Quote:
Originally Posted by smellypitts
you are missing the point. I dont care if that was actually a catch or not.
I've seen it happen 100 times the last two years that the call is usually the opposite of what everyone else obviously see's and they interpret the rule as they choose to get the outcome they want.
you are also showing you have been indoctrinated to believe a catch is what ever they told you. Slo mo shows he had two hands on the ball clutched to his chest. He did in fact catch the ball whether it hit the ground when he went down or not. He did in fact catch the ball.
if the ground cant cause a fumble,how can it cause an incomplete pass after the ball has already been caught?
even if I'm wrong about this one catch, I'm still right about my universal observation of how they go about ruling on these so called catches/non-catches
and remember- I'm siding with the Panther receiver here even though I knew they were losing. Thats called building -action drama-...and it was needed for one of those "commercial breaks" |
Leaving aside the question of what a catch is these days, the ground can cause a fumble despite the conventional wisdom that it can't.
1. No one touches the guy with the ball, he falls and loses control of the ball due to the way his body or the ball hits the ground. That's a fumble.
2. The runner is contacted and as he is tackled, but before his knees, elbows, forearms, wrists, back, ass or whatever hits the ground, he reaches out with the ball to try to keep his balance. The ball hits the ground before anything else and the impact between the ball and the ground causes him to lose his grip on it. He then falls to the turf as the tackle is completed. That's a fumble.
Don't say shit like "The ground can't cause a fumble" just because you've heard it a thousand times from the twits in the press box.