Seahawkfan80":2zf207z3 said:Rat":2zf207z3 said:chris98251":2zf207z3 said:But what about the Non Catch to Lockett, I am sure Buck is still trying to get that reviewed
It might not have been a catch. If the tables had turned, I would have wanted to challenge it. I think there was a good argument for both sides.
McCarthy gave another good lesson on why you don't waste your timeouts early in the second half. Some things are really tough to see live and you need those challenges. Even if we got away with something, I'm not apologizing for it.
The guys in Green Bay chat said the exact same thing about Time outs. Just another wasted timeout pretty much a couple of times and then the inability to challenge as you may actually need the TO at the end of the game. Interesting how things change but stay the same.
They showed one angle where you could see the ball touch the ground and move. But it would have been a close call. With the new rules, where you don't have to maintain control going to the ground, would they say he had possession when he hit the ground and was therefore down a that moment? If so, it was a catch. It didn't move until after he hit the ground. Also in light of the David Moore catch being called complete, which I really thought was going to be called incomplete, challenging the Locket catch would have been very risky, especially with one time out.