Uncatchable ?

[pmedic920]

Would not surprise me

 

[xgeoff]

I am very surprised they didn’t

 

[Hawknight]

Would not surprise me

It seemed close...I thought same thing for a moment

 

[BigBill1945]

Nah, the DB was facing and tackling Lockett before he could back up anymore

 

[Seahawks Guy]

The refs know that nothing is uncatchable for Lockett.

 

[pmedic920]

Nah, the DB was facing and tackling Lockett before he could back up anymore

But…


Was over his head AND out of bounds

Still glad it worked out

 

[mikeak]

Definately uncatchable

I will take it, but it landed far out of bounds. Can't believe commentators didn't bring it up

 

[bigskydoc]

I don’t think it was uncatchable. It only landed a yard or two out of bounds, so it was well in bounds when it was at a catchable height.

It only looked uncatchable because Lockett was held, so couldn’t get to the spot.

 

[renofox]

Judging from the calls the past few years, I thought they had eliminated the whole 'uncatchable' thing.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

That one could have been a toe tapper. I was wondering myself if they would call it. Ball was about 2 yards out, but the angle delineated it to be catchable had Lockett been there.

 

[pmedic920]

I don’t think it was uncatchable. It only landed a yard or two out of bounds, so it was well in bounds when it was at a catchable height.

It only looked uncatchable because Lockett was held, so couldn’t get to the spot.

Thankfully it’s a moot point

They didn’t replay so I only got first look.