Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

I finally agreed with Chris Collinsworth for once


RockThatBlue

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

odrop.0.gif

 

I think it's a TD. It was ruled on the field as a TD. He was in the endzone. He had both feet touching. He didn't drop it -- it was jarred from his hands by a defender AFTER both feet touched the endzone. He had also turned his hips, so if we want to go back to last season and call that a "football move," that was basically him turning up-field and looking to run away from the defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end zone, if you are not going to the ground, two feet with the ball should be a catch. What happens after the two feet are down should not matter whatsoever. If the defender is pushing you to the ground, it should not count as the pass catcher going to the ground, which I don't think it is now anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

odrop.0.gif

 

I think it's a TD. It was ruled on the field as a TD. He was in the endzone. He had both feet touching. He didn't drop it -- it was jarred from his hands by a defender AFTER both feet touched the endzone.

 

I agree. I saw two feet on the ground prior to the ball being dislodged. I am not sure how others can say it was dislodged prior to the second foot hitting the ground. Oh well. Bad calls happen. As long as the Patriots get one in the playoffs that knocks them out, I am OK with this.  :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I saw two feet on the ground prior to the ball being dislodged. I am not sure how others can say it was dislodged prior to the second foot hitting the ground. Oh well. Bad calls happen. As long as the Patriots get one in the playoffs that knocks them out, I am OK with this.  :thmup:

I agree that this play should be considered a catch, however the reason they ruled it incomplete was because they said the ball was dislodged "simultaneously" with the second foot hitting the ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to complete the process.

I don't think it's that difficult. There are some gray areas but I think it's not as difficult as some make it out to be.

If your the recievers hold on to the ball until your laying on the ground and the whistle blows or your run out of bounds. Don't let tbe defenders slap it from your hands.

If the defenders are able to slap it from your hands or you drop it going to the ground after catching it it is not a catch....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I saw it happen I didn't think it was a catch. I didn't think it was a catch when the game was over.

 

I just didn't think it was a catch and so it don't matter now to me how everyone is spinning it.

 

Giants lost, they had many chances to get this win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to complete the process.

I don't think it's that difficult. There are some gray areas but I think it's not as difficult as some make it out to be.

If your the recievers hold on to the ball until your laying on the ground and the whistle blows or your run out of bounds. Don't let tbe defenders slap it from your hands.

If the defenders are able to slap it from your hands or you drop it going to the ground after catching it it is not a catch....

Problem is though there have been several times when the process was completed and it was ruled incomplete or a fumble. And then there's times when the process wasn't completed and it was called a catch. For a good example look at the .gif above of the ODB should a been TD. The refs are super inconsistent about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the rules but that should never be called a catch. It was a great play by Butler, who had a great game, outside of the long 87 yard TD (that he was knocked off by McCOurty) he held OBJ to 20 yards all game. Very impressive, but we need a second corner BAD!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this play should be considered a catch, however the reason they ruled it incomplete was because they said the ball was dislodged "simultaneously" with the second foot hitting the ground.

Simultaneous with the 3rd foot maybe... Both feet appeared clearly down to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a catch. The people that say it's a catch are just mad it was against the pats. Doesn't matter if he got two feet down, he didn't complete the process of the catch. Butler made a great play and punched the ball out. Odb did not have full control of the ball therefore it's incomplete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

odrop.0.gif

 

I think it's a TD. It was ruled on the field as a TD. He was in the endzone. He had both feet touching. He didn't drop it -- it was jarred from his hands by a defender AFTER both feet touched the endzone. He had also turned his hips, so if we want to go back to last season and call that a "football move," that was basically him turning up-field and looking to run away from the defender.

This play makes me wonder about the NFL anymore.  I mean used to be one feet down and a toe drag is a catch - this was clearly a TD. Unreal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the officials know what a lot of penalties or non penalties are anymore....some have any come out and said it, Why? Some * decided to get all wordy on some of the rules (several actually) which leaves all kinds of grey areas and complicates things that are not really complicated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apparently missed it. I went to Google before I posted this and found no new statement, but maybe I googled with the wrong words. Whatever the statement was a lot of people must have missed it.

Yeah there was talking about catches where two feet are down and the receiver makes what they call a football move. That was after the Dez Bryant catch-non catch after last season was over and at the start of this season. It seems the rule is now a judgment call from game to game just like it's always been. I know the refs have a hard time watching and seeing everything but I was under the impression that is what the replay booth in New York was suppose to do to get the calls correct. It also seems there is a problem with refs using judgment calls on what a possession is. Does the receiver have possession if he is holding the ball with two hands or does it have to tucked away against the body? Some receivers catch with their hands while some use their bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling in the offseason this rule will be changed. He clearly caught it then got his 2nd foot down even before the ball was knocked out. If by rule that isn't a catch it needs to be changed IMO. Dez's should've been a catch too last season. This may be the worse rule they have in Football. The problem I had with the play it was ruled a TD on the field even after the REFS all got together and they still reversed it. Had it been ruled incomplete to begin with then I wouldn't of had as much of a problem with it not counting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this play should be considered a catch, however the reason they ruled it incomplete was because they said the ball was dislodged "simultaneously" with the second foot hitting the ground. 

 

Oh wow, really?  They had the benefit of slow-mo replay and even I could clearly see it was after.  Jeez louise these guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the officials know what a lot of penalties or non penalties are anymore....some have any come out and said it, Why? Some * decided to get all wordy on some of the rules (several actually) which leaves all kinds of grey areas and complicates things that are not really complicated

What ref has come out and said that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all part of the Patriots mystique, Who actually thought the Pats would lose with 1:34 left in the game? It is what they do. Brady's last throw to pick up a measly three yards was the poison in the soup. Not only did the Pats pull it off they insult the opposition by leaving one second on the clock. Masters of Destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The second foot was down before the ball was dislodged.

 

That is how I saw it (though I did not see it when the game was happening, only on replays). Unless folks don't want to count the first foot as part of the possession. However, the key truly is OBJ thinking he had to stretch his arms and if he had tucked it in, he would have been golden. He will learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I saw it happen I didn't think it was a catch. I didn't think it was a catch when the game was over.

 

I just didn't think it was a catch and so it don't matter now to me how everyone is spinning it.

 

Giants lost, they had many chances to get this win.

 

My issue is not whether it is a catch or not, it is the inconsistency of even the top replay officials in NY.  It was earlier this year, cant remember the teams, but the guy caught it, was knocked out as he caught it and the other team recovered the bobble in the endzone, that was ruled a TD because he had possession and two feet in.  Same as this instance.  As soon as the second foot hits, everything after is immaterial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...