Vander Esch

Tell me. How do you look at that replay and say the WR didn't have possession? Nothing in that video showed a lack of possession. Or that he never controlled the ball. The guy caught it, brought it in as he took a step. However, I still think we lose the game regardless. We played our worst game of the season.

I have the video and just watched multiple times. It was close but I think where the officials went with this is that he didn't have the ball "long enough" or actually performed a football move in the order required. Here are the rules straight from the book:

... if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

The part that makes this a tricky call is that Stocker had started turning upfield and had the ball tucked just before or as he was taking his second step. The rule above in (c) clearly states (a) and (b) have to happen first. Also on the play, LVE immediately dislodges the ball right before Stocker takes a 3rd step. That 3rd step would have automatically made it a catch by the rules the same way it would have made Dez' non-catch a catch if you use today's rules.
 
I like the kid a lot. Him and Jaylon make for a nice duo patrolling out there on D.
When they’re not whiffing on consecutive tackles or giving the QB a little pat on his way into the end zone. The D quit last night. Plain and simple.
 
I have the video and just watched multiple times. It was close but I think where the officials went with this is that he didn't have the ball "long enough" or actually performed a football move in the order required. Here are the rules straight from the book:

Ok dude, I agree. But don't say he didn't have possession of the ball. I agree it was a bang bang play and you can consider it incomplete. Just don't say he didn't have possession. He clearly did. IMO it was a fumble based on his step before the fumble. To me that was enough time to establish possession. Because at no point was possession an issue.
 
When they’re not whiffing on consecutive tackles or giving the QB a little pat on his way into the end zone. The D quit last night. Plain and simple.

One play does not a player make.

Those two played hard last night, IDC what anyone has to say. They were all over the field and putting their hats on ball carriers.
 
What sticks the most is him and Smith looking like they gave up to finish the game.
 
Sadly vandy will be one of those Witten kinda players who career is ruined by this organization and we say he should have had a SB.
don't underestimate the lure of free agency and the almighty dollar.
 
Ok dude, I agree. But don't say he didn't have possession of the ball. I agree it was a bang bang play and you can consider it incomplete. Just don't say he didn't have possession. He clearly did. IMO it was a fumble based on his step before the fumble. To me that was enough time to establish possession. Because at no point was possession an issue.

Well the terms are what matter here. Stocker clearly had control of the ball. Possession is established by those rules I posted. One can have control but not possession. If a receiver jumps to snag a ball but a defender knocks it loose before 2 feet come down, there was never possession. There was control though. Part (a) of the rule only states control, which Stocker did have.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,004
Messages
14,505,813
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top