|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1,551
|
All-TigerNet [11658]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4575
Joined: 1/17/11
|
Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
6
6
Jan 4, 2024, 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Jerry Butler #1 (1977)
Rod Gardner #2 (2000)
Tyler Brown #3 (2023)?
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [64592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I think the Catch III was Renfrow's TD catch against Bama that won the Natty.***
6
6
Jan 4, 2024, 10:12 AM
|
|
null
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9611]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1828
Joined: 3/15/22
|
Re: I think the Catch III was Renfrow's TD catch again Bama that won the Natty.***
Jan 4, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
This is the Catch one for me idc what any of yall say. The only catch that I remember as the catch now is Renfrow's
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11658]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4575
Joined: 1/17/11
|
Re: I think the Catch III was Renfrow's TD catch again Bama that won the Natty.***
Jan 4, 2024, 10:25 AM
|
|
Couple of pretty good catches, by Justin Ross, in the last Natty win, too!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11028]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4985
Joined: 10/31/03
|
Re: Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
1
Jan 4, 2024, 10:14 AM
|
|
It's not that easy. You have to form a committee to review and compare the "catch" against all others. That should take 12-18 months. If they forward it for approval, then you have to do an environmental impact study to see if the "catch" was carbon-neutral. That's another 18-24 months. Finally, the IRS will have to see if there is any way, shape, or form of the "catch" that can be taxed.
I say Go For It!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1469]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
1
Jan 4, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
I feel that to be designated as "The Catch," certain criteria must be fulfilled. Ie, The catch must be game saving, game winning or game altering. I and II definitely fill that criteria. III is Renfrow for the win in the National Championship. I think IV is Hopkins against LSU in the Peach Bowl on 4th and 18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1367]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1619
Joined: 1/14/16
|
Re: Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
1
Jan 4, 2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
I thought “the catch” was classified as only against the coots? We’ve had many great catches. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53821]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43576
Joined: 11/17/03
|
No.***
1
Jan 4, 2024, 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51550]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43083
Joined: 8/10/04
|
Those plays labeled "THE CATCH" have that title because they happened in
1
Jan 4, 2024, 10:37 AM
|
|
big games. A game against an unranked GT isn't a big game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 803
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
Jan 4, 2024, 11:09 AM
|
|
No.
It was an incredible catch. However, to be included in the Mt. Rushmore of Clemson catches, it should be a game-winning(or close) in a big-time contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3689
Joined: 3/13/03
|
Has to be against the coots.***
1
Jan 4, 2024, 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11416
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Darn fine catch - but no. "The Catch" requires a dire situation to go with it.***
Jan 4, 2024, 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3555
Joined: 7/7/12
|
Re: Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
Jan 4, 2024, 12:04 PM
|
|
You can't leave out 4th and 16.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38124]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9360
Joined: 6/13/19
|
Re: Can we label this one: "THE CATCH III"?
Jan 4, 2024, 12:16 PM
|
|
Has to be against South Carolina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5512]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4987
Joined: 10/21/15
|
To be worth of a label like that...
Jan 4, 2024, 12:20 PM
|
|
A) The catch has to be difficult
2) The game has to have significance (or be against the Coots)
C) The play has to have immediate, direct impact on winning the game
Not even Deshaun to Renfrow qualifies. It may be "THE PLAY", but it's not "The Catch".
A regular season catch against GT is not even close to earning a label.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1,551
|
|
|
50
