Wildo7

People will get caught up in whether or not that catch was a catch. I think most objective people would see that he wasn't juggling and controlled the ball all the way through while moving it to his left side so as not to have a defender knock it out.

What people have overlooked is that if it had been overturned we would have had 1st and goal at the one yard line because of the back to back unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. I would have also liked our chances in that situation.

Also the calls that "went our way ate the end of the game" were all completely indisputable and warranted penalties on a Ravens team that has absolutely nothing to complain about after basically holding and playing without PI enforcement against them for 3 quarters.

nowayback

i was sort of hoping it would be overturned...so we could run out the rest of the clock. from the 2 i think..i was at 8 and 2 half pen makes 2. although..you never know if you will put it in from the 2

SoCalPatsfan90

I believe it was a questionable call... however, the two personals would have made it first and goal on the .5 yd line no? So 7 was basically a gimmie anyways...

Hardboiled

I didn't think it was a catch and thought it was going to be reversed. But I wasn't worried due to the penalties that were going to be tacked on.

What a strange game.

nashvillepatsfan

it looked to me like he didnt have complete control. kinda bobbled in the right hand. however, i agree, with the penalties, we wouldve had 1st and goal on the 1, and wouldve scored.

Patriot_in_NY

It was a booth review, which is all but mandatory on a catch like that. The ref took a 10 second glance cuz he had to. It wasn't even close to a non-catch, despite what ESPN was so desperatly pushing.

It was a good pass and catch all the way.

__________________
Patroit_in_NY is now Patriot_in_ABQ

patsox23

Even if it had been overruled, that would've been okay for us. 1st and goal on the one (or two) - with a chance to burn yet MORE time off the clock. Of course, the Ravens D could've stopped us, they were certainly capable of doing that and had done a good job inside the 5 for the game. Still, I think we could've gotten the ball in from there with 4 tries.

NEGoldenAge

I think it was a close call. I think the fact that he had a part of one hand or the other sticking to the some part of the ball for the entire duration. If, at any time, both hands had the surface of the ball moving under neath them, it would have gone the other way. I thought it was a catch, and that the old "indesputal" part almost sealed. I do concede that if the call went the other way, with the grayness of the rule, it wouldn't have been a bad call.

Johnny Mac

I didn't think it was a catch, but there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it, plain and simple.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Patsfanin Philly

The play started at the 8 yd line IIRC, so the two personal fouls would have moved it half the distance to the 4 and then the 2. 1st and goal at the two with 44 seconds left....