' said:
FreeBaGeL said:
It should have been a catch though. Fitzgerald slid like 4 yards on the ground before the ball moved even a little bit, and even then if the ball moves and your hands move with it that's not bobbling the ball, that's just moving your hands.
I strongly disagree with the bolded part (take a look at the replay again). He had the ball in his hands the whole time, but it was squirming around as he was trying to bring it into his body ("moving in your hands" is in effect the same as a bobble since both are examples of not having control of the ball). No way that was a catch under the current rules and the way they have been interpreting plays like this all season long.
Agree with this guy. The ball was moving in Fitz's hands the whole time.
Its clear to me that some people are just not able to make this judgement. Either . . .
1) Because they are not able to see the lack of control because their eyes are deceived by the fact that the replay is so much slower than in real time that it looks like possession is established when in reality it is moving. In simplest terms: If you take a snapshot of a ball in flight, it doesn't appear to be moving.
2) They don't understand this concept of what possession means.
He never once gained control of the ball either before or after he hit the ground.
No, the real problem is that some people have this absurd notion that to have possession of something you must be holding it perfectly still, with your hands perfectly still. Go outside and play around with the ball for a while, think about when you know you have possession of it while you're doing stuff, and think about how the ball is moving.If I am standing there with the ball in my two hands, and bring it into my chest I never lost possession of it.
If I am standing there with the ball in my hands, and quickly move both my hands up with the ball, I never lost possession of it.
If I am standing there with the ball in my right hand, and transfer it to my left hand, I never lost possession of it.
If I hold the ball in my right hand, and slide it across the palm of my left hand while holding onto it with my right, I never lost possession of it.
Even if I hold the middle of the ball between my two palms and spin it end over end in my hand, I never lost possession of it.
Seriously, play around with a ball in your hands, but never put it down or throw it completely out of your hands. Move it back and forth between hands, do all kinds of stuff with it, while possessing it the whole time. Now imagine that someone was filming you doing that and cut out a 1 second portion in which from seconds 0.4 and 0.6 you were running the ball across your left palm or something. By your logic, you would say that in that 1 second clip you never had possession of the ball, though clearly you absolutely had it the whole time.
Let's put it this way, if possession of something truly meant what you and some others seem to think, then your average running back should have around 100 fumbles a year. Because everytime they get hit and that ball moves a little bit in their arm, by your definition that is a loss of possession, which by NFL rule is a fumble.
Hate to see injuries.
I had given up on arguing with him. Thanks for being another unbiased opinion to properly explain it the way it is.
This year, the officials have taken the rule stating a WR must maintain possession throughout the entire act of catching it entirely too far. There comes a point when once the knee/shoulder/elbow hits that the play has to be over and whatever happens after that is irrelivent. In my mind, that point should be IMMEDIATELY - but that's not the case.
