Shockey No Catch Picture Proof

[TVMan]

Newman allowed Shockey to catch the ball?

He must suck too.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I would have to see the entire play to make an accurate judgement.

The first thing that comes to mind is the ground cannot cause a fumble. Did he have possession of the ball with both feet in bounds before going to the ground? I have no idea what transpired before this photo was taken.

 

[speedkilz88]

I suppose the stadium people waited as long as possible to put it up on the Jumbo screen to avoid a red flag reveiw..............playing on the road

I think that's the play right before the half which would mean it should have been a booth review.

 

[DBoys]

I would have to see the entire play to make an accurate judgement.

The first thing that comes to mind is the ground cannot cause a fumble. Did he have possession of the ball with both feet in bounds before going to the ground? I have no idea what transpired before this photo was taken.

You have to keep control of the ball when you hit the ground. Randy Moss catch was a perfect example. He caught the ball with both feet in but lost control when he hit the ground. Ref's ruled it was a no catch.

 

[03EBZ06]

Oh well, it's over and we won. But I am surprised that ref didn't even bother to review the play.

 

[YosemiteSam]

You have to keep control of the ball when you hit the ground. Randy Moss catch was a perfect example. He caught the ball with both feet in but lost control when he hit the ground. Ref's ruled it was a no catch.

If you had possession of the ball with both feet in bounds, it doesn't matter if you drop the ball once you're out of bounds.

Ball firmly in hand and both feet in bounds constitutes a reception. Any fumble afterwards is, nothing but a fumble. If you fumble out of bounds, the last team that had possession, retains possession.

Like I said, there isn't enough information in the picture to determine if it was an actually reception or not.

 

[gimmesix]

If you had possession of the ball with both feet in bounds, it doesn't matter if you drop the ball once you're out of bounds.

Ball firmly in hand and both feet in bounds constitutes a reception. Any fumble afterwards is, nothing but a fumble. If you fumble out of bounds, the last team that had possession, retains possession.

Like I said, there isn't enough information in the picture to determine if it was an actually reception or not.

The rule is different for out-of-bounds plays. You have to maintain possession when falling out of bounds until after you hit the ground.

 

[DBoys]

The rule is different for out-of-bounds plays. You have to maintain possession when falling out of bounds until after you hit the ground.

:signmast:

 

[YosemiteSam]

The rule is different for out-of-bounds plays. You have to maintain possession when falling out of bounds until after you hit the ground.

:signmast:

So, riddle me this. Can you tell by the single frame if the player caught the ball falling out of bounds, or did he run 50 yards down field after catching the ball before going out of bounds and fumbling the ball.

Exactly my point. You don't know without seeing more the the actual play. Just because he drops the ball falling out of bounds doesn't mean he didn't already secure possession of the ball before hand.

If you would just take a second to comprehend what I wrote you shouldn't even have responded. I know exactly what the rules are. My point is you do not know what exactly occured in the play and a single frame of reference isn't enough to make the proper judgement.

 

[DBoys]

So, riddle me this. Can you tell by the single frame if the player caught the ball falling out of bounds, or did he run 50 yards down field after catching the ball before going out of bounds and fumbling the ball.

Exactly my point. You don't know without seeing more the the actual play. Just because he drops the ball falling out of bounds doesn't mean he didn't already secure possession of the ball before hand.

If you would just take a second to comprehend what I wrote you shouldn't even have responded. I know exactly what the rules are. My point is you do not know what exactly occured in the play and a single frame of reference isn't enough to make the proper judgement.

It was a sideline catch, Tnew's hand hit the ball and Shockey was bobbling it while going to the ground.

 

[TwoDeep3]

While this is interesting, the drive that this play occurred ended up with a Ken Hamlin interception. I'll take the final results rather than overturn this play.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

send it to Mickey atleast so wade can see it

To do what with it?

 

[DALLAS D]

I replayed that portion of the game in slow motion, and i do believe Shockey was slowly lossing control of the ball. For those that dont have the game, look at these two images and pay attention to the ball. Shockeys hands are still in the same position yet the ball is slowly heading away from them.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

So, riddle me this. Can you tell by the single frame if the player caught the ball falling out of bounds, or did he run 50 yards down field after catching the ball before going out of bounds and fumbling the ball.

Exactly my point. You don't know without seeing more the the actual play. Just because he drops the ball falling out of bounds doesn't mean he didn't already secure possession of the ball before hand.

If you would just take a second to comprehend what I wrote you shouldn't even have responded. I know exactly what the rules are. My point is you do not know what exactly occured in the play and a single frame of reference isn't enough to make the proper judgement.

Some of us remember the play from the game. It's the one right on the sideline where Tory said it was maybe the best throw he'd ever seen ECri make.

Otherwise, you're right -- you wouldn't know just from the pic.