Jump to content

refs effed cotchery big time


Blackout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Two big, game-changing catches on the money and he didn't come up with either one.

So much for the Jets-bashing for us not still having this butterfingers, who was Sir Drops-a-lot his last season here. Then he whined and carried on and complained to anyone on the team who was within earshot of him, because we were only going to make him our #3 WR instead of a full time starter, so we granted him the walking papers he requested. Then he signs on with the Steelers to be their #5 WR for less than half what the Jets were paying him.

Screw these ex-Jets. Particularly the ones who wanted out, like Cotchery.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Troll said:

Cotchery's hands effed Cotchery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

J-Co's play yesterday shocked me.  The guy has been money all year, but had two killer drops.  The one at the three is just inexcusable.  Perfect throw.  And if he catches it, the game's outcome might have been different.  Horrible SB performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

refs effed the Panthers as a whole big time. what was there 0 Bronco penalties for the second half of the game. It was rigged to let Peyton walk out with his second ring...someone got paid off.

 

Idk panthers had morethan enough chances, cam played like the cam I remember. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rillo said:

 

Idk panthers had morethan enough chances, cam played like the cam I remember. 

There were a lot of calls on the Panthers and not a lot on the Broncos. Roby had that play where he was holding bad and no flag for interference. Not saying by any means that the Panthers offense didn't play a terrible game but the penalties certainly didn't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, munchmemory said:

The no catch call highlights a major problem the NFL has on its hands, no one is really sure what constitutes a catch.  Lots of folks have brought this up.  But now the rules committee needs to step up and clarify what is, and is not, a catch.

For the record, I thought it was a catch.  

They do have a problem with this for sure, but this play does not highlight the problem. The Beckham play against the Pats highlighted the problem, not this. The ball was moving, it touch the ground, and then moved again, there is nothing in that play that is a catch under any rule you can imagine. If the nose of the ball did not hit the ground, it would have been a catch. If he controlled it before and after the nose hit the ground, would have been a catch. Neither of those things happened, no catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nico002 said:

Tip of ball hit ground then moved in his arms - no catch

That only matters when the ground assists in catching the ball.

Cotchery had his hand under the ball as the CBS replay showed.  Now, whether the ref saw it is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PFSIKH said:

That only matters when the ground assists in catching the ball.

Cotchery had his hand under the ball as the CBS replay showed.  Now, whether the ref saw it is another matter.

It does not matter that his hand was under the ball because the nose of the ball clearly hit the ground, and even with his hand under the ball, he did not maintain control before and after the nose hit the ground. It was a very clear no catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

They do have a problem with this for sure, but this play does not highlight the problem. The Beckham play against the Pats highlighted the problem, not this. The ball was moving, it touch the ground, and then moved again, there is nothing in that play that is a catch under any rule you can imagine. If the nose of the ball did not hit the ground, it would have been a catch. If he controlled it before and after the nose hit the ground, would have been a catch. Neither of those things happened, no catch.

We'll disagree on this.  Looking at the play several times, I did not see an angle where the ball was completely on the ground.  Catch had his hand underneath the ball.

Plus, you had a former NFL referee call it a catch.  But that's par for the course.  All season we watch the officials making replay calls most of us think are ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, munchmemory said:

We'll disagree on this.  Looking at the play several times, I did not see an angle where the ball was completely on the ground.  Catch had his hand underneath the ball.

Plus, you had a former NFL referee call it a catch.  But that's par for the course.  All season we watch the officials making replay calls most of us think are ridiculous.

Im fine disagreeing, but the entire ball does not need to be on the ground, any part of it only needs to touch the ground, which the nose very clearly did touch the ground, and he did not have clear control before and after the nose of the ball very clearly touched the ground.

The former NFL referree was asked so quickly he probalby saw one or two quick shots of it, when they did the close up, it was crystal clear the nose touched the ground.

Also, keep in mind it was ruled incomplete on the field so you would have needed conclusive evidence that it did not touch the ground to overturn it, there was more evidence to keep the call than overturn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

Im fine disagreeing, but the entire ball does not need to be on the ground, any part of it only needs to touch the ground, which the nose very clearly did touch the ground, and he did not have clear control before and after the nose of the ball very clearly touched the ground.

The former NFL referree was asked so quickly he probalby saw one or two quick shots of it, when they did the close up, it was crystal clear the nose touched the ground.

Also, keep in mind it was ruled incomplete on the field so you would have needed conclusive evidence that it did not touch the ground to overturn it, there was more evidence to keep the call than overturn it.

You just made my point. There was a time when it was a catch if you had your hand under the ball even if the tip of it hit the ground (which I believe to be just).  As I said before, the NFL needs to clarify the definition of a catch so it is logical and free of interpretation.  Maybe that's an impossibility.  But they should try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nico002 said:

Tip of ball hit ground then moved in his arms - no catch

Yup.  Could not understand why broadcast kept saying it was a catch.  He held on, but the ball shifted significantly on the ground.  I thought it was a pretty obvious no-catch.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

It does not matter that his hand was under the ball because the nose of the ball clearly hit the ground, and even with his hand under the ball, he did not maintain control before and after the nose hit the ground. It was a very clear no catch.

You cannot say that.

Whether ruled complete or incomplete, that would have been tough to overrule.  The one thing you can say is his hand was under the ball.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, munchmemory said:

You just made my point. There was a time when it was a catch if you had your hand under the ball even if the tip of it hit the ground (which I believe to be just).  As I said before, the NFL needs to clarify the definition of a catch so it is logical and free of interpretation.  Maybe that's an impossibility.  But they should try.

Im not sure how I made your point.

The rule USED to say, if the ball hit the ground at any point, it was not a catch.

THen, they tried to make it easier, and said if the ball touched the ground, it would still be a catch IF, complete control was maintained after the ball touched the ground. 

Cotchery clearly did not maintain control after it touched the ground, it rolled across his body. Your only argument is to say the ball definitively never touched the ground, otherwise its clearly a no catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the play was under review,  Mike Pereira said it was definitely a catch and that it should be overturned.  He never saw any part of the ball touch the ground. 

That failure to reverse the call left Carolina deep in its own end and was soon followed by the Malik Jackson fumble recovery in the endzone.  That call, right or wrong, changed the trajectory of the game.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

You cannot say that.

Whether ruled complete or incomplete, that would have been tough to overrule.  The one thing you can say is his hand was under the ball.

 

Fine, his hand was under the ball, but the nose of the ball touched the ground, AND, he did not maintain posession after the nose hit the ground, so his hand under the ball means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...