Texans TD

[WoolMagnet]

i'm surprised no one els has commented.  Watching and listening to different post-games, many people think it wasnt a td, rather a touchback.  I think i saw something from the league too.

No matter, we got the win, but a goose egg in the playoffs against a team that scores, would have been something special for this young D to celebrate.

Maybe They are saving it for KC.

 

 

[pacolts56]

It sure looked like a touchback to me... oh well, glad it didn’t swing the game.

[Malakai432]

15 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

i'm surprised no one els has commented.  Watching and listening to different post-games, many people think it wasnt a td, rather a touchback.  I think i saw something from the league too.

No matter, we got the win, but a goose egg in the playoffs against a team that scores, would have been something special for this young D to celebrate.

Maybe They are saving it for KC.

 

 

 

I didn’t think it was at first, nor on any replays.  However, when they came back from the commercial break they seemed to show a shot right as it was coming out of his hands but yet breaking the plane and it looked like a TD as he still (barley) had posession.  People on the Texans forum seemed to agree that it wasn’t.

 

[strt182]

they gave them the touchdown due to the no call on the facemask on Watson. It was never confirmed but they said it stands so had it been called a touchback it would have stood also. Either way it don't change much except makes Texans look like they was a lil closer in this game then what they really was.  

[HungarianColtsFan]

TD that never was..

[shakedownstreet]

I didn't think it was clear enough to overturn the call.

[ClaytonColt]

It was close but I like the refs staying out of the game and leaving the ridiculously close calls as they are. The reviews should fix obviously erroneous calls and that one was never that clear cut.

[Dark Superman]

During the game, I thought it was a TD. But a few hours ago I was looking at the play and it was definitely a touchback.

[Smonroe]

26 minutes ago, DarkSuperman said:

During the game, I thought it was a TD. But a few hours ago I was looking at the play and it was definitely a touchback.

 

Nah.  Watch it again.  The tip of the ball just has to break the plane of the end zone, even by a millimeter.  He was losing it almost instantaneously when the nose of the ball touched the line.  

 

Like @strt182 said, it would have stood either way they called it.  There was nothing definite about that play.   

[jskinnz]

2 hours ago, strt182 said:

they gave them the touchdown due to the no call on the facemask on Watson. It was never confirmed but they said it stands so had it been called a touchback it would have stood also. Either way it don't change much except makes Texans look like they was a lil closer in this game then what they really was.  

 

To the bolded - no they did not.  

[Smonroe]

2 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

To the bolded - no they did not.  

 

Lol!  Obviously.  I’m all for letting them play, but how did they miss that face mask penalty?   

[w87r]

As soon as Coutee took both hands off the ball it started to come out. His hands weren't big enough to hold on to the ball. Definitely shpuld of been a touch back, but it's water under the bridge.

[jskinnz]

Just now, Smonroe said:

 

Lol!  Obviously.  I’m all for letting them play, but how did they miss that face mask penalty?   

 

Main guys who would have called it were behind Watson.  Bad call for sure but the notion that they gave the Texans TD because of that missed call is complete nonsense.

[aaron11]

he had lost it by the time he crossed the plane.  the camera angles should have been better for a playoff game on the goal line though 

[Dingus McGirt]

"We're on to Kansas City..."

[krunk]

I think it was a touchback

[indyman411]

The “ball just has to cross the goal line” rule is a joke. If a wr has to hold onto the ball to the ground for catch, then why doesn’t a player have to have control to the ground for a TD?  The NFL is contradicting itself IMO. 

[HarryTheCat]

4 minutes ago, krunk said:

I think it was a touchback

Agreed. He only had his fingertips barely touching the ball, not "control", as that ball kissed the goal line. But a win is a win, and that was as close to a shutout as you can ever expect in a playoff game. On to KC for the next showdown!

[strt182]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

Main guys who would have called it were behind Watson.  Bad call for sure but the notion that they gave the Texans TD because of that missed call is complete nonsense.

Do you always take everything so literal? 

[jskinnz]

36 minutes ago, strt182 said:

Do you always take everything so literal? 

 

So you don't believe that was a make up call?

[Dasteez]

When I watched it live, it looked obviously like a touchback; especially when you see the replays with all the angles. Have no idea how in this era of NFL that was called possession when crossing the goal line; he had 2 fingers on top of the ball as it was falling freely to the ground.

 

Clearly trying to keep viewers in an otherwise blow out playoff game. We got the W and that’s really all that matters. Would’ve loved it to be 21 - 0. 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

So you don't believe that was a make up call?

How could it be a makeup call when the facemask wasn't seen by them?

You can bet had the refs seen the facemask it would have been called.

[Mr.Debonair]

7 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

I didn't think it was clear enough to overturn the call.

Yeah too close to overturn 

[Colts_Fan12]

Yeah it should have been 21 zip but they let them have it. We won so it dont matter but still annoying when he was dropping the ball before crossing the goal line.

[NewEra]

Texans? Never heard of them....

[ricker182]

Touchback by rule.  

  

Touchdown in the spirit of football.  

  

That's a dumb rule anyway. Offense should get the ball back at the one if they fumble it out of bounds in the endzone. 

[Scott Pennock]

The league office will issue a letter apologizing for the blown call this week....

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, ricker182 said:

Touchback by rule.  

  

Touchdown in the spirit of football.  

  

That's a dumb rule anyway. Offense should get the ball back at the one if they fumble it out of bounds in the endzone. 

I disagree with the offense getting the ball back after fumbling the ball out of bounds in the end zone.  Who is to say they would have recovered it in the field of play.

[braveheartcolt]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

How could it be a makeup call when the facemask wasn't seen by them?

You can bet had the refs seen the facemask it would have been called.

You said it was. You kiddin us you royster doyster you! You got us good and proper......

[ricker182]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

I disagree with the offense getting the ball back after fumbling the ball out of bounds in the end zone.  Who is to say they would have recovered it in the field of play.

It went out of bounds though.  

  

Anywhere else on the field and it's still the offense's ball.  

  

I don't understand the reasoning behind the rule. 

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, ricker182 said:

It went out of bounds though.  

  

Anywhere else on the field and it's still the offense's ball.  

  

I don't understand the reasoning behind the rule. 

Only if they recover it. When the offense fumbles thru the end zone they lose possession. Nothing to not understand.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

11 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

i'm surprised no one els has commented.  Watching and listening to different post-games, many people think it wasnt a td, rather a touchback.  I think i saw something from the league too.

No matter, we got the win, but a goose egg in the playoffs against a team that scores, would have been something special for this young D to celebrate.

Maybe They are saving it for KC.

 

 

 

The explanation was it touched the front of the end zone line there fore a TD   BUT IMHO that does not pass the smell test if a receiver has to maintain control of the ball in a TD reception how is this any different ? I don't get it & am glad it had no consequence , 

[DrLuck]

11 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

I didn't think it was clear enough to overturn the call.

One angle was. It was an angle they didnt show on the megatron at the game haha. Tbe angle I'm talking about was outside the pylon in question, facing it dead on. The angles from the other side of tbe fieldooked 50/50, this one showed it clearly came out early.

[John Waylon]

We’re on to Kansas City. 

[Smonroe]

13 minutes ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

 

The explanation was it touched the front of the end zone line there fore a TD   BUT IMHO that does not pass the smell test if a receiver has to maintain control of the ball in a TD reception how is this any different ? I don't get it & am glad it had no consequence , 

 

Once the ball touches the plane, even by a hair, it’s a TD and by definition can’t be fumbled.  

 

He had possession up to the goal line.  Like others have said, if it were called a touchback, that would have been upheld too. 

 

When the All 22 comes out there may be a better picture, but I think it’s never going to be decisive in a lot of people’s minds.  

[ricker182]

15 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Only if they recover it. When the offense fumbles thru the end zone they lose possession. Nothing to not understand.

I don't understand your point. It makes no difference who recovers once the ball is out.  

If the ball goes out of bounds on a fumble anywhere else on the field, the team that last possessed the ball retains possession.  

  

Fumbling out of bounds in the endzone should work the same way. Obviously you can't just award the touchdown, but the offense  shouldn't lose the ball.  

  

I don't understand the reasoning as to why the rule is applied differently there.  

  

I've always though it was a bad rule.

[fatboy]

Think of it this way:   Had it been overturned, it would have been the story of the game.  It wasn’t, and the attention was rightfully on the dominance of the Colts.

[Smonroe]

Not sure if this will be clear, I think this the first time I’ve uploaded a pic.  

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, fatboy said:

Think of it this way:   Had it been overturned, it would have been the story of the game.  It wasn’t, and the attention was rightfully on the dominance of the Colts.

That's right. Just a garbage time TD.

[AZColt11]

I didn't think he had control of it at the time it crossed the goal line.  It touching his hand and him having control of the ball are two different things IMHO.  

 

But in the end it didn't really matter.