....that did not think that Shorts clearly had possession of that game winning TD pass before he went out of bounds?

---

---

;

;

---

---

^{it was close, very similiar to that TD that Gordon caught in the back of the endzone}

---

---

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.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

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.

---

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. 

 

 

Yep, the above shows/ confirms what I saw. 

 

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. 

 

He had possession, clearly. 

 

The replay is above. Not sure how you can say that. 

---

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. 

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

It was ruled a catch and confirmed by the referee. Sorry.

 

Thats not the argument. Sorry. 

---