Rivera presser . . .

[USDepartmentOfSavagery]

“We will look into more hurry up but it won’t drive us as an offense”

SMH. 

[CRA]

3 minutes ago, bull123 said:

Yes the ball touched the ground...but under new rules that shouldn’t have mattered, correct??

ball can't touch the ground before you actually make the catch

[CRA]

20 minutes ago, USDepartmentOfSavagery said:

“We will look into more hurry up but it won’t drive us as an offense”

SMH. 

Rivera seems to have a bad memory. 

He clearly talked about the no huddle and claimed he couldn't do it because it could lead to a lot of quick 3 and outs. 

LITERALLY we went through this in prior Ron seasons.  No huddle doesn't have to be up tempo.   He literally has implemented a slow tempo no huddle before.  Because Cam and comapny did it well.   Cam likes to get to the line early, spread the teams out and go from there. 

[Ricky Spanish]

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

Rivera seems to have a bad memory. 

He clearly talked about the no huddle and claimed he couldn't do it because it could lead to a lot of quick 3 and outs. 

LITERALLY we went through this in prior Ron seasons.  No huddle doesn't have to be up tempo.   He literally has implemented a slow tempo no huddle before.  Because Cam and comapny did it well.   Cam likes to get to the line early, spread the teams out and go from there. 

One of the most underrated aspects of Cam's game is his ability to be a general at the LOS when given enough time. Dude just has a FEEL for it even if he can't spit the plays out eloquently. 

[Chaos]

5 hours ago, uncfan888 said:

Blakeman needs to be fired.. Out of a cannon

...into the sun

[Jon Snow]

1 minute ago, Chaos said:

...into the sun

...twice for good measure.

[stankowalski]

5 hours ago, luke nukem said:

Guys the ball hit the ground lol, it was close as hell, but the nose of the ball touched the ground for a split second, glad they stepped up after.

If they had called it incomplete I would have no problem with them not overturning it.  But as it was ruled an interception on the field, there was NOT indisputable evidence to overturn.  I couldn't really tell whether or not the ball hit the ground.

[CarolinaXblue]

17 hours ago, CRA said:

if you have establish control of the ball it can touch the ground pending the ground doesn't then cause you to lose control. 

if the ball hits the ground before you have control, it can't touch the ground.  

bad rules, but that pic above is a bad comparison.  When control started for both the 2 plays in questions are at different points.  One before and one after the alleged contact with the ground. 

Both players had established control from the call on the field though is my point. At what point in Reid’s pick does the ball move? You see him scoop it and keep it off the ground and yes it’s turning over, but it never hits the ground during that process so it’s still catchable. You can’t even see the other side of the ball that would be “moving” in Reid’s pick so how can they say he didn’t have control?

[NAS]

23 hours ago, mjligon said:

No way that INT should have been overturned.

It look them like 4 minutes to actually make a decision...therefore, it isn't conclusive and by rule the call on the field should have stood.

THIS.

If it's that hard to overturn then you don't have conclusive evidence.  That was home cooking refereeing right there.  

[CRA]

1 hour ago, CarolinaXblue said:

Both players had established control from the call on the field though is my point. At what point in Reid’s pick does the ball move? You see him scoop it and keep it off the ground and yes it’s turning over, but it never hits the ground during that process so it’s still catchable. You can’t even see the other side of the ball that would be “moving” in Reid’s pick so how can they say he didn’t have control?

I haven’t heard anyone claim that.  Reid didn’t secure the catch until after he rolled over.   The only argument for the INT would be the ball didn’t actually touch the ground and then he secured it.  He definitely didn’t have control of the ball leading up to the window where it did/didn’t touch the ground.  

I don’t think it should of been overturned because I don’t think it meet the criteria to overturn it.  Most likely it didn’t touch the ground.  But that isn’t the criteria to overturn it. 

[CarolinaXblue]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

I haven’t heard anyone claim that.  Reid didn’t secure the catch until after he rolled over.   The only argument for the INT would be the ball didn’t actually touch the ground and then he secured it.  He definitely didn’t have control of the ball leading up to the window where it did/didn’t touch the ground.  

I don’t think it should of been overturned because I don’t think it meet the criteria to overturn it.  Most likely it didn’t touch the ground.  But that isn’t the criteria to overturn it. 

I feel you. I worded that wrong, I guess my argument should have been there wasn’t enough indisputable evidence to turn it over based on what we saw, and in regards to the photo above my comparison was that while Brate did catch the ball, you can physically at least see evidence where that play could have gone either way because he is literally squeezing the ball between his forearm and his side to keep it secured.