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!

     

What happened to maintaining control through the catch?


NAS
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, CBDellinger said:

It was ruled a catch on the field… he had control and was down in bounds and the ball only popped out during contact after he was out of bounds.  That’s a hard one to over turn.  If they had called it a non catch in the field I think that would have stood as well.  Wasn’t conclusive either way on review so it stands. 

I’ll be honest…I don’t even know the rule anymore. 
 

Like is it over when his butt touches the ground? When a part of him touched out of bounds? At what point is it irrelevant to maintain possession of the ball?

 

I’m fine with whatever, but when you see multiple plays just like this over the years, and it is called inconsistently…then I just don’t know what the hell to think anymore. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

I’ll be honest…I don’t even know the rule anymore. 
 

Like is it over when his butt touches the ground? When a part of him touched out of bounds? At what point is it irrelevant to maintain possession of the ball?

 

I’m fine with whatever, but when you see multiple plays just like this over the years, and it is called inconsistently…then I just don’t know what the hell to think anymore. 

They got away from the idea of maintaining through the entire process. If the player has control and is down by contact they want it to be a catch because he play is over at that point.  
 

and yes,  Cotchery caught it.  
 

 

  • Pie 4
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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I originally hated the Miller deal but with the cap projected to rise nearly $10M next season the Canes struck some pretty good deals between Miller and Ehlers. Most of the team is locked in for the next few years. Nikishin will need an extension probably in the $6M AAV range. And Blake will need one if we don’t move him. Personally I’d move Blake, picks, and any prospect not named Nikishin/Nadeau/Artamonov for McTavish as I don’t see any any of the big time players moving teams next year. Realistically the Hurricanes should just target Gustavsson next year to fix the goal tending issue. But I’m all for moving Blake, picks, and prospects for McTavish this year. Ehlers - Aho - Jarvis Svechnikov - McTavish - Stankoven Martinook - Staal - Carrier Hall - Kotkaniemi - Robinson Jost - Jankowski Slavin - Miller Nikishin - Chatfield Gostisbehere - Walker Reilly Andersen Kochetkov I’d do Blake, Felix-Unger-Sorum, and 27 2nd for McTavish.
    • Very true on the length but stuff like this is never where we shine. We aren’t a good team at drafting.
    • Homerism aside, the more I see from Dan, the more impressed I am.  His player evaluation instincts. Last year his 2 premier FA signings, Hunt and Lewis COMPLETELY changed the line and I have a feeling his success in choosing blue chip guys will continue.  Look at the panthers’s rep for FA signings in the past. By and large, it’s been guys 1 year past their prime who had an injury and suckered our GM in to a crippling contract. We never get nice things. When was the last time this team signed 2 young blue chip studs  in the same offseason to contracts worthy of their impact? Ever?  Im telling y’all, players respect and trust Morgan. 
×
×
  • Create New...