|
Post by bfedje on Dec 19, 2017 22:31:51 GMT -5
One difference is the Patriots receiver wasn't necessarily going to the ground as part of making the catch. He landed squarely on his feet and then jumped. Even if you felt it was all one act (it would not be unreasonable here) it's not obvious the ball came loose when he got the ground. When the ball is circled it looks like he still had control. He may have lost control after that but it wasn't clear in this angle.
There are many different facts in these two plays. There are judgment elements in both that could have had a different result. Not all calls are 100% right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 19, 2017 22:45:50 GMT -5
One difference is the Patriots receiver wasn't necessarily going to the ground as part of making the catch. He landed squarely on his feet and then jumped. Even if you felt it was all one act (it would not be unreasonable here) it's not obvious the ball came loose when he got the ground. When the ball is circled it looks like he still had control. He may have lost control after that but it wasn't clear in this angle. There are many different facts in these two plays. There are judgment elements in both that could have had a different result. Not all calls are 100% right or wrong. I think you are wrong. The Pats WR never established as a runner...he has to "survive the ground". There is much more clear evidence that the ball hit the ground in that instance than in the game this past Sunday. I fully agree that the calls/replays are inconsistent. I also will stick to there is not indisputable evidence that James' let the ball hit the ground and that the reversal was very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bfedje on Dec 19, 2017 23:01:41 GMT -5
One difference is the Patriots receiver wasn't necessarily going to the ground as part of making the catch. He landed squarely on his feet and then jumped. Even if you felt it was all one act (it would not be unreasonable here) it's not obvious the ball came loose when he got the ground. When the ball is circled it looks like he still had control. He may have lost control after that but it wasn't clear in this angle. There are many different facts in these two plays. There are judgment elements in both that could have had a different result. Not all calls are 100% right or wrong. I think you are wrong. The Pats WR never established as a runner...he has to "survive the ground". There is much more clear evidence that the ball hit the ground in that instance than in the game this past Sunday. I fully agree that the calls/replays are inconsistent. I also will stick to there is not indisputable evidence that James' let the ball hit the ground and that the reversal was very wrong. The ball may have touched on the Patriots catch but he appears to still have control. IMO he's not going to the ground as part of the catch. It's fair to argue otherwise but you asked why they were ruled differently. I'm telling you why. The facts are different so the results may be different. I think it's also fair to argue there wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn but if the replay official clearly sees the ball touch he has no choice but to overturn. Otherwise he would have to say, "yeah, I saw the ball loose and hit the ground but it was close enough I let it stand."
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 20, 2017 2:54:45 GMT -5
I didn't realize this but apparently Greg Bradley left the game in Seattle on Sunday sometime during the second half. Dale Shaw moved from FJ to LJ and worked that entire sideline himself and Rusty Baynes moved from LJ to DJ. Helverson and Kemp were the lone deep men. Different alignment than what Triplette's crew did on Saturday, I personally prefer this one.
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 20, 2017 8:23:43 GMT -5
I think you are wrong. The Pats WR never established as a runner...he has to "survive the ground". There is much more clear evidence that the ball hit the ground in that instance than in the game this past Sunday. I fully agree that the calls/replays are inconsistent. I also will stick to there is not indisputable evidence that James' let the ball hit the ground and that the reversal was very wrong. The ball may have touched on the Patriots catch but he appears to still have control. IMO he's not going to the ground as part of the catch. It's fair to argue otherwise but you asked why they were ruled differently. I'm telling you why. The facts are different so the results may be different. I think it's also fair to argue there wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn but if the replay official clearly sees the ball touch he has no choice but to overturn. Otherwise he would have to say, "yeah, I saw the ball loose and hit the ground but it was close enough I let it stand." If you think the Patriot had control then you have to think James had control. There is no clear evidence to the contrary. Period. "if" doesn't cut it when overturning the call on the field.
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 20, 2017 12:16:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 20, 2017 14:08:29 GMT -5
If there is indisputable proof the ball hit the ground he's correct. There's isn't though. There's a "probably" in there...not no definite. That's just the truth. This isn't about "what is a catch" as much as it's about how much evidence does it take to reverse a call.
|
|