KC TD catch????
- Thread starter Ramhusker
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
OC--LeftCoast
Agent Provocateur
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,695
- Name
- Greg
1) I have no dog in this race, nor do I have $$$ on it
2) should have been a catch
2) should have been a catch
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29,832
He had the ball under full control with both hands on it before it touched the ground.
Picked4td
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,568
i agree, but prior to it hitting the ground, the ball was going down toward the ground with no movement of the ball being brought up to his body and away from the ground. It wasnt until it hit the ground that the ball started to come up toward his body and away from the ground, and I dont think thats a coincidence. The ground stopped the ball's downward momentum/trajectory and naturally shifted it back toward Hunt and away from the ground. therefore the ground helped him catch the ball.
in theory, if there was a bottomless pit right where the ball hit the ground, i think the ball would have continued its trajectory down and never came back toward hunt.
and to nit pick, the ball was straight up and down when he 1st grabbed it, but as it hit the ground it shifted to a slanted angle which you could argue is movement and a drop anyway
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29,832
Respectfully, that doesn't matter. It's not about momentum. It's about control. Did Hunt have possession of the ball before it hit the ground? Yes. Did Hunt have possession of the ball through it hitting the ground? Yes. Did Hunt have possession of the ball after it hit the ground? Yes.
The rule is designed to not allow a player to use the ground to help him gain possession of the ball. Hunt already had it. You don't need to have the ball tucked into your body in order to have possession.
Hunt doesn't have Inspector Gadget's arms.
The ball would have stopped its trajectory downwards when his arms were fully extended.No, it shifted to the slanted angle after he pulled the ball away from the ground and was bringing it up above his body to show that he had caught it. Movement also isn't a dispositive issue. The question is possession. The ball can move a little as long as the receiver never loses possession. Hunt never lost possession.
It reminds me of that Robert Woods TD that they jipped us out of against the Cowboys. Dean Blandino on TV said, "Remember, slight movement doesn't constitute a loss of control." Woods pinned the ball up against his helmet, got two feet down, and the ball basically didn't move. Refs still screwed us. I was irate. Basically, all of us were.
This Hunt play wasn't different. The truth is that had they ruled the Woods and Hunt plays TDs on the field, they would have stood as called. I wish the refs would err on the side of calling it a TD because a review can always overturn it, and it will prevent screw ups like on those two calls.
1maGoh
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,957
Respectfully, that doesn't matter. It's not about momentum. It's about control. Did Hunt have possession of the ball before it hit the ground? Yes. Did Hunt have possession of the ball through it hitting the ground? Yes. Did Hunt have possession of the ball after it hit the ground? Yes.
The rule is designed to not allow a player to use the ground to help him gain possession of the ball. Hunt already had it. You don't need to have the ball tucked into your body in order to have possession.
Hunt doesn't have Inspector Gadget's arms.
No, it shifted to the slanted angle after he pulled the ball away from the ground and was bringing it up above his body to show that he had caught it. Movement also isn't a dispositive issue. The question is possession. The ball can move a little as long as the receiver never loses possession. Hunt never lost possession.
It reminds me of that Robert Woods TD that they jipped us out of against the Cowboys. Dean Blandino on TV said, "Remember, slight movement doesn't constitute a loss of control." Woods pinned the ball up against his helmet, got two feet down, and the ball basically didn't move. Refs still screwed us. I was irate. Basically, all of us were.
This Hunt play wasn't different. The truth is that had they ruled the Woods and Hunt plays TDs on the field, they would have stood as called. I wish the refs would err on the side of calling it a TD because a review can always overturn it, and it will prevent screw ups like on those two calls.
At the very end of the catch, after I feel the play was done, he did let go with his left hand (I think that's correct) then grab it again. It's possible, although unfathomably stupid, to say that he didn't have full possession and therefore had to double grab there at the end.
But at this point we have to either a) point to irrelevant factors, or b) make random crap up, in order to justify the call. It should have been a catch.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 21,987
Hunt didn't have full control of the ball until it hit the ground. He never was able to prevent it from hitting the ground, which is lack of control. I don't even think that's a catch using the old rules.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29,832
What are you talking about? He had two hands on the ball, and it wasn't moving. That's full control. The fact that it touched the ground is irrelevant to control. Anytime you're falling towards the ground and catching the ball like that, it's going to hit the ground. The question isn't if the ball it hit the ground. It's if the receiver maintained control through contact with the ground. It's clear as day that Hunt did.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 21,987
Disagree. He had his hands past the middle of the ball. It wasn't full control until it hit the ground and he rolled over and moved his hands for a better grip. The ground aided the catch, or the control of the catch, which isn't a catch. He didn't look completely in control until he was on his back.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,039
.
What are people seeing? He has control of the ball before it touches the ground. How can that be disputed?
Now i don't know how the bobble after that affects the outcome but seeing he was inside the endzone it shouldn't have any affect at all.
.
What are people seeing? He has control of the ball before it touches the ground. How can that be disputed?
Now i don't know how the bobble after that affects the outcome but seeing he was inside the endzone it shouldn't have any affect at all.
.