You can see the nose of the ball hit the ground and the ground causes the ball to move in the receiver's hands. It is therefore not catch.
This was clear on the replay shown during the game. The problem is that the announcers f'ed it up when it happened.
You can't see the nose of the ball hit the ground.
And it's his hand hitting the ground that causes the ball to move in his hands.
these guys ... wrote:
This is just people over 25 (or 30, or whatever age makes you terrible) with outdated expectations. This isn't 1995: the technology exists for people to broadcast actual feelings in realtime. Players were just as upset etc 20 years ago. They just didn't have twitter yet.
Not long from now, no one's going to care about that stuff.
Will Spaghetti wrote:Those were some awful questions. And honestly, why do people care so much? Obviously he's going to be upset
How old are you, 12?
This wasn't on the Twitter sonny, it was on TV. We had TV in 1995.
Pay more attention in school.
It would appear there is room for debate on the issue, which is why the call was not overturned.
Star wrote:
bitterness wrote: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.
It isn't that easy to determine a 'catch' in the NFL anymore. It isn't just a matter of the ball touching the ground. The receiver must maintain control over the ball. That takes interpretation and split second judgement call and it is a horrible rule.
I think it should be a catch if the ball doesn't touch the ground. You see too many receivers make some awesome efforts only not to get the catch because of some slight movement of the ball.
There was also the very bad, and wrong call, of a late hit/personal foul on Cam Newton. That one wasn't even that close when reviewing the replay but it was not challengable.
Star wrote:
You can't see the nose of the ball hit the ground.
And it's his hand hitting the ground that causes the ball to move in his hands.
Yeah, that was a questionable call. I thought they were invoking the Megatron rule from a few years back, no? Even so, I don't agree with that call.
dude, seriously? wrote:
It would appear there is room for debate on the issue, which is why the call was not overturned.
The only debate now is, the Broncos defense...great defense or greatest defense? It is clear that Manning is statistically the worst QB to ever start a super bowl. He was worse this year than Dilfer and Johnson when their defenses won their Super Bowls for them. Which raises the question of where the Broncos defense ranks all time. I think they are definitely top 5 and an arguement could be made that they are the #1 defense all time.
Should Cam have gone for that fumble and taken the hit? I think so and expect his teammates will look at him as a pu$$y for it.
probably was a catch wrote:
It isn't that easy to determine a 'catch' in the NFL anymore. It isn't just a matter of the ball touching the ground. The receiver must maintain control over the ball. That takes interpretation and split second judgement call and it is a horrible rule.
I think it should be a catch if the ball doesn't touch the ground. You see too many receivers make some awesome efforts only not to get the catch because of some slight movement of the ball.
It is absolutely a catch in every instance if the ball never hits the ground and the receiver is completely in bounds the entire time.
Old enough not to bother with "How old are you, 12?", "sonny" etc.Also, with careful reading you would have noted I wasn't referring to a specific press conference on the TV or anywhere else.Old, boring, unfunny, bad at reading, and immature. You're the whole package pal.
ole timer wrote:
How old are you, 12?
This wasn't on the Twitter sonny, it was on TV. We had TV in 1995.
Pay more attention in school.
Cam quit in the 4th quarter, gave up!
Star wrote:
You can't see the nose of the ball hit the ground.
And it's his hand hitting the ground that causes the ball to move in his hands.
You can clearly see the ball hit the ground if you aren't a Panther homer....I suppose the NFL conspired to help the Broncos get that strip sack too.
This is the only thing about the super bowl that mattered
McManus for MVP ... I actually was thinking about you (ie 'that guy with the MacManus MVP username on LRF'), late in the first half on that 3rd and Whatever, from around the 40, and Denver looked poised to lineup MacManus for a monster FGA. Then Peyton threw that interception and your prophecy was foiled.But I really wanted to see that kick.
McManus for MVP wrote:
(something)