- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jerricho Cotchery's catch ruled incomplete after review - explanation?
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:00 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:00 am to ShortyRob
quote:
That said. I kinda think it should have been called a catch. But, the problem is, to OVERTURN, you need absolute confirmation.
How? The rule is you have to maintain control all the way to the ground or make a football move after gaining control. He did neither, so your assessment supports the rule as it was called.
0
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:01 am to bwallcubfan
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:03 am to TigerBait1127
What is control? I think that is what the worst part of the rule is, as control is not defined.
Until the Competition Committee can define that for people, then arguments like this will always be had.
Until the Competition Committee can define that for people, then arguments like this will always be had.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:03 am to bwallcubfan
quote:
I was under the impression that it does. If it hits the ground and moves, it's an incompletion. That's how I understand it anyway.
You understand it completely correctly.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:03 am to TigerBait1127
I don't feel like that was "maintaining control of the ball"
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:03 am to TigerBait1127
Definitely closer than I thought while watching the game live.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:06 am to StrongBackWeakMind
The ball goes from between his hands to here after hitting the ground
I think they got it right. Can't reverse it
I think they got it right. Can't reverse it
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:06 am to LSU Piston
The fix was in.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:07 am to sms151t
quote:
Until the Competition Committee can define that for people, then arguments like this will always be had.
Completely agree.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:07 am to sms151t
quote:
What is control? I think that is what the worst part of the rule is, as control is not defined.
Until the Competition Committee can define that for people, then arguments like this will always be had.
Control is pretty clear. Unless you are shifting the ball from one arm to another intentionally it has to maintain position in your body and not move if it hits the ground.
People like to act like there is some science to this, but the only area that is gray in this is when the person controls it for 2+steps and then makes a football move. That is the case where it is questionable but that in no way, shape or form applied to this situation.
I think it is clearly hitting the ground from the views shown and should have been confirmed. I can understand physics and realize the ball clearly was touching the ground prior to it moving. This ref chose to take the safe route and call it as "Stands".
In no way should it be overturned to a completed catch.
Furthermore, that play didn't determine the result of the game like some are trying to claim.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:09 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:08 am to LSU Piston
LINK
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.
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 on 2/8/16 at 11:09 am to Geauxgurt
So you are admitting you do not know what control is either? There is no clear definition of control, that is what needs to be addressed.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:10 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:10 am to dcrews
Crotchery played like crap. He had two big drops.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:10 am to dcrews
The fact that the ball hits the ground while in his hand, then slides all the way up to his biceps tells me all i need to know.
Its really hard for me to grasp that people who want it be a catch think they have an argument here.
Its really hard for me to grasp that people who want it be a catch think they have an argument here.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:11 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:10 am to sms151t
quote:
So you are admitting you do not know what control is either?
I stated exactly what is understood as control. It is pretty clear.
You are just ignoring the fact that control is clearly understood, but it is only when the player becomes a runner that comes into questions that make other situations murky.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:12 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:12 am to Geauxgurt
No you did not you had an implied definition of control, not a real definition. Because your next sentence was the two step and football move. Again you do not know, just like everyone else on this board does not know what control is.
I will say this again, I admit not knowing what a catch or non catch is anymore.
I will say this again, I admit not knowing what a catch or non catch is anymore.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:14 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:16 am to sms151t
Control equals the ball isn't moving. The only exception is when a player is intentionally shifting it from one hand to another to protect it which also demonstrates control.
How hard is that for you to understand.
How hard is that for you to understand.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:18 am to Geauxgurt
I'm going to explain this perfectly.
First, the tip of the ball did hit the ground in plain view, but the ball is allowed to touch the ground if the player's hand is underneath the ball and the ball doesn't move. The ball did not move until the defensive player's helmet hit the ball. The movement wasn't caused from the tip of the ball hitting the ground. It was caused from the helmet of the defensive player. So it was PROBABLY a catch.
HOWEVER,
The referees could not see the ball every second. There were spots where the cameras could not see the ball and there was no visual evidence that the ball did NOT hit the ground. It was ruled incomplete on the field, so the referees would have needed video evidence that the ball never hit the ground. Because the cameras couldn't see the ball at all times, there is no indisputable proof that the ball did not hit the ground.
Therefore, the ruling has to stand even though we all pretty much know he really did catch the ball.
First, the tip of the ball did hit the ground in plain view, but the ball is allowed to touch the ground if the player's hand is underneath the ball and the ball doesn't move. The ball did not move until the defensive player's helmet hit the ball. The movement wasn't caused from the tip of the ball hitting the ground. It was caused from the helmet of the defensive player. So it was PROBABLY a catch.
HOWEVER,
The referees could not see the ball every second. There were spots where the cameras could not see the ball and there was no visual evidence that the ball did NOT hit the ground. It was ruled incomplete on the field, so the referees would have needed video evidence that the ball never hit the ground. Because the cameras couldn't see the ball at all times, there is no indisputable proof that the ball did not hit the ground.
Therefore, the ruling has to stand even though we all pretty much know he really did catch the ball.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:19 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:18 am to Geauxgurt
Touches ground. Still isn't secured after. Pretty obvious non-catch.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:19 am to Asphodel
quote:
. The ball did not move until the defensive player's helmet hit the ball. The movement wasn't caused from the tip of the ball hitting the ground.
This is false
Furthermore, that still wouldn't be maintaining control
By the rule, the defender's contact is irrelevant
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:21 am
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News