2 years ago

[cravnravn]

This is a TD

 

[dc.]

Crav,

 

I totally disagree. First, a still image means almost nothing. We can't see the ball - or it's movement in this moment (most importantly). But also, timing does ultimately matter.

 

I think it would have been nice for the officials to review it. It was close enough to warrant one, but I doubt the outcome changes - I'd give it a 1 in 100 shot, if you have the right official thinking the right way.

 

But even if he got two feet down with the ball fully secured - and I doubt he did - that lingering "football move" (which I know no longer technically exists, but many still look to it as the clue of 'possession') doesn't happen. At full speed, the ball is controlled for MAYBE 1/10th of a second.

[cravnravn]

That is more of a catch then Holmes game winner vs the Cards.

 

Reports are that the play was reviewed and declared no catch..Huhhhhh There was no stoppage in play, the ref set the ball and on they went,

 

Im sorry but a play of that magitude needs to be looked at closely instead of a quick glance.

[ForceEight]

I agree, but an actual review would have yielded no catch. I'd have been angry if they said it was a catch, because the offense has enough help via silly rules already.

[RavenMad]

I hate the rules involving endzone catches but I have to agree with the consensus here. It wasn't a catch.

 

If that happens anywhere else on the field the officials would have ruled that the receiver didn't make a football move before he lost control of the ball. Therefore anywhere else on the field it was an incomplete catch and not a fumble.