal line they were right reversing it. We have to remember that he knew what he was reviewing and we don't. If he wasn't looking to see if he was tripped up when he potentially was it's probably b/c that's not what was called on the field.

 

Side note there is no way anyone can say he was definitively touched from the replays I saw. I feel most certainly that he was b/c I don't think he tripped on his own but the replays shown Sunday did not show him being touched for sure.

Here is what the ref said after the game. This means to me the NFL is wrong in saying they got the call wrong. The refs did not call him down by contact at the line of scrimmage b/c nobody saw it or called it. Sorry.

 

https://twitter.com/joereedy/status/409810950582059009/photo/1

All of that sounds fine and dandy except the ref after the game said they called him down by contact at the goal line. He was asked if he reviewed where the only contact might have happened and he said they didn't b/c they were reviewing if he was down by contact at the goal line. I am with UKMF here that if their original call was down b/c of contact at the goal line they were right reversing it. We have to remember that he knew what he was reviewing and we don't. If he wasn't looking to see if he was tripped up when he potentially was it's probably b/c that's not what was called on the field.

 

Side note there is no way anyone can say he was definitively touched from the replays I saw. I feel most certainly that he was b/c I don't think he tripped on his own but the replays shown Sunday did not show him being touched for sure.

 

Here is what the ref said after the game. This means to me the NFL is wrong in saying they got the call wrong. The refs did not call him down by contact at the line of scrimmage b/c nobody saw it or called it. Sorry.

 

https://twitter.com/joereedy/status/409810950582059009/photo/1

 

You all are missing the point. Once a play is reviewed, then the whole play is up for review. It doesn't matter that the original reason was to see if he was down by contact at the goal line. Once it is reviewed, then the whole play is up for review. Which means if he looked at the backfield action like he should have too, then he would also need visual evidence to show that he wasn't touched in the backfield either. Since there was no visual evidence either way, you can't now say he was not down by contact because if the whole play was reviewed like he was suppose to then it is not clear he was not touched. The whole play is up for review, and he messed up by not reviewing the whole play. That is why the NFL also has said they got it wrong. The NFL does not put down its ref's unless they definitely got a call wrong.

 

Also haven't you all considered for one second that maybe the ref knew he messed up, and so he tried to cover his butt by saying he only looked at the goalline?

It was a booth a review, so they didn't announce anything.

 

So you're telling me that if Gio breaks a tackle at the LOS, runs untouched another 30 yards, slips, falls, gets up and then scores, they can say he was down by contact? Just because that guy (supposedly) touched him doesn't make him down by contact if he takes another 5 steps than falls.

 

Dragonfly already took the reply I was going to say for this.

 

Also they might not have announced it on tv. However they did announce the reason for the review at the game because I was there. He said this play is under review to see if he was down by contact, never said goal line or anything. Which I did hear what he said after the game, but that don't matter because once it is reviewed the whole play is up for review. Which is why the NFL even said he got it wrong by overturning it. There needed to be visual evidence in the backfield too, to show he was not down by contact.

I was looking at the rule book, and have seen no mention that the entire play is reviewed. Can you show me where it states that FC?

I was looking at the rule book, and have seen no mention that the entire play is reviewed. Can you show me where it states that FC?

 

I am going by what they have always said during reviews. So give me a minute I will look it up.

I was looking at the rule book, and have seen no mention that the entire play is reviewed. Can you show me where it states that FC?

 

Well I can't find it anywhere, the only thing I keep finding in the rule book and in other places is just the type of plays that can be ruled. So maybe I am wrong, since I can't prove it yet.

 

However as we know the replay came from the booth right? Well if the goal line was suppose to be the only thing they were looking at, then the booth would have never signaled for it to be reviewed because there was no one even near him by the goal line. Common sense has to come into play here and realize that the booth called for the review because they were not sure if he was touched in the backfield or not. I really wish the person in the booth would talk about why they decided to have it reviewed. I would think the replay guy told him to replay it to see if he was down by contact before he crossed the goal line. Which means the contact that caused him to go down could have happened in the backfield even though he fell by the goal line. I think Triplett probably misinterrupted what the booth even said, and for some strange reason only did look at the goal line. Either way you look at it Triplett did screw it up, and the NFL even recognizes it.

 

I will keep looking into if the whole play can be reviewed or not because I have heard that many of times. However right now you are right because I can't find exact proof right now.