Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It's an irrelevant distinction. The catch rules suck and both of those plays have been called catches and non-catches at various points thoughout the last couple of seasons. "When does he possess the ball" is a bigger mystery than who was on the Grassy Knoll. This isn't on Collinsworth, it's on Al Reveron and, to a smaller extent, the NFL competition committee.
I watched the Dez play again. He was falling to the ground the entire time, no matter how many steps he took on the way down. The league has even said if it is clear a receiver is falling, the number of steps doesn't matter and he must maintain possession through the catch after hitting the ground. At no point would he have been considered a runner since he was falling to the ground.
I agree, that's how I saw it too, but that doesn't mean that's how the review assistant was necessarily going to see it. Ertz kind of dove, kind of got tackled. It's unclear whether or not they would consider that half-tackle part of the process of the catch or not.
I think they were both catches, however, JJ wasnt a "ball carrier", ertz obviously was. The distinction is absolutely relevant, since one implies a catch was already made
Dez literally traveld 10 yards from the start of his jump (jumped off the 10 yard line) to the time he hit the ground on the goaline.
The first TD review to me was more questionable. I thought the receiver bobbled the ball and stepped out of bounds by the time he secured possession. They saw it differently. IMO, that one could have gone either way and if called incomplete on the field and challenged, I suspect they would have left it at incomplete.
I interpret it as the receiver bearing up his full body weight. Dez never stopped his momentum to the ground, he elongated it by his steps, but he was never under balance, supporting his weight. Ertz had support of his weight and then redirected his path a bit around a tackler who then caused impetus towards the ground.
Again, the devil is in the details. Once it is determined that a receiver is in the process of going to the ground, the league has already clarified their position that they don't care if a player takes multiple steps and how far he traveled.
I think they were both catches too. But until it's more than just Riveron's opinion, it's irrelevant. Because the rules don't say what is possession and the replay official is the only vote that counts. The guy can literally decide either way and it's not like there's a rule wording one can go back and argue he violated.
I know. I was responding to Soulfly's quote that Ertz's would obviously be ruled a catch because of the distance he traveled in total. As you just said, that much is irrelevant if the replay assistant had determined that he was going to the ground as part of the catch. It didn't look like that's what happened, but it's within the bounds of interpretation for someone to have seen it that way. It's all subjective.
I actually thought they were going to rule that one incomplete. The Ertz one was more just a worry that they might screw it up. With the Clement play I'm still not sure it was really a catch. It looked like he only got one foot down after the "bobble", if in fact it was a bobble.
Honestly, I thought he gurgled each coach evenly, I remember him gurgling Kelce several times as well.
Re-watch it. I didn’t even notice it live but, rewatching it, it was pretty obvious. Especially in the 2nd half. Every single comment was “this is what the Patriots are so good at...” “This is why Matt Patricia is a genius...” “We’ve all seen this movie before, here comes Brady.”
Not similar plays at all. Jesse James was 2 yards from the end zone, with no one between him and the goal line. Ertz caught the ball on the 6 yard line. The only reason Ertz went to the ground is that he dove over a defender.
I like CC most of the time, but there are times when every announcer is annoying and needs to shut up.
I get what you’re saying, but it was as bad as watching Madden call a Favre game. Even when Favre wasn’t the story, somehow Madden made the story into Favre.
I think we as fans make a mistake when we assume players' loyalties to a team operate the same way as ours. We typically adopt a team as children and remain loyal to them for life. Players are much more transactional, because they know that today's rival may be tomorrow's employer.
Wiki posters a million times better than the game thread here.TripleThreat said:
I'm generally in favor of quantifying things, but this seems like a dumb effort. On top of all that, I don't think the numbers support his conclusion. According to his own count, overall the comments were more positive toward the Eagles and equally negative between both teams.
Hmm, I wonder why that could be? Bias toward Brady or the fact that HE'S TOM FREAKIN' BRADY AND THE OTHER GUY IS NICK FREAKIN' FOLES?!?!?! And maybe the reason Brady was mentioned more often was because we had seen him pull off these late-game heroics so many times, and the main question was whether he could pull it off again.
Someone in the comments of that Reddit thread made a really good point: The goal of an announcer is not to achieve perfect balance in describing each team (as if that were even possible in a situation where you're speaking extemporaneously for four hours straight). It's to tell you what's happening during the game accurately and enjoyably. And even if you don't think CC did that, it still doesn't mean he was biased in favor of the Pats. Maybe he was just overinvested in a certain storyline.
I get this, and it's true for a lot of players, but I think for the stars, especially ones that stay with a team start to finish, there is a loyalty that builds up.zftcg said:
Easy on the hyperbole.
Didn't know the rules, clearly was biased and went against official decisions after the fact. Was wrong on everything.
I've never noticed this, but then, I'm probably the wrong person to ask about announcers. I just find they tend to fade into the background. Thinking back now on previous Super Bowls, I can remember key moments (Butler INT, Harrison 100yd INT, Helmet Catch) but have no idea who the announcer was.
Well, the crazy thing about all these Eagles fans is that they're obsessing over Collinsworth despite having won their first-ever SB.Of course...but if they LOSE that Bowl you might find a lot to complain about.
