Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Avisan said:

You guys aren't thinking straight about this.

 

He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch.  He dives for it-- he HAS to maintain possession throughout.  His hand is under the ball, but it moves and touches the ground slightly-- the ground has officially helped him control the ball, which invalidates the catch.

 

It was the right call.  Painful, but the right call.

No, that's the not rule, or what happened.  The ball can touch the ground, and it can still be a catch.  Besides, he made a football move- reaching out over the goaline, making it a catch.  100%

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Ball moved.  But did it hit the ground?

 

Not one replay showed the ball hitting the ground.  Ask the replay official if he saw the ball hit the ground, and I guarantee he says no.  There is supposed to be undisputed evidence to overturn a call on the field.  But the refs decided to overthink it. 

 

The refs are the worst part of the NFL, and have been for a long time.  The league thinks controversies like this are gold.  But they ruined the premier game they have been hyping for months.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

That is complete BS! The ball crossed the goal line before it came loose. Cheatriots!

 

 

It never even came loose.

Posted
1 minute ago, Avisan said:

You guys aren't thinking straight about this.

 

He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch.  He dives for it-- he HAS to maintain possession throughout.  His hand is under the ball, but it moves and touches the ground slightly-- the ground has officially helped him control the ball, which invalidates the catch.

 

It was the right call.  Painful, but the right call.

Wrong. He already brings it in, then he brings it out. It's impossible to do that without possession 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Avisan said:

You guys aren't thinking straight about this.

 

He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch.  He dives for it-- he HAS to maintain possession throughout.  His hand is under the ball, but it moves and touches the ground slightly-- the ground has officially helped him control the ball, which invalidates the catch.

 

It was the right call.  Painful, but the right call.

 

When does it actually touch the ground? 

Posted
1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

Well the Division title is gone on that BS Pats win.

BS call man. full possession was there when the ball broke the plain. As soon as the ball broke the plain with possession it was a TD.

Not until he completes the catch.  Because he dove for it, he needs to maintain possession all the way through the catch.  It's the exact same rule as if he caught the pass in the endzone.  There's no magical exception for getting possession of the ball outside the endzone and bringing it inside-- he needs to maintain possession through the catch.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Avisan said:

You guys aren't thinking straight about this.

 

He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch.  He dives for it-- he HAS to maintain possession throughout.  His hand is under the ball, but it moves and touches the ground slightly-- the ground has officially helped him control the ball, which invalidates the catch.

 

It was the right call.  Painful, but the right call.

 

 

What part of plucking the ball out of the air, pulling it into his body then extending out, does not show possession of a ball. If he had t “caught” the ball he would not be able to do any of that.

 

This is just silly.

 

And stay with the call on the field.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

This crap in Pittsburgh is why the lawyer attitude running the league is slowly killing it.   The kid caught the ball.  

Posted
Just now, mjt328 said:

 

When does it actually touch the ground? 

When the ball shifts, it rocks, and the point touches the ground.

Posted

Only question is whether it was a worse reply reversal than the one against the Jets earlier this year.  Both are in the top three worst of all time.

Posted
1 minute ago, peterpan said:

No, that's the not rule, or what happened.  The ball can touch the ground, and it can still be a catch.  Besides, he made a football move- reaching out over the goaline, making it a catch.  100%

I mean it's the exact same as the Dez catch few years back. I don't think that's a "football" move or something dumb like that. Bad rule.

Posted
1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

That's really one of the worst calls ever. Because if you watch the replay the only reason he is able to reach out to try to make it to the endzone is because he has total possession. He brings it IN before he thrusts it out. That is indisputable proof he has possession of the ball. So it's a TD. 

 

my thought was he had possession, reached across the goal line (TD right there) with the ball in his hands and came down on he ball IN the end zone and it bobbled some from coming down on it?

 

why is it that it was always my understanding that the ball crossing the goal line was a TD?

 

is this a new rule or are pockets being laced once again for the cheaters**? some want to be snide about commenting on not watching anymore, but you have to admit, seeing **** like that has ruined the nfl. they suck for that call, big time.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Avisan said:

You guys aren't thinking straight about this.

 

He was going to the ground as part of the process of making the catch.  He dives for it-- he HAS to maintain possession throughout.  His hand is under the ball, but it moves and touches the ground slightly-- the ground has officially helped him control the ball, which invalidates the catch.

 

It was the right call.  Painful, but the right call.

Looking for attention much. You are full of crap. Didn't happen that way. And, if it did .......you miss the point because the rule is ridiculous.

Posted (edited)

If it wasn't the Pats****, the Steelers easily win.  Two reasons: (1) Gronk would have gotten a MULTIPLE game suspension for his hit on White; and (2) that TD call on the field stands.  None of this micro analysis, which is NOT supposed to happen with a replay.  

Edited by RyanC883
Posted
Just now, Wayne Cubed said:

 

 

What part of plucking the ball out of the air, pulling it into his body then extending out, does not show possession of a ball. If he had t “caught” the ball he would not be able to do any of that.

 

This is just silly.

 

And stay with the call on the field.

HE NEEDS TO MAINTAIN POSSESSION.  He was going to the ground as part of making the catch, so he needs to hang onto the ball throughout the whole process.  The moment the ball shifted, rocked, and the point touched the ground, the ground helped him control the ball.  No catch.

×
×
  • Create New...