"The ball can be moving and touch the ground and it's still possible to be a catch...

[RealSNR]

Since ****ing when?

In my entire adult life of watching football, through multiple changes of definition on what constitutes a catch, the one thing that has stayed constant is if you have yet to establish possession, and then the ball touches the ground, it's not a catch.

When the **** was possession established on that 3rd down review?

And the fishiness of when Gene Steratorre gets on and the FIRST THING HE SAYS is, "Keep in mind that the ball can still be moving and even touch the ground, and it's still possible for this to be considered a catch..."

I'm not a "this game is rigged" asshole, but I need someone to educate me on this one. I still don't get it, because the CBS crew did a ****ing shitty ass job of explaining it, and to be quite honest, I've never once seen an instance where something like that is considered a catch.

[Indian Chief]

Originally Posted by Papi

When that much of the ball touches the ground... no.

Originally Posted by TambaBerry

I fully believe that the ball was coming out and if there wasn't the ground right there that the ball slips out. It was obvious to me that the ground helped him catch that and it's another bullshit call that is unbelievable that you can review that and still call it a catch

Take a look at that picture. If you remove the field and suspend him in mid-air, that ball falls out of his possession. He can't control that without help from the ground.

[Mecca]

Also when he rolls over his hands come completely off the ball.

[Demonpenz]

Stop the run don't be offsides defend simple slants and screen passes.

[007]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

Stop the run don't be offsides defend simple slants and screen passes.

It sounds so simple when you put it that way.

[007]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Uhhh....there's too much subjectivity as to what a catch is...the NFL's solution...add yet another layer of subjectivity!!!

Wish they would go back to catch rules in the 80s

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by DanT

After landing, the ball did move but that looked to me to have happened after it was no longer on the ground. Hogan was rotating his body when the ball moved out of secure control, but that was after it was touching ground. I have yet to see video where the ball was both touching the ground and out of Hogan's secure control, so the reviewed call was correct, in my opinion.

i should clarify that when I posted earlier, I interpreted the adjective 'moving' in the physics sense, but now I realize some of you may mean it to mean when the ball jiggles out of control, like it does when Hogan rotates. That kind of jiggling can't happen when the ball touches the ground! It has to be secure when touching the ground, but it can be moving in the physics sense of translational motion.

If at any point the ball hits the ground and the player doesnt maintain complete control of the ball it's not a catch.

Also going back to the Ford play, its irrelevant where the LT is lined up because it would just be offsetting and the interception would still be nullified. Dee Ford is simply a ****ing moron.

[jd1020]

Section A of the catch rule clearly states that a player must secure the ball before it hits the ground. Theres no ****ing way Hogan secured that ball before it hit the ground. It was simply bullshit.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Section A of the catch rule clearly states that a player must secure the ball before it hits the ground. Theres no ****ing way Hogan secured that ball before it hit the ground. It was simply bullshit.

Apply the other rule, the "Kraft's Team" rule (All officials must favor Kraft, BB, and Tom-Terrific, and wear Pat's glasses), and it makes sense...