Blandino on the no catch call

[ElkinPanthersFan]

I don't honestly know why cotchery took his second hand off the ball when going to the ground. He didn't need to brace himself as he was not going full speed when this happened. It is the same for Tolbert's fumble; he sees contact coming, but does not brace for it. Mental mistakes everywhere. Oher gave up an easy sack when Jstew was getting evaluation and Whittaker was in. Whittaker did not know who to block and Oher thought he had inside RB help and he slid out to cover Ware.

Mentally we were not prepared and blew off our own foot with the gun over and over.

[KillerKat]

40 minutes ago, Darth Biscuit said:

This is the gif from that SBNation link...

 

 

The ball does move around the time it hits the ground, but Cotch maintained control of the ball the entire time.

 

The NFL rules state:

 

He absolutely 100% had control of it BEFORE he or it hit the ground and the ground didn't "help" him at all.

My question is, and I think that they should explain this everytime, was the ruling based on the fact that the ball moved or was it based on the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field?  Blandino said in his tweet it was because the ball "slid up his body", but then he says "not enough evidence to overturn"... so which is it???

 

That gif is exactly what I've been talking about. I've always thought that if the ball is moving after it hits the ground, even if its in your body, that it was incomplete. You can see after the ball hits the ground, it moves and Cotch starts to lose his grip on it. I think if he had it firmly into his body and didn't lose any grip on it, it might've been ruled complete. 

[KillerKat]

Bottom line, Cotch sucked all night and should've caught the ball cleaner.

[Darth Biscuit]

7 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

That gif is exactly what I've been talking about. I've always thought that if the ball is moving after it hits the ground, even if its in your body, that it was incomplete. You can see after the ball hits the ground, it moves and Cotch starts to lose his grip on it. I think if he had it firmly into his body and didn't lose any grip on it, it might've been ruled complete. 

I will admit that watching the gif now, it moved more than I thought it did last night... my issue with the NFL again though is the total inconsistency with which they enforce the catch rules.  If that's not a catch, then that Bryant catch vs the Bengals was DEFINITELY not a catch, that ball was moving the entire time he had it and he never gained control until he was flying out of bounds.  That and the fact that Blandino can't decide if it was the ball moving or the fact that replay was inconclusive... pick one man.

[Castavar]

It was no doubt a bullsh*t call, but it all could have been avoided if Crotchery just made a clean catch. Not to mention his later drop on the 4. Dude crumbled big time for a "veteran" player.

[stankowalski]

6 hours ago, Wolfpredator said:

I understand the argument here but was it enough to win us the game?  I am under the assumption that is was not, even if overturned to a catch.  We had some big plays later on in the game that did not change the momentum our way at all...doubt this one would have made much of a difference.  

Here's the thing with that argument.  When you have two teams that are pretty fuging close in terms of overall talent it magnifies all the mistakes and bad calls because you just can't make up that ground.  Plus there's a big difference in how games are called by OC's and DC's depending on the score and where the ball is on the field.  

[Wolfpredator]

Just now, stankowalski said:

Here's the thing with that argument.  When you have two teams that are pretty fuging close in terms of overall talent it magnifies all the mistakes and bad calls because you just can't make up that ground.  Plus there's a big difference in how games are called by OC's and DC's depending on the score and where the ball is on the field.  

I mean we can sit here and speculate that about any play at any point on the field.  Yes, it probably does change what plays we call but my thing is....we played like crap, even after big catches or big defensive plays.  I do not think this one catch would have won us the game.  All I am saying.  

[stankowalski]

3 minutes ago, Wolfpredator said:

I mean we can sit here and speculate that about any play at any point on the field.  Yes, it probably does change what plays we call but my thing is....we played like crap, even after big catches or big defensive plays.  I do not think this one catch would have won us the game.  All I am saying.  

Of course it wouldn't but it was a very important part of the game.  There's a lot of speculation about what would have happened if that call were made correctly but I think the odds are that Denver wouldn't have scored a strip sack TD from 25 yards further down the field.  We'll never know, but in tight games like this 7 points is a lot as evidenced by the fact that we trailed by 6 points for a large part of the game.

[carpanfan96]

I knew it wasn't a catch when I saw it. The nose clearly touches down as he's rolling and moves slightly after. 

 

Either way it's not a catch. 

 

1st. He doesn't maintain control through the catch process all the way to the ground since it's moving as he hits the ground. 

2nd. If you rewatch from the replay angle as he hits the ground the nose clearly hits between his hand and elbow and moves as he rolls over.  (If you have NFL replay, its 5:29 in the condensed tape.)

 

That's not a catch under two things they've been calling this season. Not consistently but still enough there to easily say no catch and it stay that way after review. As dumb as the catch rule is and it's retarded as hell.

 

 

 

[propagandamachine]

white people and their fuging rules lol...

[ickmule]

Just watched the game again........with better recievers we would have won that game. Even with all the pressure on Cam, this game was winnable with better recievers not dropping balls that were simply catchable. 

[mashburnfalcon]

yeah yeah I'm a falcons fan. but I strive at trying to be honest. so IMO there was not enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field that it was not a catch. 

to me (and apparently I'm on of the fewwww), It looked to me like it touched the ground. but again I'll state, not enough evidence to overturn the call. you could not tell if his hand was completely under the ball or not. 

[BANE]

13 hours ago, QueensKing said:

 A professional veteran wide receiver should've never let it get to that point.  The pass hit him in the hands, he should've caught it.  Never leave the game in the hands of the refs.

No s**t jackass, that's not the f'ing point. The refs need to do their jobs correctly, which they failed to do miserably on the play in question. There has got to be harsher penalties for refs missing calls like this.

[crushcard1976]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl/0ap3000000634137/Cotchery-bobble-costs-Panthers-big-gain ball never touched the ground even  Cary said that  a officiating person