But I’m telling you that you aren’t going to convince anyone on here that his wrist was under the ball. Nor are you going to convince others to do the work for you to prove that the call was right.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just stating the truth as I understand it. I am fallible, I can be wrong, but I see what I see.. Interestingly enough the thumbnail I posted makes it look even more like there's a hand underneath the ball at that size, there is blue shading underneath the ball that extends almost to his waist. I watched three angles and I don't see any indisputable evidence said hand isn't there. Others obviously have a different definition of things like "clear" and "indisputable" and that's their right.
I get it though, I don't care as much about Auburn as some people do. I also get that I'm the guy on the jury that would be talking about beyond a reasonable doubt and make everyone stay there instead of going home as I insist that that wasn't proven. To me indisputable, and beyond a reasonable doubt, and even things like "clearly" rise to the level of I'd stake a loved ones life on it. Not, I'm pretty sure and I believe it happened. It might not have been a catch. I'm a skeptic though, I think proof needs to be rock solid and I'm not seeing that. I'd be dishonest if I said otherwise. I know I ruffle feathers when I dig in my heels but that's not my intention.
Edit: I might as well add my position is not that the ball did not touch the ground. To quote: "
If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball, even if it touches the ground, will not be considered loss of possession." We could have a whole another discussion about what constitutes a catch and this might be where a lot of the disagreement lies. My position isn't even that it was a catch. I just don't see the indisputable evidence to say he lost possession of it which is required to overturn a call on the field.