Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Replies 946
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

 

Give me a break. He caught the ball, hit the ground, and flipped it up. Saying anything else in blatant homerism.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

 

He was clearly pushing himself back up, IMO.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

 

Straight forward rule. Bad interpretation. That was TD.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

on the other hand he had clear possession of the ball with two feet down and then his body, and upon thinking he had the td already he kinda just let the ball go

 

it clearly wasn't him losing control of the ball at all, he just thought the play was over

 

oh well whatever, we should have won the game anyway with a FG instead earlier in the game so this makes up for Lovie's amazingly awful coaching

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

 

Give me a break. He caught the ball, hit the ground, and flipped it up. Saying anything else in blatant homerism.

I've seen that call many times in college and the NFL. It's not a new rule. This just happened to be an extreme instance of it.

 

Honestly, there's no way I'd interpret that he had control all the way through the ground.

Posted
Honestly, there's no way I'd interpret that he had control all the way through the ground.

 

That is complete lunacy.

Posted
If you have to analyze that much to give a reason why a play isn't a catch it's a catch. That's a bad rule.

It's a pretty straight-forward rule. If you don't have possession through the entire completion when you go to the ground, it's not a catch. It's not a new rule and wasn't a terribly difficult call for the refs.

 

The only question, as they said, was whether there was a second move. There clearly wasn't, so the call was upheld.

 

Give me a break. He caught the ball, hit the ground, and flipped it up. Saying anything else in blatant homerism.

I've seen that call many times in college and the NFL. It's not a new rule. This just happened to be an extreme instance of it.

 

Honestly, there's no way I'd interpret that he had control all the way through the ground.

 

Receivers do that all the time. He caught the ball, got both feet/knees down, and flipped the ball up. The play ended when he got the 2nd knee down.

Posted
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter at all. Both teams are terrible and will be lucky to win more than 5 games this season. That was a horrible football team.
Posted
Man. I don't know the exact definition of the rule, but that was brutal. Also, I don't know how anyone could say that he clearly didn't have possession through the ground. That was a bad call, be it because of a bad rule or not.
Posted

It really comes down to whether the receiver is standing or on the ground. If you're standing/running, you can obviously get rid of the ball right after crossing the goalline. But if it's a catch that involves going to the ground, there becomes a "process" where you have to maintain possession until standing back up. Right? The rule is pretty bogus but it's somewhat clear.

 

That said, I'll gladly take the win. No gaurantee that we don't kick a last second FG anyway. It can be done with 25 seconds left and 3 timeouts.

Posted
Honestly, there's no way I'd interpret that he had control all the way through the ground.

 

That is complete lunacy.

 

I actually agree with him. When I saw the play happen in realtime my friend flipped out and I sat there waiting for a challenge.

Posted

Yea, I'm sure the officials will say they don't have a choice there. And that's probably true.

 

But I've got to offer up that I think it should be a catch, or else I'm not being honest.

Posted
Not only are we going to lose this but we are going to lose it in the most infuriating way possible that makes our coach look as awful as humanly possible.

 

This season has potential to be entertaining.

Close...but wrong team.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...