NFL 2015 Part 2: There's a Flag Down

[mikal]

Originally Posted by Hewson

A few thoughts...

As phanan alluded, don't know how replay didn't overturn that Cotchery catch.
Cam Newton's mechanics are horrendous
Denver's D was great again
Aqib Talib should have been ejected
Dorito's won the night as far as commercials, the ultrasound one was the best and the dogs one was pretty good
Newton stepping away from that fumble is going to be a visual that will haunt him for the rest of his career, my guess is he never gets back to the Superb Owl and that is our lasting memory of him in the big game
Don't take betting advice from deep
The Panthers were as unprepared mentally as I have seen a team of their supposed caliber be. The 2 guys letting the punt returner take off was inexcusable, #21 puts his arms around him then lets him go...if you think he signaled fair catch and you have just wrapped him up, you're getting flagged anyway, might as well hold on at that point...baffling.
The Carolina D should not allow the O on the plane ride back to Charlotte.

To your first question, you could clearly see the nose of the football touch the ground, and afterwards, the ball moved around in Crotch's hand, which automatically makes it an incomplete pass. Even though it barely hit the ground and didn't move a whole heck of a lot, it was enough to confirm the ruling.

[PhilsFan]

Shady McCoy is in trouble with the law, I can't believe it.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Even the NFL doesn't know what a catch is or isn't anymore. They've made the rules too complicated.

That was the worst QBd Super Bowl I can remember since Giants/Ravens.

[brooklynmike]

Yup, the tip of the ball hit the ground and shoved it up his arm. No catch.

[PhilsFan]

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by brooklynmike

Yup, the tip of the ball hit the ground and shoved it up his arm. No catch.

See, what I would argue is that when that ball makes contact with the ground, he's got his full hand under it, and full control. If ground can't cause the fumble, why can ground cause the incomplete? I'm not talking about the ball bouncing and then being caught, I'm talking about this type of play where the player is going to the ground with the ball.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

See, what I would argue is that when that ball makes contact with the ground, he's got his full hand under it, and full control. If ground can't cause the fumble, why can ground cause the incomplete? I'm not talking about the ball bouncing and then being caught, I'm talking about this type of play where the player is going to the ground with the ball.

Thats how I saw it, his hand was completely under the ball.

The Bert Emanuel rule.

[LemonMelon]

Looks like control to me. If that's not a catch, fix the rulebook.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

If that's not a catch, fix the rulebook.

That's the most important part to me. This ground interference bullshit pisses me off so much.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Everytime a wacky catch pops up the NFL adds something to the rule book, to the point where it's become so complicated that even the guys who are responsible for making the calls don't know what the hell a catch is anymore.

They need to strip shit back and simplify. That should have been a catch.

[brooklynmike]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Looks like control to me. If that's not a catch, fix the rulebook.

I don't know if my screenshot will upload here, but a fraction of a second later his hand is on the side of the ball, the ball hits the ground and jerks up his arm. I believe that's what cemented the no- catch. Without the jerking and the balls firmly in hand it'd be a catch.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by brooklynmike

Attachment 10569

I don't know if my screenshot will upload here, but a fraction of a second later his hand is on the side of the ball, the ball hits the ground and jerks up his arm. I believe that's what cemented the no- catch. Without the jerking and the balls firmly in hand it'd be a catch.

Yep and that's what most of America seemed to miss though I didn't even catch it until after the commercial break. I actually thought this was a pretty clear cut incomplete pass after seeing that 3rd replay. The tip of the ball clearly hit the ground and then the ball moved. That has been ruled incomplete pass for the last 15 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by brooklynmike

Attachment 10569

I don't know if my screenshot will upload here, but a fraction of a second later his hand is on the side of the ball, the ball hits the ground and jerks up his arm. I believe that's what cemented the no- catch. Without the jerking and the balls firmly in hand it'd be a catch.

Elbow is down with a defender tagging the receiver down in my screenshot, the play should be over right there. No reason to treat a receiver differently than any other runner after making a football move.

[brooklynmike]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Elbow is down in my screenshot, the play should be over right there. No reason to treat a receiver differently than any other runner after making countless football moves.

Then it's still a no-catch according to the roolz.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by brooklynmike

Then it's still a no-catch according to the roolz.

Hand under the ball, clear possession, elbow down, receiver tagged down by defender...The fuck do receivers have to do these days??

[mikal]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Hand under the ball, clear possession, elbow down, receiver tagged down by defender...The fuck do receivers have to do these days??

The ball can't touch the ground and then move. Pretty simple and been a rule for many years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikal]

http://youtu.be/t66MVYR1GkU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by mikal

http://youtu.be/t66MVYR1GkU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, that angle at 0:25 looks more conclusively like the ball is dislodged by the ground itself, not by the pressure of the hand hitting the ground, which is a very different matter.

If the back of the hand covering the ball hits the ground and the ball pops up without touching the ground, it should not be called an incomplete pass because it is conceivable that the receiver can regain possession before the ball can touch the ground. If the hand only has grip on the back of the ball and the rest of it hits the ground, forcing it to pop up, that I can see being incomplete.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

OK, that angle at 0:25 looks more conclusively like the ball is dislodged by the ground itself, not by the pressure of the hand hitting the ground, which is a very different matter.



If the back of the hand covering the ball hits the ground and the ball pops up without touching the ground, it should not be called an incomplete pass because it is conceivable that the receiver can regain possession before the ball can touch the ground. If the hand only has grip on the back of the ball and the rest of it hits the ground, forcing it to pop up, that I can see being incomplete.

Yeah and I agree that part of the issue was how CBS broadcasted it. If it weren't for me playing super close attention to the 3rd replay after commercial I would have voted for complete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oregoropa]

New safer helmet to debut in 2016