Question on the Triplett Reversal

[dw49]

I have a feeling that this might be the final explanation on this.

 

When I first read his explanation , I questioned if the issue was really if the contact came near the goal line and the real contact that occurred in the backfield. Many of you answered that Triplett was wrong because he by rule must look at the whole play.

 

IMO... this get's a little "tricky ." Triplett pretty much states that one of the officials says the RB was down by contact as he was touched near the goal line. He then goes on to say that this is where he looked , saw no contact and ruled it a TD. No doubt this is wrong but here's my question....

 

Lets say this was a ruling where a WR caught a pass in the end zone where he was ruled to step on the end line while running across the back of the end zone.  It looked very close and was reviewed. So they look at the replay and see that he did not step out of the end zone as the official ruled. However he "MAY" have stepped out of bounds at the beginning of his route before he reached the end zone and did the crossing pattern along the back line. They saw this as they are supposed to review the whole play. 

 

Now.. what is the proper ruling. Do you have to have indisputable evidence that he stepped out at the beginning of the play or is just the possibility of it enough ? The official didn't call the play dead because of that incident. Or do you take the "indisputable" part of all this and let it pertain to the "whole play." Other words can you really take that "down by contact" and look for other parts of the play where it could have happened ?

 

I have a feeling the NFL is going to say that Triplett was incorrect in just looking at the end of this play as he stated. Then I'm thinking that since the contact that might have occurred earlier was not called , he actually needed visual evidence that Chapman touched his foot to uphold the ruling on the field.

[sfergson727]

To me, down by contact meant he was just that, down by contact.  For the call to initially be that, they must have seen someone touch the ball carriers foot, which caused him to stumble.  If a defensive player makes contact with the running back, and he falls as a result and touches a knee, he is down.

 

I really can't see how they could screw that up, but then I underestimated Triplette's stupidity.

 

The call on the field was down by contact, and thus required irrefutable proof otherwise to overturn a ruling on the field.  Since the bone head only looked at the goal line....well, even a freakin' blind man could see that no contact occurred there, it was back at the line of scrimmage, where most contact usually occurs.

[ColtsLegacy]

You're reviewing a down by contact, how do you not review from the point where the RB starts to fall down? He majorly screwed up -- no if, ands, or buts about it.

[Bluefire4]

It would have been different if they called it a touchdown, maybe you wouldn't have enough evidence to overturn it. They called it down by contact and they only looked at the goal line to say there was indisputable proof he was never touched.. therefore he screwed us.

[jbaron04]

that ref shafted us. point blank down 7 2mins to drive going into the half down by only 7 at worst knowing were a second half team, bam down 21 before a blink