reggie wayne- catch or no catch

[CR91]

do you thnik reggie made the catch or did the turf help him catch it?

[crazycolt1]

It was no catch. The ball was on the ground and Reggie did not have total control of the ball.

[Valpo2004]

The correct call was made after replay.  No catch.  At first he appeared to get it but you could clearly see it slip out after he came down.  

[sfergson727]

definitely no catch, he may have had his hand under it, but the majority of the ball was sandwiched between the ground and his body.

 

Had the ball not moved after he caught it, it would have been a catch.  He just didn't have total control of it.

[ruksak]

No catch. He did have a hand under it, but the ball was clearly sliding along on the ground. Classic example of "pinning" the ball. 

[CR91]

No catch. He did have a hand under it, but the ball was clearly sliding along on the ground. Classic example of "pinning" the ball. 

 

you see I saw that too, but you can see reggie had the ball in his hand already before it hit the turf. I think the reason it was overturned was because the ball moved when he was going down. I think if reggie could have just tucked it inside, he would have got the catch

[Dark Superman]

Definitely not even being close to a catch

[SilentHill]

I didn't see the ball touching the ground, but maybe that's me, I saw it sliding out, but it looked like he was holding it with his finger tips, because when he rolled over the ball stayed stationary.

[ProblChld32]

do you thnik reggie made the catch or did the turf help him catch it?

 

No Catch, you could clearly see as he hit the turf the ball bobbled and hit the ground before he cradled it. 

[crazycolt1]

you see I saw that too, but you can see reggie had the ball in his hand already before it hit the turf. I think the reason it was overturned was because the ball moved when he was going down. I think if reggie could have just tucked it inside, he would have got the catch

"If" is the smallest word in the dictionary with the most meaning. It was overturned because it wasn't a catch.

[IndyD4U]

No Catch

[BrentMc11]

There is already a topic on this from this AM...as info...with poll

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/31833-did-anyone-agree-with-mike-carey-on-his-ruling-is-this-a-fumble-or-an-incomplete-pass/

[House]

There is already a topic on this from this AM...as info...with poll

http://forums.colts.com/topic/31833-did-anyone-agree-with-mike-carey-on-his-ruling-is-this-a-fumble-or-an-incomplete-pass/

Totally different thread, discussing a totally different play lol.

[BrentMc11]

Totally different thread, discussing a totally different play lol.

Late game...got up early...been on here wayyy too long.  I am laughing my a** off.

[GoColts8818]

I didn't see the ball touching the ground, but maybe that's me, I saw it sliding out, but it looked like he was holding it with his finger tips, because when he rolled over the ball stayed stationary.

thats what I saw I didn't see a clear shot where you could tell for a fact the ball hit the ground. His left hand looked like it was still under the ball when it was sliding.

I thought the call on the field should have been kept and would have thought that rather the first call was catch or incomplete.

[CantBeStopped]

Someone post a replay cuz i didnt see it ever hit the turf

[schwamm]

thats what I saw I didn't see a clear shot where you could tell for a fact the ball hit the ground. His left hand looked like it was still under the ball when it was sliding.

I thought the call on the field should have been kept and would have thought that rather the first call was catch or incomplete.

I'm in this camp.

[House]

No catch IMO.

Looks good from the front, but the endzone camera showed way too much movement, and not enough evidence to show he had his arm or hand under the ball the whole time.

[GoColts8818]

No catch IMO.

Looks good from the front, but the endzone camera showed way too much movement, and not enough evidence to show he had his arm or hand under the ball the whole time.

thats the thing though it had already been called a catch on the field thus the burden of proof is now on proving it wasn't a catch. If there wasn't enough proof to prove his arm or hand was under the ball whole time that means there wasn't enoguh proof to prove it wasn't either thus the call on the field of catch should have stood.

[House]

thats the thing though it had already been called a catch on the field thus the burden of proof is now on proving it wasn't a catch. If there wasn't enough proof to prove his arm or hand was under the ball whole time that means there wasn't enoguh proof to prove it wasn't either thus the call on the field of catch should have stood.

From the endzone shot, there was more evidence that the ball touched the ground, then Reggie having his arm under it. And the ball moved significantly. That's all they needed to see.

[indy1888]

Was called a catch on the field which means there has to be clear cut evidence that the ball hit the ground.  I never did see that clear cut evidence.  Yes,the ball moved, but it was very difficult to me at least to see if that ball ever hit the ground. It looked like his hand or arm was under the ball.  I did not think there was enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

[CroatianColtsFan21]

Incomplete.. however, it was impossible to see it live.. good challenge by texans, but they had no choice but to challenge it, being a close call and a potential 3rd down conversion at the end of a game..

[dw49]

Lot of movement but damned if I could ever see evidence of the ball hitting the ground. 

[Farmer colt]

No catch. It's at his hands up at his chest when he first touches it then it slides under him to his waist while touching the ground. While I think he did have control of it, the fact that it moved from one spot to another while touching the ground even though his hands were around it will get the incomplete call every time. If it had not shifted while still touching the ground then I think the catch is upheld. Still, to even make the catch on that throw a possibility was amazing.

[wig]

Probably not a catch but nothing on tape was indisputable.

[thedude]

do you thnik reggie made the catch or did the turf help him catch it?

He trapped it. No catch.

[OffensivelyPC]

Eh, it was close enough it could have gone either way. I didn't like the call, but I didn't think it was wrong. Sometiems plays are close enough that you might as well flip a coin. This was one of those plays.

[Ja'Crispy]

No catch

[deedub75]

It was called a catch on the field so I don't think there was enough there to overturn it.  Rally couldn't tell if the ball was on the ground or on his fingers. 

[bestQBever]

That wasn't a catch. But I think the play had a chance of "standing"

[B~Town]

I didn't see any evidence the ball hit the ground in the replays from the angles they showed just the ball trapped between his arm and body . But from the position he caught it then where the ball ended I thought they made the right call . Still would like to see a slow motion replay from a angle you could see the ball .

[dw49]

I thought play should have stood but Wayne's body language kind of said otherwise. Plus he must have told Luck to rush the next play off. I think the replay showed the ball coming out and even though you couldn't see it on the ground , the officials figured it had to do so.

[Superman]

The ball moved and he didn't have full control of it, so I guess they figured it must have hit the ground. I didn't see any evidence that the ball hit the ground, so I'm not sure what the basis is for overturning the call, but that's fine. It was probably the right call, and if they had ruled it incomplete on the field, I'd have no complaint.

[NewColtsFan]

I was fine with the call once I saw the replays.

 

Reggie didn't control the ball and it squirted though and touched the ground as he rolled over..... 

 

Looked like a correct call of a no catch to me.....

[ponyboy]

It clearly squirted through his hands before being pinned against his body, gaining control, and rolling his body -- but that doesn't mean it hit the ground.  I couldn't tell if it touched the ground or if his hand was under it the whole time.  Most frames of the slow motion replay clearly showed it *not* touching the ground with just a few frames where I couldn't tell if it did or not.  My feeling is that it probably did touch the ground before he started to roll but there wasn't conclusive evidence and the call on the field would stand.

 

If it would have been called incomplete on the field I would have thought it should stand too.  I felt the officiating expert (Carey?) was a little too quick and confident in claiming it hit the ground just because the back angle showed it wasn't immediately controlled.

[Superman]

I was fine with the call once I saw the replays.

 

Reggie didn't control the ball and it squirted though and touched the ground as he rolled over..... 

 

Looked like a correct call of a no catch to me.....

 

I didn't see it touch the ground. I think it probably did, but I didn't see a single frame of the ball touching the ground. 

[NewColtsFan]

I didn't see it touch the ground. I think it probably did, but I didn't see a single frame of the ball touching the ground. 

 

I think there's a ground level shot from behind the play.   At some point you see the ball squirt through and it's coming out between his ribs and his right elbow.    I think at that point is where to me it looks like the ball touches the ground. 

 

I think that's the replay where the announcers said roughly.....   "Ah ha,  maybe the ball did touch the ground...?"

 

That was my view of it, at least......

 

Put another way,  Reggie was laying on the ground with his stomach.  The ball was initially in his hands.  Once the ball left his hands and started to move as he rolled over, his body was still on top of the ball,  at that point, what was below the ball?   What was keeping it off the ground?    At some point,  his hands weren't doing that anymore....    I think it had to be the ground.

[dw49]

I think there's a ground level shot from behind the play.   At some point you see the ball squirt through and it's coming out between his ribs and his right elbow.    I think at that point is where to me it looks like the ball touches the ground. 

 

I think that's the replay where the announcers said roughly.....   "Ah ha,  maybe the ball did touch the ground...?"

 

That was my view of it, at least......

 

Put another way,  Reggie was laying on the ground with his stomach.  The ball was initially in his hands.  Once the ball left his hands and started to move as he rolled over, his body was still on top of the ball,  at that point, what was below the ball?   What was keeping it off the ground?    At some point,  his hands weren't doing that anymore....    I think it had to be the ground.

 

 

 

That about what I inferred a few posts up. The refs had to figure something like "what was keeping the ball from hitting the ground ?" It came loose and he didn't have it pinned to his body. Either hit the ground or some kind of suspended animation.