Wasn’t that blocked punt recovery a touchdown?

[ETL]

I saw Rodney Williams grab the ball that was in the air out of bounds (if you draw an imaginary line from the ground up) but I am pretty sure his elbows landed in-bounds.

The ref commentator was saying that the same rules apply as a catch. So to me if a WR catches the ball anywhere but his feet land in-bounds - then it’s a completion. And I thought elbows counted as feet with a player going to the ground.

so unless they ruled that he didn’t have full possession until he was out of bounds, his elbows landing in bounds should have made that a TD.

[pepsyman1]

he didn't have control until he was out of bounds....The ball was still moving within his grip until he was out of bounds. I thought the same thing until I saw the replay

[Hawkman]

They said he didn’t have control of the ball. Not sure I agree but that was the call…….but then I don’t understand many of the calls that are made. It was a GREAT play.

[86WARD]

he didn't have control until he was out of bounds....The ball was still moving within his grip until he was out of bounds. I thought the same thing until I saw the replay

This. It certainly looked like he was out when he gained control. Although if it was called the other way, I’m not sure it would’ve been over turned.

[DesertSteel]

He was in control when he elbows went down but he lost control for a split second afterwards before he secured it again.

[Dwinsgames]

the control thing is what got him IMO .I think on something that close whatever the original call on the field is then it will stay that way after replay ... just to close to over turn either way ....

all that said I have always had a bit of issue with the "control thing" I mean if they do not end up dropping the ball they obviously had enough control , for me as long as the ground doesn't become involved to help gain control if the ball is secured without hitting the ground I dont care at what point that happens in my mind a catch is a catch if it is secured at any point without touching the ground ... those little bobbles dont matter to me ...

But :rulez: are :rulez: so we must apply them accordingly so based on that I think they got it right the ball was moving until after he was out of bounds so "control" was not able to be deemed as a recovery but it was close

[EzraTank]

He was in control when he elbows went down but he lost control for a split second afterwards before he secured it again.

Yeah it was too close to overturn so they stuck with the call.

They had no business winning yesterday and all it did was prolong them firing Canada.

[El Kabong]

They had no business winning yesterday
Disagree. They had some combination of more positive plays and fewer negative plays than the Ravens did which equaled a win.

[ETL]

I agree with the control thing. I could easily have something moving in my hands and still have control. I feel they sometimes define having control as not moving off the hand as if the ball needs to be glued on and that is not always the case with control.

[El Kabong]

Somehow we went the entire 20th century knowing what catches were and no one had to get out their slide rules to determine if the ball moved a cm.

[ETL]

Like pornography - I may not be able to define what it is but I sure as heck know it when I see it.

[Hawkman]

Yeah it was too close to overturn so they stuck with the call.

They had no business winning yesterday and all it did was prolong them firing Canada.

Count on someone to turn a “non related” thread into a “fire Canada “ thread. That vinyl has been beat up for a while.