Patriots versus Baltimore Ravens brief commentary 01 10 2015
Should control of a football catch when the arms are extended be required to not be a catch if the player cannot draw it into his hands and then chest? No!
This player had control of the football for a good six inches of diving drift in the air.
If the ground cannot cause a fumble then it is a catch!
Anyone, and I mean anyone who has ever played football knows that when you catch the football with arms extended in a diving catch often you land just that way with the football in your extended arms. To draw it into your chest as a measure of demonstrating control seems unrealistic.
Was his knee down as he had the ball in the air? I believe it was.
The commentary states that the player used the ground to catch the ball and therefore it wasn't a catch. This is incorrect once he hit the ground with the ball in his hands it started to wobble. And indeed he regained control from a different hand position because of that. But to me it looked like he had control.
But did he have enough of the ball in his hands? I think so.
So maybe it needs some redefinitioning to add clarity.
Would we call it a catch back in the day. I think so. But the hand position changed a little as he came down. So perhaps that is how it should have been articulated. He didn't lose the ball.
I think we used to say that ball couldn't touch the ground? So he would have had to have it cupped in his hands.
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 01 10 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
"Analyzing millions of documents?"
You have to be kidding me. They go and have a beer instead! That or they hire temporary employees to do that work. I want to abolish the temporary agency just because it supports "persona indemnity!"
Should control of a football catch when the arms are extended be required to not be a catch if the player cannot draw it into his hands and then chest? No!
This player had control of the football for a good six inches of diving drift in the air.
If the ground cannot cause a fumble then it is a catch!
Anyone, and I mean anyone who has ever played football knows that when you catch the football with arms extended in a diving catch often you land just that way with the football in your extended arms. To draw it into your chest as a measure of demonstrating control seems unrealistic.
Was his knee down as he had the ball in the air? I believe it was.
The commentary states that the player used the ground to catch the ball and therefore it wasn't a catch. This is incorrect once he hit the ground with the ball in his hands it started to wobble. And indeed he regained control from a different hand position because of that. But to me it looked like he had control.
But did he have enough of the ball in his hands? I think so.
So maybe it needs some redefinitioning to add clarity.
Would we call it a catch back in the day. I think so. But the hand position changed a little as he came down. So perhaps that is how it should have been articulated. He didn't lose the ball.
I think we used to say that ball couldn't touch the ground? So he would have had to have it cupped in his hands.
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 01 10 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
"Analyzing millions of documents?"
You have to be kidding me. They go and have a beer instead! That or they hire temporary employees to do that work. I want to abolish the temporary agency just because it supports "persona indemnity!"
No comments:
Post a Comment