Rivera presser . . .

[rodeo]

that's a tremendous line

[Captain Obvious]

the ball can now "touch" the ground and it can still be a catch. That was changed this off season as the NFL still tires to define what is a catch. The biggest problem people have was it was not clear enough to overturn the call on the field( normally) and if it was why take over 4 minutes to make the call. 

[pantherclaw]

11 minutes ago, luke nukem said:

Guys the ball hit the ground lol, it was close as hell, but the nose of the ball touched the ground for a split second, glad they stepped up after.

But it didn't affect ball security at all, and the ground did not help him trap the ball.

[luke nukem]

9 minutes ago, Captain Obvious said:

the ball can now "touch" the ground and it can still be a catch. That was changed this off season as the NFL still tires to define what is a catch. The biggest problem people have was it was not clear enough to overturn the call on the field( normally) and if it was why take over 4 minutes to make the call. 

ok thats fair, but its still just more bullshit verbage the NFL uses to try and confuse its fans. Would love to go back and see the replays, I just remember fox showing a really good angle of it and freezing it right at the point where the tip of the ball hit the ground. I agree that they should have just stuck with the call on the field, but this isn't a cotchery situation where it was so blatantly obviously a catch.

[TheSpecialJuan]

whoa 

[uncfan888]

19 minutes ago, luke nukem said:

Guys the ball hit the ground lol, it was close as hell, but the nose of the ball touched the ground for a split second, glad they stepped up after.

Did you see that? Can you link a pic of the ball hitting the ground? I didn't see an angle that showed that and it's supposed to be irrefutable 

[CarolinaXblue]

This play happened at the end of the Bucs game and was ruled a catch on the field and was not overturned. Tell me Reid’s pick had more evidence than this in the replay, you couldn’t even see the nose of the ball on his pick, though you know it did hit the ground because you know how big a football is. But the ball didn’t move at all when it hit the ground. Pathetic call.

 

 

[Pejorative Miscreant]

1 hour ago, luke nukem said:

Guys the ball hit the ground lol, it was close as hell, but the nose of the ball touched the ground for a split second, glad they stepped up after.

When I saw the replay I thought it could have hit the ground and I thought that it maybe hit the ground. IMO it probably did hit the ground if I’m honest with myself. 

But I still didn’t see any evidence good enough to overturn the call IMO. It’s not what I think it’s what can be seen.  Call should have stood. 

[nogoodbum]

In today's definition of a catch, had the catch been by an offensive player, it would have stood as a catch, IMO. Look at other calls across the league in other games since day one this season. But this was a defensive player, who is somehow held to a different standard.

[Paa Langfart]

2 hours ago, Seltzer said:

It's absurd the number of calls that have went against us based on not being able to overturn the call on the field (Cotchery, etc.) and then we finally have a call go our way (and there was absolutely no overwhelming visual evidence to overturn that call) and the refs change the call.

It's frankly BS, and I hope Tepper is letting the league have it behind the scenes.

Good for Ron for calling them out, too

I have a feeling Mr. Te p per will not put up with BS J R routinely did.

[Burnout189]

3 hours ago, luke nukem said:

ok thats fair, but its still just more bullshit verbage the NFL uses to try and confuse its fans. Would love to go back and see the replays, I just remember fox showing a really good angle of it and freezing it right at the point where the tip of the ball hit the ground. I agree that they should have just stuck with the call on the field, but this isn't a cotchery situation where it was so blatantly obviously a catch.

The ball may have actually touched the ground, but the problem was that the ruling on the field was an INT. In order to overturn that, per the NFL rules, there has to be irrefutable evidence showing that the ball did hit. None of the replays shown could prove that it did. The fact that they had to debate on it for so long was even more of a case that the evidence was not clear enough and the call could not be over-turned. 

[TDAllDay]

Ron saying no-huddle will not be a part a "big part of what they do" just tells me ron needs to go.

[CRA]

2 hours ago, CarolinaXblue said:

This play happened at the end of the Bucs game and was ruled a catch on the field and was not overturned. Tell me Reid’s pick had more evidence than this in the replay, you couldn’t even see the nose of the ball on his pick, though you know it did hit the ground because you know how big a football is. But the ball didn’t move at all when it hit the ground. Pathetic call.

 

 

if you have establish control of the ball it can touch the ground pending the ground doesn't then cause you to lose control. 

if the ball hits the ground before you have control, it can't touch the ground.  

bad rules, but that pic above is a bad comparison.  When control started for both the 2 plays in questions are at different points.  One before and one after the alleged contact with the ground. 

[Snake]

4 hours ago, Dex said:

I'm not typically the conspiracy guy but.... I really don't think the NFL wanted Reid to be the hero of that game.

They didn't want the Panthers to win at all. I was supposed to be the resurgence of the eagles.