Gaffney's Touchdown (1 Viewer)

[teamroc]

The ball shifted as he put his 2nd hand on the ball.

You gotta be kidding me. It's the same deal with Parkers fumbles. After every play, lets try to figure out why it didn't happen. It's a catch. He easily caught the ball. He got both feet down.

The ball twisted 1/2 " while he put another hand on the ball. So now WRs have to catch it, freeze it, don't move a muscle, hope the wind doesn't blow so it's a catch? He was securing the ball. Which is how you catch the ball. Sure it slightly might have twisted in his firm grasp, as he SECURED it. He wasn't juggling it. Maybe people have never seen a juggler. That was not juggling.

I would replace that ball with my first born baby and be quite happy he had the baby secured. At no point of the catch would I scream because I thought the baby was going to pop out. If only we could get a camera view on the cellular level, to see if the electrons around one of the molecules was moving in a different direction while he ran out of bounds. Then we'd really know.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Read it again. It apparently says "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball, or is in the process of "putting the ball away" which by rule does not require a firm grip by either hand, in bounds."

 

[The Great Snook]

I would replace that ball with my first born baby and be quite happy he had the baby secured. At no point of the catch would I scream because I thought the baby was going to pop out. If only we could get a camera view on the cellular level, to see if the electrons around one of the molecules was moving in a different direction while he ran out of bounds. Then we'd really know.

I nominate this for post of the year. That had me roaring.

 

[switz]

He did not have control of the ball until after his foot touched out of bounds... just watch the play... the ball is not secured until after that point. However, heaven forbid the refs make a tough call that might seem to negatively impact the PAtriots

 

[switz]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Granted, had he originally been 5 yards in bounds when going for the reception, he would hve had it in bounds. But the fact is, he didn't have it "put away" until he was out of obounds.

 

[switz]

Actually the more suspect TD was the one Wilcox caught for the Ravens in the back of the end zone. I could swear, because he was all alone in the end zone, that he got extremely lazy and may have grazed the back line with his foot when he took his time bringing it down.

You're kidding right? He was about 1/3 of the way INSIDE the endzone....

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Granted, had he originally been 5 yards in bounds when going for the reception, he would hve had it in bounds. But the fact is, he didn't have it "put away" until he was out of obounds.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Read it again. It apparently says "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball, or is in the process of "putting the ball away" which by rule does not require a firm grip by either hand, in bounds."

It can't be firm grip AND something that does NOT require a firm grip.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Read it again. It apparently says "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball, or is in the process of "putting the ball away" which by rule does not require a firm grip by either hand, in bounds."

It can't be firm grip AND something that does NOT require a firm grip.

MB said "or," not "and." But he was kidding anyway.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Read it again. It apparently says "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball, or is in the process of "putting the ball away" which by rule does not require a firm grip by either hand, in bounds."

I did. Where does it say that? It never even uses the phrase "putting the ball away".

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

Does anyone have access to the exact terminology of what determines "control"?

Here's the rulebook.

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7: A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds.That is on page 6 of the document that Maurile linked above.

I can't say that a transferral form one hand to the other -- or what we saw last night would be considered "firm grip and control". At best -- when he finally did gain control with the RIGHT hand, he no longer had both feet in bounds.

Read it again. It apparently says "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball, or is in the process of "putting the ball away" which by rule does not require a firm grip by either hand, in bounds."

It can't be firm grip AND something that does NOT require a firm grip.

MB said "or," not "and." But he was kidding anyway.

 

[bryhamm]

Actually the more suspect TD was the one Wilcox caught for the Ravens in the back of the end zone. I could swear, because he was all alone in the end zone, that he got extremely lazy and may have grazed the back line with his foot when he took his time bringing it down.

You're kidding right? He was about 1/3 of the way INSIDE the endzone....

No, I thought the same thing (see above post). His 2nd foot landed in a toe-to-heel motion (kind of the opposite of a running heel-to-toe motion). The toe part clearly touches first and clearly touches in bounds. However, as he completes his step his heel hits the back of the endzone. However, it does not matter because as soon as his toe touches, it is a TD.

 

[Synthesizer]

I still can't believe the replay booth stole a win from the Lions a few years ago on the Harrinton-to-Pollard TD. What a bunch of crap.

 

[AngryPatriot]

Sad day in the NFL when that would be ruled an incompletion.

 

[daveR]

what would happen if we got all the whiny Pat haters from this year and put them in a room with all the whiny Pat homers from c. 2002?I'd hide in my bathtub.

The one in the back yard? Or did "Yins" finally get some "plummin"?Go Browns!

 

[jrat169]

if that wasnt a catch i dont know what is, all you guys need to stop patroit hatin... and know im not the biggest NE fan but lets face it, if the NFL says thats not a catch the game just got real goofy... now rex ryan's timeout... that was goofy.... Brady is a wolverine and a 3 time SB champ.... let it die boys dont be hatin cuz baltimore blew it.....

 

[Finless]

He did not have control of the ball until after his foot touched out of bounds... just watch the play... the ball is not secured until after that point. However, heaven forbid the refs make a tough call that might seem to negatively impact the PAtriots

An unbiased Switz Pats opinion is refreshing I must say.