I think its a drop. seems to me the ball hitting the ground helped stop the ball from falling so he could get control of it
He had the ball under full control with both hands on it before it touched the ground.
i agree, but prior to it hitting the ground, the ball was going down toward the ground with no movement of the ball being brought up to his body and away from the ground. It wasnt until it hit the ground that the ball started to come up toward his body and away from the ground, and I dont think thats a coincidence. The ground stopped the ball's downward momentum/trajectory and naturally shifted it back toward Hunt and away from the ground. therefore the ground helped him catch the ball.
in theory, if there was a bottomless pit right where the ball hit the ground, i think the ball would have continued its trajectory down and never came back toward hunt.
and to nit pick, the ball was straight up and down when he 1st grabbed it, but as it hit the ground it shifted to a slanted angle which you could argue is movement and a drop anyway
Respectfully, that doesn't matter. It's not about momentum. It's about control. Did Hunt have possession of the ball before it hit the ground? Yes. Did Hunt have possession of the ball through it hitting the ground? Yes. Did Hunt have possession of the ball after it hit the ground? Yes.
The rule is designed to not allow a player to use the ground to help him gain possession of the ball. Hunt already had it. You don't need to have the ball tucked into your body in order to have possession.
Hunt doesn't have Inspector Gadget's arms. The ball would have stopped its trajectory downwards when his arms were fully extended.
No, it shifted to the slanted angle after he pulled the ball away from the ground and was bringing it up above his body to show that he had caught it. Movement also isn't a dispositive issue. The question is possession. The ball can move a little as long as the receiver never loses possession. Hunt never lost possession.
It reminds me of that Robert Woods TD that they jipped us out of against the Cowboys. Dean Blandino on TV said, "Remember, slight movement doesn't constitute a loss of control." Woods pinned the ball up against his helmet, got two feet down, and the ball basically didn't move. Refs still screwed us. I was irate. Basically, all of us were.
This Hunt play wasn't different. The truth is that had they ruled the Woods and Hunt plays TDs on the field, they would have stood as called. I wish the refs would err on the side of calling it a TD because a review can always overturn it, and it will prevent screw ups like on those two calls.
Hunt didn't have full control of the ball until it hit the ground. He never was able to prevent it from hitting the ground, which is lack of control. I don't even think that's a catch using the old rules.
What are you talking about? He had two hands on the ball, and it wasn't moving. That's full control. The fact that it touched the ground is irrelevant to control. Anytime you're falling towards the ground and catching the ball like that, it's going to hit the ground. The question isn't if the ball it hit the ground. It's if the receiver maintained control through contact with the ground. It's clear as day that Hunt did.