Church ball does not count. Rec league is only slightly better.
one of the bigger crocks of BS
- Thread starter moevillini
- Start date
Church ball does not count. Rec league is only slightly better.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
How about outdoors on an 8 foot hoop?
wait, but isn't the rule that the ground can't cause a fumble? And they're not really making a judgment that the ball came loose, it's that he didn't finish the "process" of the catch - it definitely seems like a dumb rule that's inconsistent with the way a touchdown would be called had it been a running play
at any rate, having watched the replay in slow-motion repeatedly during the game while the refs were reviewing it, it looked to me like it might've been a situation where he let go of the ball as he was getting up, not that it came loose accidentally - it looked like it could have been an intentional release
and besides, the original ruling was touchdown - - so what about the rule that it has to be incontrovertible evidence to overturn the original call?
I haven't been able to find a video where they slow it down to the extent that they slowed it down during the game, but the replays I've watched, it looks like he had control, and released the ball as he was getting up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSYDYI4F4xs&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jESb8ekQdgI&feature=player_embedded
Last edited:
unluckyseventeen
Well-Known Member
The argument against the rule isn't whether he caught the ball or not. He did. Every part of his body that would declare him "down" was down before the ball hit the ground. But, the rule says that he has to "maintain control without the ball touching the ground".. where that time frame ends, nobody really knows.
The biggest complaint I have, though, is that if he touched the ground with his feet, then fell out of bounds and dropped the ball in a similar fashion, absolutely no question it would be a catch. It's just a dumb rule that seems to have very little foresight. If he has the ball in two hands or "under control" (which he clearly did) when he hits the ground and is declared down or out of bounds, it should be a catch.
The biggest complaint I have, though, is that if he touched the ground with his feet, then fell out of bounds and dropped the ball in a similar fashion, absolutely no question it would be a catch. It's just a dumb rule that seems to have very little foresight. If he has the ball in two hands or "under control" (which he clearly did) when he hits the ground and is declared down or out of bounds, it should be a catch.
Depends... Is the ball regulation NBA size or WNBA size? Tell me it's not Nerf...