....that did not think that Shorts clearly had possession of that game winning TD pass before he went out of bounds?
<sup>it was close, very similiar to that TD that Gordon caught in the back of the endzone</sup>
When i first saw the replay i was a bit worried. I personally thought it was a catch (though close) but i know the refs like to screw us and that seemed like a prime chance for it.
he had full possession but slightly readjusted it as he was going down. i dont think that was enough to overturn the call.
Closer than it should have been in my opinion.
He had possession, clearly. That is why it was ruled a catch.
Quote:
I wish I could like this more than once
So, the day after a victory, the premise of the two threads TMD starts are as follows...
1) The secondary sucks
2) Shorts didn't have possession of the game winning catch
Classic TMD.
Quote:When i first saw the replay i was a bit worried. I personally thought it was a catch (though close) but i know the refs like to screw us and that seemed like a prime chance for it.
When I saw the replay, I thought for sure they were overturning it. The ball was not secured as he was going out of the EZ. I was shocked but pleasantly surprised they stood with the call, especially with the play happening in a road game in Cleveland.
Quote:
Yep, the above shows/ confirms what I saw.
Quote:he had full possession but slightly readjusted it as he was going down. i dont think that was enough to overturn the call.
I don't see it as full possession. I think you can only have full possession when the ball is secured and not moving.
Quote:He had possession, clearly.
The replay is above. Not sure how you can say that.
Quote:So, the day after a victory, the premise of the two threads TMD starts are as follows...
1) The secondary sucks
2) Shorts didn't have possession of the game winning catch
Classic TMD.
Well I mean the secondary really didn't play that well, and Shorts made that a lot closer than it should have been.
Shorts just needs to drag that other foot and there is absolutely zero questions about not being a catch.
But I didn't think Gordon's catch was a catch and it was ruled a catch, soooooo. It's whatevs.
Quote:So, the day after a victory, the premise of the two threads TMD starts are as follows...
1) The secondary sucks
2) Shorts didn't have possession of the game winning catch
Classic TMD.
They are 2 threads that I started. ANd I never used the phrase "the secondary sucks" at all. Those are your words.
I notice you leave out MANY positive posts I have made in responses in other threads today.
Typical.
Nah, there seem to be a couple more of ya.
I'm not one of them though. That's a catch.
Quote:Nah, there seem to be a couple more of ya.
I'm not one of them though. That's a catch.
The ball certainly looks like it is still moving/ not secure as he goes out of the EZ...
Quote:I don't see it as full possession. I think you can only have full possession when the ball is secured and not moving.
It was ruled a catch and confirmed by the referee. Sorry.
Quote:It was ruled a catch and confirmed by the referee. Sorry.
Thats not the argument. Sorry.