Started By
Message

Jerricho Cotchery's catch ruled incomplete after review - explanation?

Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:45 am
Posted by LSU Piston
The 313
Member since Feb 2008
3844 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:45 am
Was there ever an explanation given after the game? Were Pereira and Mike Carey asked about this? Clete Blakeman ever say anything? I've seen little to nothing about this since the game ended.
Posted by StrongBackWeakMind
Member since May 2014
22650 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:46 am to
I thought he caught it.
Posted by Geauxgurt
Member since Sep 2013
10471 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:46 am to
You mean the obvious incompletion where the ball hits the ground, moves and then he regains control?

Some people really are blind.
Posted by AubieALUMdvm
Member since Oct 2011
11713 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:47 am to
Horrible call that set up a game changing play. We won't hear any official explanation b/c there isn't one and it won't go along with the Manning story.
Posted by SabiDojo
Open to any suggestions.
Member since Nov 2010
83949 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:47 am to
Looked like a catch to me.
Posted by JBeam
Guns,Germs & Steel
Member since Jan 2011
68377 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:47 am to
The catch/no catch rule in the NFL is laughable.

Also, what's your opinion on the PI call on Norman in the endzone?
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 10:48 am
Posted by TigerBait1127
Houston
Member since Jun 2005
47336 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:48 am to
I thought it hit the ground before he rolled over

If it was called a catch on the field, it would have stood
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
56664 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:49 am to
quote:

Mike Carey


He declared it would be overturned and ruled a catch. He's consistently wrong though. It's crazy how often he's wrong.

There is a point where he goes to the ground and it looks like the ball MIGHT make contact with the ground. At that point the ball does come loose from his grasp for a second. My guess is that they couldn't confirm that the ball didn't hit the ground...therefore the call stands.
Posted by Rickety Cricket
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
46883 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:51 am to
No indisputable video evidence to indicate that the tip of the ball did not touch the ground when he first went down. Had they called it a completion on the field, they would not have overturned it either.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:52 am to
quote:

Jerricho Cotchery's catch ruled incomplete after review - explanation? by LSU Piston


I kinda thought he caught it.

That said, it has to be decisive to overturn the play call on the field. So, here's what I think the call was.

Everyone looking at the replay focused on whether the ball touches the ground as he rolls over. But, I don't think that was the call.

If you watch the reply, as he INITITIALLY hits the ground, the point of the ball hits the ground too and moves around his body.

I think the call was that he bobbled it as he was falling and that once he had "control" he needed to maintain it as he hit. But, the point hit and the ball moved. Hence, they called no control.

Posted by bwallcubfan
Louisiana
Member since Sep 2007
38131 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:53 am to
I thought it was a catch...of course, I have no idea what a catch is anymore. I'd have to see it again, but I guess they didn't know if it hit the ground for sure or not. They did say it stood and it wasn't confirmed. Call would have stayed the same if it was ruled a catch at first.
Posted by The Pirate King
Pangu
Member since May 2014
57755 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 10:58 am to
Here come the Aubies to defend their prized turnip.

Was clearly an incompletion by current NFL rules, but even if the rules weren't in place. There wasn't enough evidence to overturn anyway.
Posted by rondo
Worst. Poster. Evar.
Member since Jan 2004
77414 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:06 am to
The fix was in.
Posted by dcrews
Houston, TX
Member since Feb 2011
30223 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:08 am to
LINK

quote:

Note 1: It is a catch if, in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to it touching the ground, and that control is maintained during and after the ball has touched the ground.


1- Cotchery was bobbling the ball
2- The nose of the ball clearly touches the field
3- Cotchery gains control after 1 & 2 above happened

By rule, it is not a catch.

Had Cotchery had clear control of the ball prior to the ball touching the field, the nose of the ball touching the field would be irrelevant, and it would have been ruled a catch.

I believe this rule was made when the Bucs were playing the Rams in a playoff game some years ago, and a similar event happened when the Bucs receiver caught the ball, had control of the ball, but the ball touched the ground. Even though the receiver maintained control before and after the ball touched the ground, the refs ruled it incomplete and the Bucs went on to lose that game.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:11 am
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:38 am to
Looked like a catch to me.

But I really don't know what is and isn't a catch anymore by NFL standards
Posted by LL012697
Member since May 2013
3963 posts
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:45 am to
I thought it was a catch until Mike Carey said that he thought it was a catch. Then at that point I knew it was going to stand
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram