BCS

[dolphins4life]

This is a new term I invented.  I call it "Bad Call Syndrome".

It refers to when a fan or a fanbase is so blinded with bias that they can't accept that a call was correct even if video evidence clearly shows it was.

Examples:

Bills fans and the Music City Miracle

Raiders fans and the Tuck Rule

People on this board and the punt that Edelman never touched.

Sometimes bad call syndrome can be cured, for example, with me and the illegal bat call in the Dolphins-Patriots game several years ago, which I thought was a bad call even though the video shows he clearly batted the ball forward.   

[Spider-Dan]

You should just call it D4L syndrome, where one fan thinks that his interpretation of a call is clearly the correct one, and everyone who disagrees is blinded by bias.

[Tenshot13]

You should just call it D4L syndrome, where one fan thinks that his interpretation of a call is clearly the correct one, and everyone who disagrees is blinded by bias.

/thread

[Dolphster]

You should just call it D4L syndrome, where one fan thinks that his interpretation of a call is clearly the correct one, and everyone who disagrees is blinded by bias.

Yeah, the fact that D4L is who started this thread is pretty hilarious.

[Dave Gray]

You're so wrong about that call.  And you're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if he touches the ball or not.  It's like a court of law -- the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  It doesn't matter if a defendant killed someone or not.  The jury is there to determine if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove it.

With the Edelman call, there is simply not "indisputable visual evidence" of him NOT touching the ball AKA white-space in between his hands and the ball.  Even if he didn't touch the ball (a fact I don't even grant you), it's within millimeters of his fingertips on multiple occasions  -- too close to call, at best.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The complete lack of visual evidence that he touched the ball from multiple angles is sufficient evidence to conclude he didn’t. 

[Dave Gray]

The complete lack of visual evidence that he touched the ball from multiple angles is sufficient evidence to conclude he didn’t. 

That's not how that rule is supposed to be interpreted.

[Tenshot13]

Leave it to the two Patriot homers to defend that play.

[Phishfan]

I'm on record with this also. Using multiple angles makes it  clear that the ball was never touched. It was indisputable.

[Pappy13]

I'm on record with this also. Using multiple angles makes it  clear that the ball was never touched. It was indisputable.

I agree with Dave. There was nothing in the video evidence that CLEARLY showed the call was wrong and should have be overturned. In the absence of a clearly WRONG call the call should stand. The ball may have very well touched his fingers or may not have, but that's not a reason to overturn it. Unfortunately that's not how the rule has been interpreted and now they overrule the call even if they suspect the call may have been wrong which is the case here.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I agree with Dave. There was nothing in the video evidence that CLEARLY showed the call was wrong and should have be overturned. In the absence of a clearly WRONG call the call should stand. The ball may have very well touched his fingers or may not have, but that's not a reason to overturn it. Unfortunately that's not how the rule has been interpreted and now they overrule the call even if they suspect the call may have been wrong which is the case here.

I do agree that there is more of a de novo review of the play as oppose to a highly deferential review than how the rule was written, but there that is in general and not specific to this play.  I wouldn’t characterize it as they overrule if they suspect the call was wrong.  But closer to if it more likely that the call was wrong than correct than they will frequently over rule rather than irequiring indisputablely wrong.

[Phishfan]

It was clear when you make use of the multiple angles