stuvian Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Avisan said: He had possession. He lost it with the shift. The ground helped him regain. Whether he would have eventually regained without the help of the ground is irrelevant-- the ground helped when the point hit. If the ball never shifts, it's a clear catch. It shifted. perhaps a seeing eye dog would help
apuszczalowski Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, Real McCoy said: NFL needs to investigate Corrente's Crew. First they screwed the Jets for the Pats and now the Steelers. You think the NFL isn't behind It? They need someone I dependent of the league to investigate cause the NFL us starting to make the WWE and XFL look credible.
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Real McCoy said: NFL needs to investigate Corrente's Crew. First they screwed the Jets for the Pats and now the Steelers. Why would they investigate themselves?
Avisan Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said: The ground never helped him CONTROL the ball. He had control of the ball when he move the ball to his body and then extended it to break the plan of the goal line, (with a knee on the ground). The ball shifted after it broke the goal line. He was going to the ground and his extension did nothing to interrupt that process. This. Is. Basic. Stuff.
KW95 - JA17 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 He didn’t have a hand under the ball. His left elbow hit the ground and jarred the ball loose. The rule on the field is correct!
Fetou Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Lenigmusx said: Regardless the ball broke the plain before there were any control issues and he had completed a football move prior to losing control. Anyway you look at it Touchdown He didn't complete a football move prior to going to the ground. A catch going to the ground is subject to all of the conditions that are created in that situation. One of those is maintaining control of the ball through the process of the catch, all the way to the ground. He clearly had control and extended over the line, but the extension came while going to the ground. He lost the ball in the process. I feel that the rule violates the essence of what a catch is (he clearly caught it, just watching the play), but as written that is NOT a catch. 1
row_33 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 I vowed not to bother with replay a decade ago, they completely ignore what is obvious and call it with no sense or consistency at all just fast forward to the next play, oh it was an incomplete pass, whatever i was held hostage to have to sit there for the 10 minutes it took to make that bad call this time
Avisan Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, RyanC883 said: You're grasping to continue to put forth a coherent argument. You've been proven wrong. the ball was not "shifting". It shifted. The point hit the ground when it did. I don't have to PROVE anything. The rules are explicit and clear, whether you like them or not.
Chris66 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, RyanC883 said: You're grasping to continue to put forth a coherent argument. You've been proven wrong. the ball was not "shifting". Except the call was overturned. So technically theres no proof it was a catch
Avisan Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Fetou said: He didn't complete a football move prior to going to the ground. A catch going to the ground is subject to all of the conditions that are created in that situation. One of those is maintaining control of the ball through the process of the catch, all the way to the ground. He clearly had control and extended over the line, but the extension came while going to the ground. He lost the ball in the process. I feel that the rule violates the essence of what a catch is (he clearly caught it, just watching the play), but as written that is NOT a catch. BINGO.
KW95 - JA17 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 I hate the Pats more than anyone. I have no idea who Avisan is but he is correct
RyanC883 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, Avisan said: He was going to the ground and his extension did nothing to interrupt that process. This. Is. Basic. Stuff. (1) his extension occurred after a football move; (2) the ball was always under control; (3) the call on the field stands unless there is conclusive evidence to the contrary--there was not. It's basic. The Refs screwed up in favor of the Pats (again).
Real McClappy Posted December 18, 2017 Author Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, apuszczalowski said: You think the NFL isn't behind It? They need someone I dependent of the league to investigate cause the NFL us starting to make the WWE and XFL look credible. 1 minute ago, DriveFor1Outta5 said: Why would they investigate themselves? Whatever, just sick from seeing that right now. Spin it a bit towards the Bills then. What if that was week 17 against the Dolphins to get into the playoffs or not? I've seen enough football through my life to know what a TD is or is not. That was a damn TD. To call that back just hurts the league alot.
RyanC883 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Avisan said: It shifted. The point hit the ground when it did. I don't have to PROVE anything. The rules are explicit and clear, whether you like them or not. they are explicit and clear. Very clear: (1) the call on the field stands--you need overwhelming evidence to overturn the call on the field--it does not exist in this case; (2) he made a catch, made a football move, then extended. It's a catch, move, TD.
Perry Turtle Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 Just now, Avisan said: He was going to the ground and his extension did nothing to interrupt that process. This. Is. Basic. Stuff. HE WAS ALREADY ON THE GROUND. The first few replays on the broadcast showed focused on that his knee was on the ground SHORT of the goaline, but was not touched. He had possession of the ball, short of the goaline and then extended the ball. This. Was. A. Crap. Call.
row_33 Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 The NFL relies on gambling and fans rightly freaking out on horrible calls every quarter of meaningful games
Chuck Schick Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Lenigmusx said: Regardless the ball broke the plain before there were any control issues and he had completed a football move prior to losing control. Anyway you look at it Touchdown This play was called exactly as it should have been according to the rule. I think the only reason it took more than 30 seconds to review it was because they wanted to be sure the ball actually bounced off the ground (and not off his hand/arm), which it did. Bummer
apuszczalowski Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Real McCoy said: Whatever, just sick from seeing that right now. Spin it a bit towards the Bills then. What if that was week 17 against the Dolphins to get into the playoffs or not? I've seen enough football through my life to know what a TD is or is not. That was a damn TD. To call that back just hurts the league alot. Not disagreeing, just saying that you don't think the league is behind it and it's just the refs helping NE?
NoSaint Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, RyanC883 said: (1) his extension occurred after a football move; (2) the ball was always under control; (3) the call on the field stands unless there is conclusive evidence to the contrary--there was not. It's basic. The Refs screwed up in favor of the Pats (again). When going to the ground the catch isnt conpleted until you land. If the catch isn’t completed, you aren’t crossing the goal line with possession there. The football move was landing, not reaching while going down.
Recommended Posts