Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Catch that Wasn't a Catch
#6
(09-15-2017, 04:26 PM)TKUHL Wrote: They ruled that he had control when it touched the ground. I thought it couldn't hit, but apparently if the receiver has control before it touches and the ground does not appear to aid in the catch, then it's a catch.

Yes I understand the ruling, but there was no way he had control in the .5 seconds it was wiggling around in his arms.

Totally bogus call. You can't even 'establish' having the ball without making football moves or taking 3 steps and this guy 'has control' in about .5 seconds.

It was total bull.
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - TKUHL - 09-15-2017, 04:26 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - PhilHos - 09-15-2017, 04:28 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - GreenCornBengal - 09-15-2017, 04:32 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - TKUHL - 09-15-2017, 04:42 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - BoomerFan - 09-15-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Millhouse - 09-15-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - cinci4life - 09-15-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Sweetness - 09-15-2017, 05:14 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Tomkat - 09-15-2017, 05:17 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - PhilHos - 09-15-2017, 05:23 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Rattler - 09-15-2017, 05:26 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - firstand10 - 09-15-2017, 05:36 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - corpjet - 09-15-2017, 05:49 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - XenoMorph - 09-15-2017, 06:02 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - XenoMorph - 09-15-2017, 06:01 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Brimey - 09-15-2017, 08:31 PM
RE: Catch that Wasn't a Catch - Bfanlc - 09-16-2017, 04:20 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)