No way would the Panthers ever get that favorable TD review

[Jimmy]

We're not old enough to get that call. 

 

[the butch]

As long as the ball is pinned between two parts of the body, whether that be hand-to-hand, hand-to-stomach, hand-to-leg, knee-to-knee, or foot-to-foot, if the ball isn't moving, it should be in "control."  Now, whether you can get two feet down and inbounds with a ball controlled foot-to-foot is another story.  But yeah, I agree, as spectacular as it was, watching the replay, he only had one foot down.

[TheRed]

If you're going by the "complete control" rule,  it doesn't look like a catch, as he did bobble it very briefly.

But the problem that comes into play with that is, what actually constitutes complete control in catching the ball has become ridiculously muddled. The rule book doesn't even know what the hell a catch is anymore, expecting the refs to is pretty much pointless.

[Pox 08]

Blah.  Who knows what a catch is these days.       I agree, if that was us,  it would have been ruled as incomplete as soon as the ref saw that ball moving around as our guy was out of bounds.            I've seen several teams have would-be touchdowns like that ruled as incomplete,   in the past. 

[Mojo]

It was fantastic "catch" to watch and Cincinnati deserved to lose that ball game.  

[GhostP.]

12 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

So obviously incorrect. Stop. 

Obviously it was correct .. The call stood and that's call the matters, not whatever you want to believe. 

[Jeremy Igo]

1 minute ago, GhostP. said:

Obviously it was correct .. The call stood and that's call the matters, not whatever you want to believe. 

The call stood

 

Like that means anything anymore. Lol

[MountainHeel66]

C'mon guys, you are trying too hard to read into the rules to make that a catch or talk about it being "muddled." At no point did he have any SEMBLANCE of control of that ball while he was in the endzone. He gained control as he pinned it to his leg and did a flip out of the corner. Was it amazing and acrobatic?? HELL YES!! Was it even in the same zipcode of 2 feet down and control!? No way. 1 foot down AT BEST (not even sure he wasn't already leaving the ground when he finally got it pinned) and that ball was all over the place before he held it to his leg. That does not get you a TD just because you did something really cool.

[JawnyBlaze]

yea, that was one of the most obvious no-catches of the calvin johnson rule era i've ever seen.  if that's a catch, then they might as well throw that calvin johnson rule out and as long as it doesn't hit the ground and they're touching it with two feet in bounds it's a catch.

[JawnyBlaze]

and like zod said, trapping is fine.  i've seen many examples of balls trapped against the players body somewhere called a catch, as long as the ball isn't moving.  bryant was sliding the ball all over his leg and it even came out a little as he was doing the flip and then secured the ball.

[Darth Biscuit]

 

 

 

As amazing as the catch is, I believe that Zod is correct.  The ball is still moving on his leg while that first step is being taken.

 

If the definition of a catch is control with two feet in bounds, then that is not a catch.

 

I 10,000% agree that if this was a Panthers WR that it would never have been ruled a catch.

[MountainHeel66]

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

and like zod said, trapping is fine.  i've seen many examples of balls trapped against the players body somewhere called a catch, as long as the ball isn't moving.  

David Tyree anyone!? Agreed that if he had trapped it, tapped both feet, and THEN flipped out of the endzone its not only good but one of the greatest catches of all time. But that is NOT what happened.

[Darth Biscuit]

After watching it more, I actually think that he doesn't actually gain control of it until he's upside down in the air AFTER his second foot touches in bounds.

[Darth Biscuit]

Also I used the word actually way too much in that post