Holmes to miss multiple games. Foot x-rays being passed arond.

[nyjunc]

Why would he tell us that if he thought it should have been ruled a catch? He told us that becasue he knows that he has to maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground. He never even had to worry about hitting the ground becasue he dropped it long before that. He caught it in the air (bobbled it) got 2 feet down before getting hit and the ball came out. You can have control of the ball (even with ball movement when you hit the ground), but you obviously can not have control of the ball when it falls out of your hands and hits the ground.

but who cares what he says? is he going to whine about it after the fact>? how does that help TB? if he possesses it after the hit the play never gets reviewed. On a sideline play you needed to maintain control all the way through(which Manningham did not in the SB), on this play he caught it and ran w/ it. The rule is different, he can lose after being hit as long as he had possession and took 2 steps which he did.

[PhinzN703]

but who cares what he says? is he going to whine about it after the fact>? how does that help TB? if he possesses it after the hit the play never gets reviewed. On a sideline play you needed to maintain control all the way through(which Manningham did not in the SB), on this play he caught it and ran w/ it. The rule is different, he can lose after being hit as long as he had possession and took 2 steps which he did.

If the actual guy is admitting it and you're denying it, who the hell do you think is right?

[nyjunc]

If the actual guy is admitting it and you're denying it, who the hell do you think is right?

he didn't admit anything and who cares if he did? he said he should have held onto it when he got hit, that doesn't mean he admits to anything or even knows the rule.

[The New Guy]

he didn't admit anything and who cares if he did? he said he should have held onto it when he got hit, that doesn't mean he admits to anything or even knows the rule.

He said "I have to hold onto it. I have to go all the way through the ground with it." That sounds like he knows, or was told later about the sideline catch rule. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what he said. We know what the rules are. He did not catch it and run with it. He was in the air when he caught the ball, and got hit as soon as he put the second foot on the ground. He lost the ball a split second after his second foot hit the ground. He can only lose the ball if he had been able to make a football move. Since he did not, the sideline rule was applied. If you think Mike Williams made a football move, then you can't argue about the Epps fumble in the Jets game. Both got 2 feet down before losing the ball, but neither made what I would consider a football move. The Epps fumble was a bad call. The Williams play was not.

[nyjunc]

where does he say it wasn't a catch? he's saying I have to remove all doubt by holding onto it hitting the ground. He's not saying anything else.

he made a football move, caught the ball and took multiple steps w/ the ball before being hit and the ball coming loose.

Epps never had a chance to move, completely different play.

[The New Guy]

where does he say it wasn't a catch? he's saying I have to remove all doubt by holding onto it hitting the ground. He's not saying anything else.

he made a football move, caught the ball and took multiple steps w/ the ball before being hit and the ball coming loose.

Epps never had a chance to move, completely different play.

This is not true. Watch the play again. He caught the ball in the air and barely got the 2nd foot down before being knocked out of bounds. There never was another step (in bounds with control of the ball) after the initial 2 feet down. You have to get both feet down, and then make a football move for it to be considered a catch. He was able to get 2 feet down, but was not able to make a move after that. He did not take multiple steps before being knocked out of bounds where the ball came loose. That means in order for it to be considered a catch, he would have had to have control of the ball throughout the entire play. He did not, which is why the play was ruled incomplete.

The Epps play is very similar. He got 2 feet down before the ball came loose. Neither player made a football move.

[nyjunc]

caught the ball in stride, took 2 steps then gets hit and loses the ball. Epps never had chance to move a foot or turn upfield. 2 completely different plays

[The New Guy]

caught the ball in stride, took 2 steps then gets hit and loses the ball. Epps never had chance to move a foot or turn upfield. 2 completely different plays

It doesn't matter how you take those first 2 steps. Getting 2 feet down, and then losing the ball immediately (no football move), is not a catch. Both players got 2 feet down and lost the ball. Neither made a football move.

[nyjunc]

of course it is, he was running w/ the ball. how is that not a football move?

[The New Guy]

of course it is, he was running w/ the ball. how is that not a football move?

Because he was not running with the ball after he got his second foot down. The rule is, control with 2 feet down,and then a football move.