Under the old rules, it's not a catch because it hit the groundNo one hates the pats more than I but that should have been down at the one. He had complete control of the ball with his hand under the ball and was still in perfect control until the ball hit the ground and then came several inches off the ground. As he raised the ball he lost control but the ball stayed on his chest, never hitting the ground again.
I hate the new rules for what is a catch. The old way caused so fewer issues. Two feet down with possession is a catch. The whole you have to go through making contact with the ground and making a football move is total BS and makes me not want to continue watching NFL any more.
Totally27 should have been ejected.
not sure they are capable - honestlyThis Vikings D needs to wake up for the 4th quarter
I don't like the current catch rules, but the rule has NEVER simply been two feet down and possession is a catch. In 1938, the original rule was two feet down, possession AND had to perform an act "common to the game". And in fact, the two feet down wasn't even part of the rule if the receiver was deemed to have had both feet in bounds if but was pushed out. That rule was in place in 2008.No one hates the pats more than I but that should have been down at the one. He had complete control of the ball with his hand under the ball and was still in perfect control until the ball hit the ground and then came several inches off the ground. As he raised the ball he lost control but the ball stayed on his chest, never hitting the ground again.
I hate the new rules for what is a catch. The old way caused so fewer issues. Two feet down with possession is a catch. The whole you have to go through making contact with the ground and making a football move is total BS and makes me not want to continue watching NFL any more.
Turnover would seem to only way.not sure they are capable - honestly