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

[GOTA]

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.

[Maverick Hiker]

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.

[Sua Sponte]

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.

[Golden Era at The U]

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.

[psuasskicker]

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 -

[CincyCat]

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.

[dscola31]

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.

[bacchys]

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.

[MD Boy]

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.

[jgar]

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!

[Golden Era at The U]

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!

[bacchys]

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.