Video Proof... Glenn dropped pass. NO SAFETY

[percyhoward]

Glenn's reaction tells you all you need to know about whether he thought it was a catch.

 

[t-rock]

to me, this was just like the Polamalu non-interception last year against Indy. He catches the ball, stumbles a few steps and as he's going down the ball touches the ground. The refs ruled incompletion because the ball can't touch the ground. He had clear control of the ball, whereas you could make the case that T. Glenn didn't.
Now, I think that's a dumb rule and maybe they changed it during the offseason, I don't know.

 

[smarta5150]

Can we all lose this whole "football move" term being thrown around?

We are not arguing after the point of the ball hitting the ground.

Anything after the ball touching the turf is irrelevant from our perspective.

So saying that is being redundant and avoiding what we are saying.

The only conclusive tape we need it when TG reaches out to catch the ball, slightly bobbles it, gets both hands on it but then hits the turf with no cradle under the ball.

A catch that close to the turf needs to be cradled by the receiver.

In that 1 frame it is obvious his left hand is not under the ball and his right hand is on the side of the ball.


This is starting to be an endless loop anyway... maybe we should contact TG.

 

[theogt]

Can we all lose this whole "football move" term being thrown around?

We are not arguing after the point of the ball hitting the ground.

Anything after the ball touching the turf is irrelevant from our perspective.

So saying that is being redundant and avoiding what we are saying.

The only conclusive tape we need it when TG reaches out to catch the ball, slightly bobbles it, gets both hands on it but then hits the turf with no cradle under the ball.

A catch that close to the turf needs to be cradled by the receiver.

In that 1 frame it is obvious his left hand is not under the ball and his right hand is on the side of the ball.


This is starting to be an endless loop anyway... maybe we should contact TG.

This is exactly where you're getting confused.

The "football move" is Glenn turning upfield. After he has the ball in his hands with both palms on the ball he turns up field.

Doing so is what causes him to fall forward, because he doesn't have firm footing. If he didn't make the "football move" the ball wouldn't have ever touched the ground.

The football move happened before the ball touched the ground. When it happened he has possession. That is when the catch is completed.

 

[smarta5150]

But we are saying there was a slight bobble.

A football move only comes after gaining control.

He didnt catch the ball cleanly.

 

[DipChit]

Eh.. now lets break out the one that should've upheld the ruling on the field in regards to Wittens (non) 1st down.

 

[theogt]

But we are saying there was a slight bobble.

A football move only comes after gaining control.

He didnt catch the ball cleanly.

Does the he have both hands on it when his feet hit the ground?

If yes, does he have both hands on the ball when his body is turning to go up the field?

If yes, it is a catch.

 

[smarta5150]

Eh.. now lets break out the one that should've upheld the ruling on the field in regards to Wittens (non) 1st down.

The refs didnt have the proper camera angle IMO.

If they had the sideline camera I can see them making an accurate ruling but the views they had were awful.

The Eagles/Giants game where they overturned Tiki's spot was the sideline angle we needed.

 

[eduncan22]

But we are saying there was a slight bobble.

A football move only comes after gaining control.

He didnt catch the ball cleanly.

The ball bounces.

He does not control the ball thoughout the catch.

 

[percyhoward]

So, has Terry even said anything about it?

 

[smarta5150]

The ball bounces.

He does not control the ball thoughout the catch.

I am on your side

 

[smarta5150]

The ball bounces.

He does not control the ball thoughout the catch.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77350

Check that out... I was arguing it forever

 

[SultanOfSix]

Definitive proof that Crayton did not make the catch! After all, the ball's on the ground! *Plonk*

That's exactly what everyone who said it wasn't a catch meant. He didn't catch it only because it only hit he ground. Let's also not forget the fact that the ball crosses the plane prior to hitting the ground, therefore it's a touchdown.

Just plonk your posts right before you post them.

The irony of this thread is the Commanders fans defending the call as correct. Because we know they never complain about the refs.

 

[smarta5150]

For the record...

I never said it was incomplete JUST because it hit the ground.

Did someone say that or was that just sarcasm?

 

[smarta5150]

Definitive proof that Crayton did not make the catch! After all, the ball's on the ground! *Plonk*

http://img136.*************/img136/2653/captsea11001070247aptoplq0.jpg

Technically the ball never touched the ground DURING this play.

The play was over and should have been blown dead once the ball broke the plane.

 

[bbgun]

That's exactly what everyone who said it wasn't a catch meant. He didn't catch it only because it only hit he ground.

Let's also not forget the fact that the ball crosses the plane prior to hitting the ground, therefore it's a touchdown.

Just plonk your posts right before you post them.

The irony of this thread is the Commanders fans defending the call as correct.

It's called satire, dummy. My post has already been rightfully praised and designated the "post of the day" by Hos (jealous?), so go crawl back under your rock or better yet, swallow a bottle of pills.

 

[smarta5150]

It's called satire, dummy. My post has already been rightfully praised and designated the "post of the day" by Hos (jealous?), so go crawl back under your rock or better yet, swallow a bottle of pills.

That answers my question.

Too bad it was a post too late

Sorry BB, never know when you are kidding and serious becuase you get "silly" sometimes.

 

[CaptainQuint]

Not picking on you, but that's wrong. If the ball was on the turf, it could not have become a completion after that. The only way it's a catch is if he had control before the ball hit the ground.

That was my impression, before and after the review. He caught the ball, controlled it, and then it touched the ground, but remained within his control.
Until the Seahawk forced it out of his control.

 

[amuze]

Not to be an ***, but why is this even being discussed now? The game is long over and nothing anyone here or at Valley Ranch says will change the outcome of that. Time to move on, come up with wish lists for the draft, or just enjoy some basketball in the off season.

Let's be honest with ourselves, would we really have beaten Chicago if we got past Seattle? Maybe, maybe not. But I think more than likely we would lose that game.

 

[Spectre]

If he takes it 99 yards to the house, you guys sing a completely different tune.