Did Santonio Holmes really get two feet down?
If you look at these pictures from SPORTSbyBROOKS.com (via Will Leitch’s personal blog), yeah, Holmes did:
From the looks of that second picture, it appears to me that he stuck both feet into the ground and therefore it was a touchdown. The top picture (which some media publications are using to prove that Holmes didn’t get two feet in), was likely taken either before or after the second photo. In fact, if you look at the first and third photos, Holmes has a piece of the turf stuck in his shoe. In the second photo, the turf appears to be absent, which would indicate that the first and third photos were shot after the second photo and therefore Holmes got his right foot down.
Later I’ll be reopening the JFK case by looking at evidence photos, so make sure to stop back.
Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.
Posted in: NFL, Super Bowl
Tags: Arizona Cardinals, Photos of Santonio Holmes' touchdown catch, Pittsburgh Steelers, Santonio Holmes, Santonio Holmes Super Bowl catch, Santonio Holmes Super Bowl catch greatest ever, Santonio Holmes touchdown catch, Steelers beat Cardinals in Super Bowl, Super Bowl 43, Super Bowl XLIII
Would the grass on his shoe then be considered a “grassy knoll”?
Thats so close that unless they use some
form of up-convert technology you wont be able to tell. But in this case 2 show it did not, 1 it did, perhaps its the angle of 2 thats misleading?
Either way it was a great effort, and it wouldnt be a Steeler superbowl with out somethings being questioned for sure.
The second picture proves (to me at least) that he got both feet in. Of course, we don’t know where the ball is, so we have to assume it is caught and under control.
The second pic could be at a misleading
angle. Notice the difference in height that appears between the two. Based on all three
I’d say he didnt, but it was sooo close you couldnt over turn it.
You could have 400 pictures that show he’s not in – all you need is 1 to prove that he was.
But regardless, it is tough to say definitively that he was 100% in. I would also say yes based on that second picture but wouldn’t argue with anyone that said that they need more proof.
Exactly, and it was called a TD and
there is simply not enough to change it.
As a Steeler fan this is nice to see, the second shot shows the front cleat disappeared, which meant it was in the ground or grass, that is my question – is the grass an extension of the ground? Do you guys think I need a better life since I just asked a question like that. ha
thanks for the pics. nice job.
all these are great photos but you have to show if he has possession at the time when the photo is taken
If you look at the photos here, you will see he indeed had both feet down.
http://www.steelersdepot.com/blog/2009/02/picture-of-santonio-holme
s-with-2-two-feet-down-for-touchdown/
these pictures prove nothing because you have no idea when he has possesion of the ball during each photo. so if u want to prove a point give more convincing photos
Thanks Luke, and welcome to August.
but did he have possesion of the ball I still think he only had one foot in
The missing evidence about these photos is, at what point was it determined he had control of the football, which would prompt you for which photo to use.
In my opinion, synchronizing other footage, photo 1 and 3 is when the catch was made clearing showing only 1 foot in bounds and photo 2 was prior to the catch – no TD. The biggest wrong call in football history
The thing I don’t get to see is when he actually catches the ball and controls it, and what his toes did precisely at that moment.