No football move?How is that not a fumble?
Hit has to be at the knees, first contact was at the waist/thighShouldn’t have mattered if they called the low hit on Brady. So much for getting all the calls
By the Eagles-Pats SB standard, he maintained control through the catch.Meh I agree with Pereira, I think incomplete is the better ruling
Blam!15 minutes ago Mitch probably thought he had a shot at getting in the game
So by rule if you’ve made a catch, you are a runner and no longer defenseless. So even if that hit had been directly helmet to helmet, it would not be a foul IF you think that’s a catch.By the Eagles-Pats SB standard, he maintained control through the catch.
Oh, I thought you were referencing the ball moving a little on his 2nd step. I see what you're saying, but you really don't think the receiver could have made a dive to the turf? He wanted to gain more yards, I think.So by rule if you’ve made a catch, you are a runner and no longer defenseless. So even if that hit had been directly helmet to helmet, it would not be a foul IF you think that’s a catch.
That doesn’t make sense to me. Seems like he didn’t have enough time to protect himself from a high hit, so by definition he didn’t have the ball long enough to have caught it
While the ball was in the air!Huh? Nobody finds a block in the back by the kicking team to be an odd foul?
As well he should.Brady had a little something to say there
Different enforcement spots make it impossible. If the penalty by the offense is 10 yards from the previous spot, and the penalty by the defense is 15 yards from the end of the play, how do you adjudicate the difference?Is there logic to why two unequal penalties don't net out with respect to yardage?