- 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 11:20 am to TigerBait1127
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:20 am to TigerBait1127
quote:I just watched it in slo-mo. It's possible that his index finger was under the tip of the ball.
This is false
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:21 am
1
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:21 am to brgfather129
quote:
His hand is under the ball and I didn't see any view that showed definitively that it hit the ground.
You are approaching it backwards. The call on the field was incomplete. To overturn it, you'd have to see a view that showed it definitively did not hit the ground.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:21 am to Asphodel
quote:
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.
Helmet didn't cause it to move the ground hitting the ball and his body hitting the ground did. It was an incompletion by the definition of the rule. The ball is squirting loose before the so-called helmet hits it as you say.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:21 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
It's possible that his index finger was under the tip of the ball.
Sure, it's possible (would actually be his thumb). Likely or probable, no.
Certainly not enough to overturn it
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:23 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:22 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
It looks like it hits the ground to me
Because it clearly did as your picture shows
I can't believe this is even a controversy. It's an incomplete pass. Replay verifies that.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:22 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
I don't think that's clear.
Then, you agree the call should stand.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:22 am to TigerBait1127
quote:Agree here.
Certainly not enough to overturn it
Right when the ball pops loose, it looks like his index finger is under the tip.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:23 am to moneyg
quote:Never said otherwise.
Then, you agree the call should stand.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:23 am to Geauxgurt
That is nowhere defined in the NFL. That is an implied version of control you have.
Show me where in this book it defines control
That is why until the Competition Committee can define control for people arguments like this will always happen.
Show me where in this book it defines control
That is why until the Competition Committee can define control for people arguments like this will always happen.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:26 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:28 am to AubieALUMdvm
Somebody is bitter. But now that you mentioned it, I realize I must have missed the explanation for the no call on kick catch interference? And the no calls on Von Miller being held just about every play. And Cam getting away with intentional grounding multiple times... What was the explanation for those?!
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:30 am to bwallcubfan
The play would have stood either way. Definitely wasn't "clearly" incomplete.
Could have hit his right elbow. Could have hit the ground. Could have hit the opponent's helmet. It could have hit all three. But which caused him to lose control?
Really hard to tell.
Could have hit his right elbow. Could have hit the ground. Could have hit the opponent's helmet. It could have hit all three. But which caused him to lose control?
Really hard to tell.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:31 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:31 am to moneyg
quote:
You are approaching it backwards
I'm "approaching it" like someone who is of the opinion that he caught it.
quote:
To overturn it, you'd have to see a view that showed it definitively did not hit the ground.
I am aware of what needs to happen to overturn and I have not stated that I think it should have been.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:32 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
It could have hit all three. But which caused him to lose control?
That really doesn't matter
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:34 am to TigerBait1127
Yes it does.
But again, I didn't think it would be overturned and have no issue with the call standing.
But again, I didn't think it would be overturned and have no issue with the call standing.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:36 am to sms151t
quote:
Show me where in this book it defines control
Its like porn, you can't define it but you know when you see it. That wasn't control.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:37 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
Yes it does.
But again, I didn't think it would be overturned and have no issue with the call standing.
Why does it matter?
The rule says he must maintain control with or without contact by an opponent
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:40 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:38 am to LSU Piston
Looked like a catch to me.
But I really don't know what is and isn't a catch anymore by NFL standards
But I really don't know what is and isn't a catch anymore by NFL standards
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:40 am to TbirdSpur2010
Replay is creating a slippery slope on things where we are seeing imperfections in plays that probably would normally have been called catches (as well as fumbles where a guy has possession, but if the ball is even spinning a smidgen in super slo-mo, people scream "fumble"). I don't know if things are really that much clearer than before. I used to agree with barry that you knew a catch if you saw it, but not anymore.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 11:48 am
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:41 am to Bunk Moreland
Right?
And the rule shouldn't be indisputable either. That's a ridiculous standard that changes crew to crew
And the rule shouldn't be indisputable either. That's a ridiculous standard that changes crew to crew
Posted on 2/8/16 at 11:42 am to LSU Piston
quote:
Was there not enough to overturn?
Evidently not.
Looked like the ball hit the ground to me.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News