Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bravesman18" data-source="post: 521816" data-attributes="member: 2212">Yeah, I agree that it was a catch. I felt entirely positive that it would have been overturned if challenged.He did initially bobble the ball, but by pausing the play at the moment he does secure it, you can then observe whether his feet are in(which they are), and that his knee has not yet touched the ground out of bounds. Then, continue the play to see that the ball doesn't move in his hands throughout completion of the catch. That's all irrefutably evident by going over that play two times: the first from behind, where you had the best look at his feet, knee, and when he first secured it; the second being from the front where you can confirm that the ball didn't move throughout the rest of the catch.edit: Sorry if it seems like I repeated myself there, but I'm just trying to make it crystal clear why it should have been challenged.</blockquote>

Total: 637 (members: 1, guests: 636)