Where Does Edelman's Catch Rank in Post Season History??

[Wazmankg]

I'm far from a cowboys fan but a catch is a catch. Didn't Calvin Johnson get screwed over by that junk rule too tho? Pretty sure I remember a gaff with golden tate and the rule as well.

Yeah, Calvin's was the original screw job due to that rule. He landed on his ass with the ball in his hand, rolled over and was getting up when his hand with the ball touched the ground and the ball came out.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Yeah, Calvin's was the original screw job due to that rule. He landed on his ass with the ball in his hand, rolled over and was getting up when his hand with the ball touched the ground and the ball came out.

Thats what I hate most about the rule. It's cost quite a few teams games.By removing legitimate catches

 

[shopson67]

What's wrong with allowing receivers to just do their job. Like they always did. Why do you feel we need a rule that has proven to be detrimental to the game?

So, no rules as to what constitutes a catch? Don't need any feet inbounds? Don't have to take two steps with the ball? Is just touching it enough? What about just thinking about catching it? There has to be some definition of a catch.

 

[peyton0813]

One of the best but I think that Julio's was better.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

So, no rules as to what constitutes a catch? Don't need any feet inbounds? Don't have to take two steps with the ball? Is just touching it enough? What about just thinking about catching it? There has to be some definition of a catch.

As I said what's wrong with the original rule? Why institute additional rules that have a negative impact on games?You're deflecting

 

[shopson67]

As I said what's wrong with the original rule? Why institute additional rules that have a negative impact on games?You're deflecting

No, I didn't see where you said go back to the original rule. That's all I was asking.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

No, I didn't see where you said go back to the original rule. That's all I was asking.

Pretty sure thats implied with old school football. And why you feel we need additional rules.That have been proven to be detrimental to the game. When a rule does more harm than good......

 

[shopson67]

Pretty sure thats implied with old school football. And why you feel we need additional rules.That have been proven to be detrimental to the game. When a rule does more harm than good......

It depends on the rule. There were likely questionable calls that drew a lot of complaints at the time that birthed those additional requirements to the catch rule.

The rule itself doesn't do harm IMO; it's the inconsistent application (or understanding) of the rule that hurts.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

It depends on the rule. There were likely questionable calls that drew a lot of complaints at the time that birthed those additional requirements to the catch rule.

The rule itself doesn't do harm IMO; it's the inconsistent application (or understanding) of the rule that hurts.

So you're saying an unnecessary rule that has cost teams games does no harm? I think you summed up my point as well as the opinion of several others. The rule is inconsistent by nature. In constant need of revisions. When the only legitimate solution is call it what it is a mistake with too many flaws.Discontinue the rule and go back to real football. Under its original rules that were perfectly fine

 

[shopson67]

So you're saying an unnecessary rule that has cost teams games does no harm? I think you summed up my point as well as the opinion of several others. The rule is inconsistent by nature. In constant need of revisions. When the only legitimate solution is call it what it is a mistake with too many flaws.Discontinue the rule and go back to real football. Under its original rules that were perfectly fine

You're missing my point. They didn't add the layers of requirements just to be annoying; they did so after dealing with questionable calls under the old rules that caused a lot of public outcry.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You're missing my point. They didn't add the layers of requirements just to be annoying; they did so after dealing with questionable calls under the old rules that caused a lot of public outcry.

They revised the rule after the Dez catcheonder why More mistakes more revisions.Im thinking there's a reason you're avoiding the questions as to. Why they need the rule. Or why they don't just call it the mistake it was and abandon the failed experiment altogether. When it's quite clearly done nothing more than hold s negative impact on the outcome of games. The old rule was fine.

 

[Oldschool739]

Although I don't believe it was a catch, it was ruled one and I think he is the player that sparked and turned them around to ultimately win the game. He should have been the MVP in my opinion. Tom was off on most of his throws and JE showed them how to catch bad passes.
He is way overlooked as a top wr, a white version of Steve Smith IMO.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Although I don't believe it was a catch, it was ruled one and I think he is the player that sparked and turned them around to ultimately win the game. He should have been the MVP in my opinion. Tom was off on most of his throws and JE showed them how to catch bad passes.
He is way overlooked as a top wr, a white version of Steve Smith IMO.

What do you mean you don't think that was a catch?

 

[Oldschool739]

What do you mean you don't think that was a catch?

He didn't have control going to the ground, he gained brief control while on the ground and it's More likely than not that it touched the ground and or he used the ground to secure it which does not constitute a catch. That's just my opinion and it means nothing to the outcome because the refs ruled it a catch. A gift, the way I see it, but an awesome effort either way. That guy is one of the best in the league and gets little credit for being one.

 

[soxfan1468927]

He didn't have control going to the ground, he gained brief control while on the ground and it i.e. More likely than not that it touched the ground and or he used the ground to secure it which does not constitute a catch. That's just my opinion and it means nothing to the outcome because the refs ruled it a catch. A gift, the way I see it, but an awesome effort either way. That guy is one of the best in the league and gets little credit for being one.

I'm not sure what catch you were watching. I haven't seen anybody claim this wasn't a catch.

 

[Oldschool739]

I'm not sure what catch you were watching. I haven't seen anybody claim this wasn't a catch.

The announcer was questioning it when it happened but lots of people don't think it was a legal catch. What does that matter to a pats fan now ? It was ruled a catch and they end up winning the SB, it's just an opinion. Bad calls happen all the time in the NFL and games are won and lost because of them. Comes with the territory, that's all !!

 

[soxfan1468927]

The announcer was questioning it when it happened but lots of people don't think it was a legal catch. What does that matter to a pats fan now ? It was ruled a catch and they end up winning the SB, it's just an opinion. Bad calls happen all the time in the NFL and games are won and lost because of them. Comes with the territory, that's all !!

"Oh that's a catch!" was what the announcer said once the play was slowed down. And the ref even said "confirmed" and not "stands".

Who doesn't think it's a catch? You are literally the first person I've heard say that wasn't a catch.

 

[redseat]

Although I don't believe it was a catch, it was ruled one and I think he is the player that sparked and turned them around to ultimately win the game. He should have been the MVP in my opinion. Tom was off on most of his throws and JE showed them how to catch bad passes.
He is way overlooked as a top wr, a white version of Steve Smith IMO.

How so? The ball never hit the ground and his hands were under it..

 

[Hank Kingsley]

"Oh that's a catch!" was what the announcer said once the play was slowed down. And the ref even said "confirmed" and not "stands".

Who doesn't think it's a catch? You are literally the first person I've heard say that wasn't a catch.

He's old and blind. Nuff said....

 

[shopson67]

"Oh that's a catch!" was what the announcer said once the play was slowed down. And the ref even said "confirmed" and not "stands".

Who doesn't think it's a catch? You are literally the first person I've heard say that wasn't a catch.

I didn't think it was a catch live, but the replay clearly showed he caught that ball cleanly. Amazing concentration to keep that from touching the turf.