On this, bringing it up for my understanding. Only started following this year.
I understand that in some circumstances it’s not just catching the ball, it’s completing the play in control. So, if a WR catches on the sideline cleanly, both toes in, but then when he lands the ball jars loose it isn’t a catch. Some commentators I saw seemed to be saying it’s the same here. That he had to control it to the end. But I don’t really know when the rules change. They certainly seem different for touch downs.
Yeah, they used to have a rule “the ground can’t cause a fumble”. I thought it was a sensible rule.
Now, the ground has been brought in to play defence: the ground CAN cause a fumble.
Also, they now say the receiver has to not only catch the ball, get two feet down (or as we know, one knee = two feet ) but he also has to “perform a football action”. That is, he has to make the catch then look like he is doing the next thing, such as turning downfield, etc. It could even be dropping down. This rule mainly covers fumbles - to be fumbles, they have to be after the “football action”. At least that is how I understand the explanations given by the expert commentators.
That trade was not only horrendously, astonishingly stupid, but was identified as such by everyone at the time it was done. What on earth were they thinking?
I’m at work but have set the recording for the game so I can watch tonight when I get home. As such, I will not be back in this thread until tonight (although I have no doubt that my efforts to avoid spoilers is doomed to fail). I’m not exactly cheering for Seattle as much as I’m hoping the Patriots lose.