They had enough time to overcome the call. First half.
Add Reaction
ðŊâĪïļððððĪððđððâïļððŧððŋðĒðĪŠðĪĢâ
ððĪ·ðĨðððĪŊOriginal Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Should've went for 2.
Statue of Liberty would have worked there
Nose to the ground.
Mike Carey said it was a catch. Definitive proof it wasn't.
Millions of Panther fans cringed when Mike went all in on a catch. Mike needs to host a game show called "OverTurned"
I have no idea what a catch is, anymore
The nose of the ball hit the ground and then the ball moved around as he was rolling over the first time. It was the first view we had seen in slow motion. Technically not a catch. However, it was a heckuva play by the WR.
At the end of the rollover, the camera view did show that the ball didn't hit the ground at the end and he secured it...but what made it not a catch was the ball movement after the nose of the ball hit the ground at the beginning of the almost catch.
of course, the second Carey said it was a catch, we all knew it would be confirmed as an incomplete pass.
Either way, does anyone think that play would've made a difference in the final outcome. That Denver D was playing the best it probably had all year.
Do we all feel bad the Allen didn't get a Super Bowl ring? His parents live out here in Lakeside, CA.
That play was a huge difference maker.
Instead of the Denver defense on their heels, 2 plays later they strip sack Cammie & score a defensive TD.
None of that happens if the catch is called correctly.....and make no.mistake, it was a catch I don't give a **** what they "ruled"
That hasn't been a catch for a decade.
Should it be? IMO, yeah.
But it's not.
Obviously, I was wrong I thought it was a catch. I thought when the rule was changed the ball could hit the ground and even move if the hand was under the ball.
If it was a catch it was a huge play as it did get Carolina out of its end and as Boris states the strip sack fumble doesn't happen.
"the strip sack fumble doesn't happen" - untrue, no way of knowing, it could still happen but maybe not for an immediate TD. Is there nothing better to do? I haven't seen so much ifs, buts, nuts and maybe ifs about a game since a game I don't want to remember.
I guess I should have said less likely to happen.
I just want to know what a catch is, does the rule need to be changed? does the NFL just need to explain it to us dummies, and that includes their own refs, better so we are all on the same page?
No. They like keeping the gray area so they can control the games.
Jim Nantz was completely dumbfounded by that call. He was almost speechless. It was great.
Let's not forget that if he catches the ball cleanly the first time, instead of doing a juggling routine, there is no question about if its a catch or not.
PackerBackerDPM posted:I guess I should have said less likely to happen.
I just want to know what a catch is, does the rule need to be changed? NO does the NFL just need to explain it to us dummies NO , and that includes their own refs YES, appears the refs need a refresher , better so we are all on the same page?
The rule is fine. The league just needs to educate the ref's and the teams (coaches & players) on it.
If that's not a catch, then no, the rule is not fine.
Or, you don't understand it?
The keys...
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
- secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
- touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
- maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Items 2 & 3 refer to defining Sideline and Ednzone catches, but in both cases refer to Item 1 above.
Then there is this...
Item 4. Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.
I think many of the WRs think touching the ball is maintaining control, and it is not.
He controlled the ball is what I'm saying. The ground didn't assist in that.
That is the spirit of the rule, right? If you secure the ball without the ground assisting, it should be a catch?
Agree with what you are saying, but from what I saw the ball moved when the nose hit the ground and then continued to move (out of his control) when he rolled over.
Pereira shows why. BTW, can't stand Cowherd.
That's the way it's described every Sunday. If the ground doesn't aid in securing the ball, then the ball can touch the ground during the catch. Isn't that the essence of the Bert Emmanuel rule?
I appreciate your posts on this H5.
Watching it on video again, my main problem is not being able to clearly see the nose hit the ground. But I definitely see your point.
Hungry5 posted:Hungry5 posted:Nose to the ground.
Well allrighty then.
He had control when it touched the ground.
Thanks H5 for the enlightenment. That makes more sense now. Always appreciate what you bring to the board without the nonsense.
I thought it was clear it was incomplete when I saw the replay, but I wasn't invested in it one way or the other.
yes, Osh, he did have control as the nose of the ball hit the ground, but then after the nose hit the ground, the ball moved around as he was rolling over. Hence, NOT a catch.
I've seen a lot less control called a catch.
They call what they call as they see fit.
I've seen a lot less control called a catch.
Agreed, but that to me is the problem. Extremely vocal and animated WRs have influenced the ref's to the point where they don;t understand the rule anymore to be able to get the call as right as possible in the moment.
There is going to be an element of judgement in the call no matter what the NFL does to try to take judgement out of it. It's part of the game and that's OK. Sometimes big mistakes are made and it's great to get them corrected but on a down in and down out basis, the refs have to do the best they can. Do we want to watch video games or games played and officiated by people?
SanDiegoPackFan posted:yes, Osh, he did have control as the nose of the ball hit the ground, but then after the nose hit the ground, the ball moved around as he was rolling over. Hence, NOT a catch.
If the ball moved when it touched the ground then it's no catch. If the ball moved while he was rolling over then it is still a catch because he ultimately controlled it. Watching replays I believe the latter happened.
I hate the offseason. It wasn't a ****ing catch and it made no difference in the game.
Catch, no catch, they are all basically the same. Replacing a no catch with a catch and more belly fire ain't changing anything.
figures an NCState player like Cotchery would screw things up...smh
DH13 posted:Do we want to watch video games or games played and officiated by people?
While we're on the topic, I hate when I'm playing a video game and I clearly press the jump button but my character on the screen doesn't jump and then gets killed. I wish the video game company would fix this because my wife is tired of hearing about it.