Was Holmes In or Out on the Game Winning Catch???

by VikesSince85 on Feb 7, 2009 10:49 PM CST

This may not be the right place for this, but since I am only a member of this site and think that only Vikes fans can look at things objectively, I have to raise the question here.

I was watching a NFL Films recap of the Super Bowl and they had a their cameras in the back of the end zone on one of the shots (not an angle TV crews had). Here is what I saw and why I am now questioning whether Holmes had both feet down.

When Holmes caught the ball, his right foot was lifted off the ground, as he brought it down to tap the turf, it hits and stays on the heel of his left foot. It appears from this NFL Films view that it never gets to the ground. As Holmes falls forward and out of bounds, the right foot remains locked to the left heel.

I invite all to please review this angle and others and then tell me if I am crazy or not. My contacts may need to be changed, but I think NFL Films had an angle that showed something.

Here is the URL for the video,

NFL Films Video

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e9de21

I beleive the view in question is around the 19:00 minute mark of a 21 minute and change video, sorry I don't have a shorter one. View from the back of the endzone is the one I am talking about.

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sorry if it kills the discussion but check this link

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Sometimes-a-picture-is-worth-zero-words?urn=nfl,138930

"Ask Philly was it hard tryin' a stop TO, he da main reason that the fans would come fo'."

by aussie_cowboy on Feb 7, 2009 11:51 PM CST reply actions

Doesn't kill, just let's me know I'm not crazy!! Thanks!

I, like a lot of people, examined the video from the game itself and honestly thought he got his feet down. When I saw that earlier today I couldn’t believe my eyes and couldn’t believe i hadn’t heard anything on the NFL network etc.

Now, I believe it was a second down play, so I am not going to say that the Cardinals would have won, but WOW, Pittsburg, like the Seattle Superbowl, seemed to catch a lot of breaks (whether they were obvious or not).

by VikesSince85 on Feb 8, 2009 12:01 AM CST up reply actions

Tough Call

I watched it several times and couldn’t determine whether his right toe was on the ground or not. Probably why it wasn’t overturned, because the officials couldn’t tell either and the evidence has to be indisputable to overturn a call, especially in a game like that.

I am leaning toward his toe was slightly off of the ground, but not by much. It was probably still touching grass it was that close. Too close to overturn it anyway.

And no, aussie_cowboy, you didn’t kill the discussion. None of those pictures proves he didn’t score, because they just show his feet and you can’t see whether he has possession of the ball in any of them. Not a discussion killer either for the same reason. They don’t prove anything.

If someone could show us a picture of him catching the ball with both feet down, then it would kill the discussion.

The Minnesota Vikings - Undefeated in the Playoffs at Lambeau Field!

by BaldViking on Feb 8, 2009 7:11 AM CST reply actions

Shorter Video

After watching this: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e9dafb I think that he made the catch. Possession is kind of iffy, but I’ll give it to him.

I’ll disagree with Steve Sabol though about it being the greatest catch of all time. Despite the significance and blah, blah, blah, it’s not the greatest catch of all time. There’s couple of guys that played in Minnesota that might have something to say about that.

The Minnesota Vikings - Undefeated in the Playoffs at Lambeau Field!

by BaldViking on Feb 8, 2009 8:21 AM CST reply actions

No catch . . . but

But the evidence is disputable. The pictures that aussie cowboy linked to help to determine that he probably did not come down with both feet, but it is almost impossible to determine when the images are moving. The main picture in question is the 3rd picture. From a cursory glance, it appears as though both feet are down. This is just an obstacle allusion. His right foot is higher than his left foot, and they should be touching the ground at roughly the same place if both feet are down. This picture is very deceptive because it does not show the depth of the endzone. Where the foot should be in relation to the endzone paint had the catch been made is not where the foot actually is. Thus it appears as though the foot never came down and it got stuck on the back of his other foot.

But, can you blame the refs? This is nearly impossible to call with certainty live, and it still remains nearly impossible in the slowest of slo-mo replays. Hell, it is damn near impossible with still photos. Furthermore, the ref had to make a call on the field, it was a 50/50 toss up, he made the catch call. Thus the burden of proof was indisputable evidence that he did not make the catch using motion cameras. The only evidence the Ref had at his disposal was the game film, which did not come even close to indisputable evidence. Thus, while the catch was probably not made . . . the right call was made.

Mr. Weatherstone

by Mr. Weatherstone on Feb 8, 2009 3:53 PM CST reply actions