bitterness wrote:
just a wondering wrote:I didn't see the play you're describing, but what you're describing is wrong. A receiver could be fully layed out on the turf a defender sitting on his backside and as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground before he gains possession, it's a catch. Pretty much describes the catch the Seattle player made at the end of last year's game.
The ball moved when he went to the ground. It was inconclusive if his hand was under the ball or if the point of the ball hit the ground. The rule is if there isn't CONCLUSIVE evidence, the original call stands.
The simplest way to look at that catch was did the ball ever touch the ground.
There was no view that showed the ball touching the ground at any point.
http://mashable.com/2016/02/07/nfl-catch-rule-super-bowl-50/#Ct0MzXeF8aqbYou're saying there was one point where it was very close and it was not conclusive that it did not touch the ground.
It was a catch.
And that's how they should have ruled it at full speed because there is no where any official saw any of that ball touch the ground during live action.
And it would not have been overturned in replay if it were called a catch.
What would have been 1st and 10 at the 38 became 2nd and 10 at the 15.
And then the sack/fumble/touchdown two plays later that was probably the biggest play of the game.
Broncos still earned the win. The two TD margin of victory helps.
It just would have been nicer without the distraction of this bad call.