Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 83
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wilton, CT
    Posts
    13,683
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!



    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    Wont even lie, i thought they should have reviewed that.

    That looked good from my end. Should have been reviewed, atleast.
    Peter King tweeted the same thing and he's a Patriots fan.
    He Who Dares.....Wins




  2. #14

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    I love the Ravens but I never thought that was a catch. Neither did any of the announcers. He didn't "take two full full steps".

    Maybe in slow motion it looked like he had the ball long enough but he didn't in real time. He had the biggest catch of his career stripped from his hands and I admit it.




  3. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Ball So Hard Universary (BSHU)
    Posts
    1,794
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    I'm not on board with calling it a TD, but it should have atleast been reviewed. This isn't pee wee football and they constantly review TD's that are not even a question, but not a inc. that might have been a TD. I never really even seen a good replay.

    Bottom Line, Ravens WR's consistantly drop passes in big time games, or actually just drop a lot of passes period.
    So far Clayton and Evans 0 - NE 2.




  4. #16

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    Quote Originally Posted by pslholder96 View Post
    Oh boy here we go again. The first of many conspiracy threads. Sorry but the ruling on the field was correct. The receiver has to maintain possession during the entire act of making the catch and crossing the goal line. The rules for a runner are much different.
    He did. What were you watching?

    How tightly he had the ball is irrelevant to possession.

    What if he:

    A. Caught the ball in the same manner,

    B. Took four steps and then had the ball knocked out?

    Where does one draw the line?

    If it had been in the middle of the field I might tend to agree. But not in the EZ.




  5. #17

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Era at The U View Post
    Which criteria of a catch did he not meet?

    He had possession, as loosely as it may have been, he had possession.

    He took two full steps AFTER making the catch.

    So tell me/us, which criteria did he not meet in making a catch? No one cares about your opinion, facts!
    Two feet down isn't the definition of a catch. He has to maintain possession through the process of making the catch. Calvin Johnson had two feet down when he made his catch where the ball popped out at the end of the catch and ruled no TD. The argument that Evans had two feet down is completely irrelevant. If he doesn't maintain possession throughout the process, it's not a catch, and that flat out wasn't a catch.

    It shouldn't have mattered. He should have effing tucked it away and never allowed it to get knocked out. Instead, he got lazy and let it get popped away.

    He's been a disaster all season long. He shouldn't be re-signed.

    - C -
    ---------------------------------------------------

    www.oblongspheroid.com

    A blog about any and everything football.

    Twitter: oblong_spheroid




  6. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    N.E. Cincy
    Posts
    4,498

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    It should have been reviewed, but after watching it over the ball came out before second foot came down.

    Could have been the game winner. Damn shame.




  7. #19

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    Quote Originally Posted by pslholder96 View Post
    Oh boy here we go again. The first of many conspiracy threads. Sorry but the ruling on the field was correct. The receiver has to maintain possession during the entire act of making the catch and crossing the goal line. The rules for a runner are much different.
    You are the only one talking about conspiracy theories. We just made an observation.




  8. #20

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    Quote Originally Posted by pslholder96 View Post
    Oh boy here we go again. The first of many conspiracy threads. Sorry but the ruling on the field was correct. The receiver has to maintain possession during the entire act of making the catch and crossing the goal line. The rules for a runner are much different.
    I didn't think it was a bad call as I watched it. I didn't think he had both feet on the ground when the ball was stripped. The play was reviewed in the booth (every scoring play is), and the booth didn't think it was worthy of more review.

    It was a tough play for a Ravens fan. That's the game right there, imo. Cundiff missed a short one, yes, but that would have only put it in overtime. Maybe we win then, maybe we don't. Evans, OTOH, cost us a trip to the Super Bowl. Now I'm just hoping Lewis and Reed don't retire and aren't out of gas next season.

    Grab another wide out in the off season, another O-lineman, and maybe another OLB/pass rusher and we're reloaded, imo. I think you could even look to Zbikowski and Nakamura stepping up into bigger roles on the defense. We'll have as good a chance as anybody going into next year.




  9. Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    No one is talking conspiracy theories here. We're talking about if the play was review-able or not. Personally, I don't know if it was.

    If so, then Hell yes, someone dropped the effing ball and should have reviewed it.

    You never know what could've come out of it.




  10. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trappe, Maryland
    Posts
    76

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    Quote Originally Posted by psuasskicker View Post
    Two feet down isn't the definition of a catch. He has to maintain possession through the process of making the catch. Calvin Johnson had two feet down when he made his catch where the ball popped out at the end of the catch and ruled no TD. The argument that Evans had two feet down is completely irrelevant. If he doesn't maintain possession throughout the process, it's not a catch, and that flat out wasn't a catch.

    It shouldn't have mattered. He should have effing tucked it away and never allowed it to get knocked out. Instead, he got lazy and let it get popped away.

    He's been a disaster all season long. He shouldn't be re-signed.

    - C -
    That was not a catch. I wish it was but a good defensive player knocked the ball out at the right time. People take off your purple glasses. We lost because Cundiff couldn't be relied on to kick a 50 yarder the series before. Then that lousy kick. Just a sad way to end the season. He should send apology letters to the rest of the team for letting them down!




  11. #23

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    Quote Originally Posted by psuasskicker View Post
    Two feet down isn't the definition of a catch. He has to maintain possession through the process of making the catch.
    OK, it's becoming difficult to argue with people that don't argue facts.

    HE HAD MAINTAINED POSSESSION THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF MAKING THE CATCH! HE CLEARLY HAD FULL CONTROL!

    HE HAD TWO FEET DOWN AND FULL POSSESSION!

    THE BALL WAS KNOCKED OUT AFTER THAT!

    Now, which of those do you not understand, including order? We'll work from there.

    Catch, possession, two feet down, ... ball knocked out AFTER that!




  12. #24

    Re: I don't care what anyone says, Lee Evans' catch should have been a catch/TD!

    From the 2011 rules:

    PLAYER POSSESSION


    Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3).
    To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have
    complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands,
    completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act
    common to the game.
    If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part
    of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.
    This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
    The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from
    touching or muffing).

    Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with
    or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
    the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
    the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
    the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.


    Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of
    attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous
    control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.


    Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of
    possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
    I haven't watched any replays since the game ended, but if I recall correctly he didn't get both feet on the ground or "maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game."

    Tough call for us, but probably the right one. It's a shame, because Evans holding on to that ball would have put the Ravens in the Super Bowl and hopefully shut the Flacco haters up. Maybe even for good.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland