Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Super Bowl LVII

Kentucky Panther

By Kentucky Panther,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Difference is Tyree didn’t let it spin and shift around. He actually had possession. 

It didn’t move until he went out of bound. Both feet were inbounds first. The professional rules analyst thought they should have kept the call of the field. That just shows how close it was. It doesn’t matter at this point though. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Schultz Grand Master

Sgt Schultz

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

He caught it with his hand and helmet just like Tyree did for the Giants when they beat the Pats.

The difference was Tyree was in the middle of the field (so there was no question about how many feet were in bounds), Tyree's ball never touched the ground, and Tyree's ball never moved when he had it pinned to his helmet.

What I saw was he didn't have control when the first foot was down, meaning the "second foot" became the first foot.  After that, nothing else mattered because the next foot was halfway into the white on the sidelines.  But, as others had said, since he was going down, he had to control the ball through the ground, which he did not appear to do.  So, 1 foot inbounds and by the league's (granted, odd) definition, he didn't maintain control through the ground.

I actually thought it was an easy replay for them.  Now calling it real-time on the field is a completely different story, but the replay from the very first angle looked conclusive on when he had control and the resulting second foot being well out of bounds.  The ball moving when it contacted the ground was just a bonus for them.

They tried to make it a catch, but couldn't.

Edited by Sgt Schultz
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...