Ball never touched the ground

[Rob0729]

Henry's left hand comes completely off the ball. With that you have to conclude he maintained possession of the ball throughout with his right hand. I don't see that. The ball is moving. If the ball touched the ground, which was McAulay's argument, then it wasn't a catch because Henry didn't maintain possession of the ball. This is also what the NFL is officially stating in defense of the call.

Did his left hand come completely off the ball? The ball spins in his hands, but that doesn't mean that he actually loses possession.

Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to overturn the call on the field no matter what was called. But since it was called a TD, it should have stood.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Henry's left hand comes completely off the ball. With that you have to conclude he maintained possession of the ball throughout with his right hand. I don't see that. The ball is moving. If the ball touched the ground, which was McAulay's argument, then it wasn't a catch because Henry didn't maintain possession of the ball. This is also what the NFL is officially stating in defense of the call.

Does that mean Kearse's lapdance catch in Super Bowl 49 should have been ruled not a catch?

 

[Dingleberry]

Sorry, I found the proof. Balls definitely touched the ground.

 

[bresna]

Henry's left hand comes completely off the ball. With that you have to conclude he maintained possession of the ball throughout with his right hand. I don't see that. The ball is moving. If the ball touched the ground, which was McAulay's argument, then it wasn't a catch because Henry didn't maintain possession of the ball. This is also what the NFL is officially stating in defense of the call.

The NFL's official explanation after the game said nothing about the ball touching the ground. All Walt Anderson did was quote the 2017 rule about surviving the ground.

 

[crawhammer]

Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to overturn the call on the field no matter what was called. But since it was called a TD, it should have stood.

And I don't necessarily disagree with that. They certainly didn't neglect the review... they were on that thing for several minutes.

Does that mean Kearse's lapdance catch in Super Bowl 49 should have been ruled not a catch?

Ball never touched the ground. No doubt on that play.

 

[crawhammer]

The NFL's official explanation after the game said nothing about the ball touching the ground. All Walt Anderson did was quote the 2017 rule about surviving the ground.

Here’s how Anderson explained the decision to pool reporter Mike Reiss of ESPN.com: “He was going to the ground, the ball ended up touching the ground and then he lost control of the ball in his hands.”

Why wasn’t Henry ruled to have possession before the ball hit the ground?

“Because as he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball upon contacting the ground,” Anderson said. “The term that’s commonly used is ‘surviving the ground.’ A lot of people refer to that. So, as he’s going to the ground, he has the elements of two feet and control, but because he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball when he does go to the ground.”

As Reiss pointed out to Anderson, Henry had two hands on the ball.

“Well, if he had maintained control of the ball with two hands, even if the ball were to touch the ground, if you don’t lose control of the ball after it touches the ground, that would still be a catch.”

 

[Triumph]

FIFY

Patsfans.Com has come along way in over 20 years.

Raiders fans used to be told to quit whining about the Tuck rule because they had other chances to win that game, but choked.

The Patriots had numerous chances to put the Vikings away but let them off the hook.

 

[rochrist]

The Pats screwed themselves.

If it comes down to call on the field then you did not do enough to win.

What if it comes down to FOUR calls on the field. I mean, the HH TD plus the obvious hold on the KR are 11 points right there.

 

[Triumph]

What if it comes down to FOUR calls on the field. I mean, the HH TD plus the obvious hold on the KR are 11 points right there.

Henrys play was 4 more points if he scores. That is not going to hold off a good QB like Cousins.

The Vikes KR return had 10 other guys not held. Where were they? Also, Ive see block in back called like the Pats TD return in the Jets game.

There is holding every play. Who is kidding who?

 

[Rob0729]

And I don't necessarily disagree with that. They certainly didn't neglect the review... they were on that thing for several minutes.


Ball never touched the ground. No doubt on that play.

Looks like it touched the ground to me.

 

[PatsFan2]

Looks like it touched the ground to me.

Nope I can see Air under it.

 

[crawhammer]

Looks like it touched the ground to me.

Agreed (regarding Henry). I was commenting on the Kearse catch in SB 49.

 

[crawhammer]

Nope I can see Air under it.

Look at where the laces start right to left... you can't see the ball touching the ground there?

 

[PatsFan2]

Look at where the laces start right to left... you can't see the ball touching the ground there?

Nope.

 

[captain stone]

NBC Sports rules analyst and former NFL referee Terry McAulay unequivocally said it was an incompletion on the live broadcast.

Terry McAuley is unequivocally Wrong.

 

[captain stone]

McAulay's main point was the ball hit the ground, which is being disputed by those who think it was a catch.

The ball did indeed make contact with the ground... But it was Always under HH's control when it did.

 

[captain stone]

The Patriots had numerous chances to put the Vikings away but let them off the hook.

Yes they did...But that's Not what this particular thread is discussing.

 

[captain stone]

Henrys play was 4 more points if he scores. That is not going to hold off a good QB like Cousins.

Cousins didn't look real good to me... Don't know if he even had a comeback in him that night...

The Vikes KR return had 10 other guys not held. Where were they?

Jabrill Peppers was TACKLED FROM BEHIND just a few yards apart from Dugger... Look at the live broadcast again if you're able to find it... It's more egregious than the hold on Dugg itself, which should've been a Standard Operating Procedure penalty in the first place.

 

[crawhammer]

The ball did indeed make contact with the ground... But it was Always under HH's control when it did.

I understand what you're saying... the ball hit the ground (which is admitting more than most) but Henry maintained possession at the point of contact. However I think the issue beyond that is he didn't maintain control of the ball after it had touched the ground. I believe the league is stating that after the ball made contact with the ground Henry had to maintain possession through the completion of the catch.

 

[captain stone]

I understand what you're saying... the ball hit the ground (which is admitting more than most) but Henry maintained possession at the point of contact. However I think the issue beyond that is he didn't maintain control of the ball after it had touched the ground. I believe the league is stating that after the ball made contact with the ground Henry had to maintain possession through the completion of the catch.

Yeah I also believe that the league is stating the same thing... Where I differ from it is in the belief that as long as the ball remains in a receiver's possession while it makes contact with the ground, then what happens to the ball when it leaves the ground in the hands of the receiver is irrelevant as long as the rest of the catch process is completed... And since in our case the receiver was always in bounds, then he can spin the ball on his nose like a trained seal if he wants to do so before completing the process, as long as the ball doesn't fall back to the ground (or into the hands of an opponent, naturally)...