I threw up in mouth a little reading that."Ehhhhh, I don't knowww, Jim!"
I threw up in mouth a little reading that."Ehhhhh, I don't knowww, Jim!"
Nantz doesn’t bother me, believe it or not.You spelled Jim Nantz incorrectly. Like, you butchered it.
The thing that is frustrating with that rule is that had he held the ball and been tackled right there, it is a catch without getting a third foot down or whatever they called it. So why can't it be a fumble?That hasn’t been a catch in decades. Some of you watch football during the season, right?
Actually it was incomplete dude. He caught it though. Clearly. But didn’t establish a football move to make it a fumble. Welcome to football.Well then it's not a catch, dude.
But being tackled to the ground would have been the completion of the catch.The thing that is frustrating with that rule is that had he held the ball and been tackled right there, it is a catch without getting a third foot down or whatever they called it. So why can't it be a fumble?
I know, it has been the rule, but the rule sucks.
LA, Vegas, NOLA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and even Miami. Just rotate.People like warm weather Super Bowls
The whole product?Not sure which is worse. The announcers, the field or the commercials.
Not a catch
Agreed.Now that's definitely a catch.
Happened to the Patriots at least once this season.They called the delay of game on the fucking NUMBER, something that has literally never happened before.
Just sometimes?Sometimes the NFL reminds me of first year of law school.
Yeah, I am not arguing with you about what the rule is...I am saying it is a horrible rule.But being tackled to the ground would have been the completion of the catch.