- 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: Kamara catch was incomplete. Should have been ruled as so
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:54 pm to JackandWater
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:54 pm to JackandWater
quote:
If you acknowledge that a one handed catch exists, then you have to realize that was a catch.
It was t a catch when his first foot touches the ground
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:56 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Every fan should know the nfl is a high stakes high profit sports entertainment venture and outcomes are not always left to chance.
I think this is the second time I ever agreed with you.
The first time was on the poli board
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:03 pm to GynoSandberg
quote:
Dumbest poster & dumbest thread I’ve ever witnessed on this board.
That says a lot
And you are here
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:06 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
How can you say the ball was secured in a millisecond
By whether or not the ball continues to move in his hand(s).
You are confusing when the process of a catch begins vs. when it ends. It begins when it is secure which, without a bobble can happen immediately.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:30 pm to Rohan Gravy
his feet were inbounds with one hand possession
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:32 pm to moneyg
They didnt even question the call. He had two feet in with posession in one hand-TD
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:55 pm to gsmith5651
quote:
They didnt even question the call. He had two feet in with posession in one hand-TD
They reviewed it and confirmed the catch because of the reasons I mentioned.
Kamara had secured the ball and was in control, then both feet touched in bounds, then he survived the ground.
There was no bobble. There was no ball movement once he secured it.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 8:06 pm to moneyg
quote:
By whether or not the ball continues to move in his hand(s). You are confusing when the process of a catch begins vs. when it ends. It begins when it is secure which, without a bobble can happen immediately.
This ^
Posted on 12/16/24 at 8:16 pm to Kevin TheRant
Right
OP’s logic suggests that one-handed catches don’t exist
I’m convinced he’s either an awful troll or so deeply troubled that I feel should feel guilty for arguing with him
OP’s logic suggests that one-handed catches don’t exist

I’m convinced he’s either an awful troll or so deeply troubled that I feel should feel guilty for arguing with him
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:14 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
NawlinsTiger9
u said kumala would win big
STFU clown

Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:55 pm to moneyg
quote:
You are confusing when the process of a catch begins vs. when it ends. It begins when it is secure which, without a bobble can happen immediately.
I’m not confusing anything
You must have possession when the first foot is down
He did not have possession when the first foot touched the ground
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:57 pm to Thracken13
quote:
OP needs a timeout.
Stop making stupid posts
And I won’t respond
You see how that works?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:58 pm to goatmilker
quote:
I blame Trump
I knew I liked you
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:02 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
I’m convinced he’s either an awful troll
or so deeply troubled that I feel should feel guilty for arguing with him
You’re correct
I’m deeply troubled
And you dumbasses aren’t?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:09 pm to moneyg
quote:
You are confusing when the process of a catch begins vs. when it ends.
It begins when it is secure which, without a bobble can happen immediately.
No
It must be a catch when his first foot touched to allow continuation of the second foot touching
It was not a catch when his first foot touched
Therefore when his second foot touched
That was his first foot touching while catching the ball
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:11 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
I’m not confusing anything
Sure you are.
quote:
You must have possession when the first foot is down
I don't know if you are getting confused by semantics, or intentionally trying to play semantics.
Possession is a specific, meaningful term. A catch is required to have possession. You've got it backwards. Possession is not a precursor to a catch.
Control of the ball is what is required to have occurred before two feet are down. Possession occurs after control, multiple feet down, and surviving the ground if necessary.
quote:
He did not have possession when the first foot touched the ground
See above.
But, other than the semantics games you are playing, of course he had control prior to his first and second foot touching in bounds.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:13 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
It must be a catch when his first foot touched to allow continuation of the second foot touching

It must be a catch in order for it to be a catch?
quote:
It was not a catch when his first foot touched
Correct. It was a catch after he controlled the ball, his two feet touched, and he survived the ground.
quote:
Therefore when his second foot touched
That was his first foot touching while catching the ball
Your argument is nonsensical.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:19 pm to brewdrees
quote:
You are the reason I hate posters on here with LSU by their name!!!!
Stay outta Saints Talk with that nonsense
You do know there wouldn’t be a Saints Talk without “Tiger Droppings”
Yes?
And there wouldn’t be a Saints Talk without Tiger Fans
This is a weak arse board
Without LSU fans
There would only be a few dumbass pussies like you posting here
Many LSU fans don’t give one frick about the Saints or the NFL
I can assure you that Mr. Chicken appreciates the input from LSU fans
Even on this weak arse board
Popular
Back to top
