Jump to content

Can Someone Explain The Roddy White "no catch" call on the sideline?


NCFalconfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

It was a really bad missed call by the Refs

Basically they said he was bobbling the ball going out of bounds.

Which is Total BS

If that wasn't complete possession, (two hands wrapped firmly around the ball) then I don't know what is. Whats worse is that it was called a catch on the field, and somehow they saw enough "evidence" to over turn it. Amazing. Just glad it didn't cost us this weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya he had Possesion,3 foot down yes 3 foot and then the ground caused the FUMBLE clearly it was a catch. O yea and last week when he dropped the game winning TD he got interfered with because when the CB fell he tugged on Roddy's arm just a little which could have caused the drop and i think it did. That call would have been called on the Falcons if a falcons CB would have dun that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of seeing the wrong calls made on the field...

We're just lucky this didn't cost us like the end of the Eagles game did, or at least put us in a compromising situation...

Great teams overcome bad officiating, which we did today, if that was a bad call. I thought it was a catch, too. But if mcsupersport is right, then he did lose possesion before he hit the ground. But NOT before his knee was on the ground, which is the part I don't understand. I thought once the knee or the elbow hit, the ball was considered down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule is if you are going to the ground during a catch, you must maintain possession through hitting the ground.

Basically if you are going down during a catch you can't lose it at anytime, before the whistle is blown.

Then that is a crap rule. The first mili-second the receviers body touches out of bounds, the play should be over. What happens after that should not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule is if you are going to the ground during a catch, you must maintain possession through hitting the ground.

Basically if you are going down during a catch you can't lose it at anytime, before the whistle is blown.

But before Roddy was tackled out of bounds, he took two steps in bounds while maintaining possession...it was a completed pass before anything else happened on that play. The refs just made the wrong call...once again. :rolleyes: I even questioned the call on Delhomme's TD run...it seemed like his knee touched before he could stretch the ball over the goal line, but there wasn't even a replay shown to confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a HORRIBLE CALL

I counted 3 feet down and only bobbled the ball when out of bounds.

We had a couple of suky calls against us last week too.

This is: The Year of Bad Officiating!

The Refs need to be Full Time Employee's of the NFL.

Do you really think that they have time to study film

when they have Real Jobs.

Put these guys on a Payroll and this nonsense will end abruptly.

Just is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule is if you are going to the ground during a catch, you must maintain possession through hitting the ground.

Basically if you are going down during a catch you can't lose it at anytime, before the whistle is blown.

True, but once his knee went down out of bounds after having possesion of the ball in bounds, the play should have been over. It should not matter that the ball came out once he hit ground out of bounds. A terrible call by the replay booth. With that being said, if Roddy hold on to the ball it would have never been reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL :rolleyes:

Was going to say something similar but decided not to.

The call on the field was simply that the receiver caught the ball, but was going to the ground while getting possession, and thus must maintain possession through contact with the ground. If Roddy had held on to the ball, it would not have mattered. We won the game anyway but, by interpretation of the officials it was a correct call. It could have been viewed differently but basically they got the call right.

We have benefited from this rule this year, and I like it because it takes most of the interpretation on falling catches away from the officials on the field. If a falling receiver holds onto the ball it is a catch, if not then incomplete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...