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

quote:

---

Then you are blind. Watch it here. LINK

---

You're looking at whether it touched the ground as he rolled over.

I think the refs called the fact that the point hits on initial contact with the ground after he'd been bobbling it on the way down.

I think they deemed that a lack of "control"

And the point most certainly DOES hit the ground on initial contact.

That said. I kinda think it should have been called a catch. But, the problem is, to OVERTURN, you need absolute confirmation.

Judging by this thread it was a good call of the play stands

quote:

---

Then you are blind. Watch it here.

---

I don't know man. Now that I watch it again...it's close. Like I said before, the play would have stood either way.

quote:

---

I don't think that's clear.

---

Well then you just made the argument for why the call on the field was not overturned.

quote:

---

It did touch the ground but he had his hand under the ball and controlled. It was definitely a catch by any common sense measure.

---

So we have a Carolina fan admit that the ball hit the ground, but he chooses to ignore the fact the ball moved after it hit the ground.

quote:

---

I think that's correct, but the ball becomes dislodged as he goes to the ground, and he has to regain control of it

---

Which I thought he did.

quote:

---

Well then you just made the argument for why the call on the field was not overturned.

---

I never said it should be overturned.

Right, but the ball had already bit the ground...and he lost control of it

Once he loses control of it, its no longer a catch

The fact that he had to regain control of it...

He has to maintain control of it.

quote:

---

It looks like it hits the ground to me

---

They'll claim the shape of a football is different in this picture and the laws of physics doesn't apply.

quote:

---

but he had his hand under the ball and controlled

---

What? The only point of contention to argue it was a catch was whether or not the ball hit the ground. It is indisputable that he did not control the ball as evidenced by the fact he shifted it from one arm to the other and ultimately was pinning it to his body with his right elbow. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, it's a catch and no one argues otherwise.