Inspekdah
My man, Michael Jordan!
he still held the ball...its a catch
How bad is the expert ref in the booth who says 100% incomplete
he still held the ball...its a catch
exactly...my first thought was "no wonder these games get fucked up"How bad is the expert ref in the booth who says 100% incomplete
he had ball over the line with possession...he lost control but regained possession
Because they play again on prime time next Thursday vs the BILLS ...They need a hyped up matchup on Amazon after mostly dudsWhy is new England an absolute juggernaut tonight!?
If ball had not hit ground it wud be a catchGround jars the ball loose…not a catch
I hate that its a td as soon as it breaks the plane for a RB but what Henry did there isn't.
Because a running back has possession but a receiver doesn’t have possession until he‘s secured the catch but Henry didn‘t catch it (hence it wasn’t a fumble)I hate that its a td as soon as it breaks the plane for a RB but what Henry did there isn't.
I understand the rule, I'm just saying I don't like it.Because a running back has possession but a receiver doesn’t have possession until he‘s secured the catch but Henry didn‘t catch it (hence it wasn’t a fumble)
Then what caused him to lose control? The ground jarred the ball loose because he never had sufficient control to call it a catch, hence it wasn’t a fumbleBad interpretation. Henry didn't lose control when the ball touched the ground. He lost control after and then the ball didn't touch the ground.
But it would be too easy to get touchdowns, a wide receiver would just have to manipulate the ball over the goal line whatever happens afterwards be damned, it would be like alley oops. Receivers should have to catch the ballI understand the rule, I'm just saying I don't like it.
He didn’t actually have control hence the ball appeared to jar it looseIf ball had not hit ground it wud be a catch
He lost control because his body hit the ground, not because the ball hit the ground.Then what caused him to lose control? The ground jarred the ball loose because he never had sufficient control to call it a catch, hence it wasn’t a fumble
But the ball hits the ground then wobblesHe lost control because his body hit the ground, not because the ball hit the ground.
You are repeatedly so determined to see things as fixedWe’re watching a fix live
You are repeatedly so determined to see things as fixed
Yeah is that some 90‘s slang or what am I missing?Let me know the the refs miss something on the Pats
And when I say someone is selling I just mean they stink
Yeah is that some 90‘s slang or what am I missing?
HIs hand was under the ball. His hand hit the ground, he still had two hand control. His body hit the ground and he started to roll. That's when he loses control. But from the time he loses control to when he regains control the ball never hits the ground. I think by the rule's intent that's a catch. I don't think they want the ground to help a non-catch look like a catch, which is what we see overturned a dozen times a week. I don't think they applied the rules right here.But the ball hits the ground then wobbles
HIs hand was under the ball. His hand hit the ground, he still had two hand control. His body hit the ground and he started to roll. That's when he loses control. But from the time he loses control to when he regains control the ball never hits the ground. I think by the rule's intent that's a catch. I don't think they want the ground to help a non-catch look like a catch, which is what we see overturned a dozen times a week. I don't think they applied the rules right here.
They don't run ball anymore.Can the Vikes block up just one Cook running play? Just one?
16 carries though....but his longest run is 6 stinking yards. They do no blocking to the 2nd level.They don't run ball anymore.
That's a lot for him lately.16 carries though....but his longest run is 6 stinking yards. They do no blocking to the 2nd level.
He burned a second half TO and got stuck with 3rd and 14 anyway. Ball don't lieRefs asking Kev if he wants a TO