i, too, find salisbury a bit of a pill...one of the things that irks me (and i may be getting a little picky) is when he is talking about a receiver jumping up for a ball, he says they should catch the ball at its highest point...now i ain't no rocket scientist (but i did stay a holiday inn express last night) and i know there is no receiver in the league that could catch a ball when it is at its highest point...i just wish he would say to catch the ball at the receivers highest point...
you are supposed to catch the ball at its highest point, i play CB for my HS, our coaches preach that like its from the bible. ur supposed to catch it at the highest point u can(in our case its a INT, so WRs must get higher
pf93, how are you going to catch the ball at its highest point??? depending on how far it is thrown, it could be 50 feet are more in the air!!! if you can jump that high, then leave high school and go straight to the nba...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Philly_Freak93)</div><div class='quotemain'>you catch the ball at the HIGHEST POINT u can reach it at</div> exactly my point...not the highest point of the ball, the receivers highest point...but he always says the balls highest point...i know i am being a stickler, but it irks me...
well you try to catch the ball at its highest point that doesnt mean you always do, making it your highest point. so tecnically hes right, also the ball's highest point doesnt mean its ur highest point
This has to be one of the goofiest threads I've read. It should be Sean Salisbury and Semantics 101. But hey if we're going to rant, why not pick on SS?
