Steelers vs. Patriots

[Kelly the Dog]

11 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

 

Is he going to the ground in that process? 

 

You know I respect your opinion on football matters but this one seems obvious so I’m going to be blunt:

 

at what point does he possesses the ball and make a football move before he starts his fall? If you can’t outline that, he has to maintain control all the way through the fall, and his landing. 

I understand and respect your football acumen too. But...  to me, there is literally zero chance he is able to reach the ball out to the endzone without full control. He brings it in. That's what makes it a catch and different from other calls and proof, to me, that he has total possession. I would say that without question if it were a Dolphin who made the same play. He showed proof of possession by bringing it in. Then and only then did he push it out. If anything it was a fumble he recovered.  

[PatsFanNH]

1 minute ago, slaphappy said:

Question on that non TD play. If he standing and turned to get into the endzone like that would it be considered a football move?

Yes because he doesn't fall down then. But since he was going down he must maintain control all the way to the ground. It is obvious  the football moves and hit the ground.

[Wayne Cubed]

Just now, Kelly the Dog said:

I understand and respect your football acumen too. But...  to me, there is literally zero chance he is able to reach the ball out to the endzone without full control. He brings it in. That's what makes it a catch and different from other calls and proof, to me, that he has total possession. I would say that without question if it were a Dolphin who made the same play. He showed proof of possession by bringing it in. Then and only then did he push it out. If anything it was a fumble he recovered.  

 

I’d also add that knee down, pulling it in and then extending it out is a football move.

 

If a receiver makes a catch, does a subjective football move and then goes to the ground, it’s a fumble if the ball comes out. The point of argument here is that, for me, knee down and pulling the ball in and the extending is a football move.

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I understand and respect your football acumen too. But...  to me, there is literally zero chance he is able to reach the ball out to the endzone without full control. He brings it in. That's what makes it a catch and different from other calls and proof, to me, that he has total possession. I would say that without question if it were a Dolphin who made the same play. He showed proof of possession by bringing it in. Then and only then did he push it out. If anything it was a fumble he recovered.  

 

Unfortunately I think you are trying to apply common sense and judgment instead of following the letter of the rule. The rules around catches have become in a lot of ways simplified bright lines to take the refs out of the calls.

 

sideline- you are in or out

 

falling- you basically have to hold it through landing (and practically getting back up) to be safe. There’s no act or moment to seek during what can be complicated tangles of bodies coming down. There’s not much judgment left for the ref. Kept the ball the whole way or lost the ball.

3 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

I’d also add that knee down, pulling it in and then extending it out is a football move.

 

If a receiver makes a catch, does a subjective football move and then goes to the ground, it’s a fumble if the ball comes out. The point of argument here is that, for me, knee down and pulling the ball in and the extending is a football move.

 

When falling the phrase “football move” doesn’t exist in the rule book. You can say it but the ref can’t.

[peterpan]

13 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Stretching out to score in no way interrupted his going to the ground, though, which is why he needs to maintain possession.

Your understanding of the rule is wrong dude.  When you make a football move-, you have completed the catch. By bringing the ball into his chest, then turning up field, has completed the catch.  Done.  

[Lenigmusx]

31 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Weve seen teams lose points and games on this plenty of times. Typically in the endzone already but it’s the same issue falling into the end zone. It’s always the same back and forth that possession in the endzone is an immediate TD and the refs are terrible vs possession not actually occurring until the fall is fully completed (the rule)

This is the second win this year NE has garnered in this way as it was the same thing that happened against the Jets.

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, peterpan said:

Your understanding of the rule is wrong dude.  When you make a football move-, you have completed the catch. By bringing the ball into his chest, then turning up field, has completed the catch.  Done.  

On your feet, yes.

 

falling, no. 

 

[The Wiz]

2 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Your understanding of the rule is wrong dude.  When you make a football move-, you have completed the catch. By bringing the ball into his chest, then turning up field, has completed the catch.  Done.  

Yea but that's only if you are applying the rule the way you are suppose to.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

Yes because he doesn't fall down then. But since he was going down he must maintain control all the way to the ground. It is obvious  the football moves and hit the ground.

I agree with you that it was the right call. The more I watch Tony Romo the more I like him. He already is one of the best analysts in the booth. When he saw the replay where the ball was slightly bobbled and touching the ground he felt that technically the call could be over-ruled. The officials explained the ruling just as Romo stated prior to the final determination. It was a tough call but the right call. 

[peterpan]

1 hour ago, Avisan said:

They figured it out as soon as the refs stayed under the booth for more than 20 seconds.  It was the right call.  Ball rocks, point hits the ground, ground assisted the catch.

Again the ball can hit the ground and move and still be a catch.  The WR must lose possession, as determined by the refs.  Your reasoning is flawed.  The ball hitting the ground and moving is irrelevant.  Did he lose possession?

 

That entire question is irrelevant.  

 

Hadhe completed the catch as soon as he reached.over the goaline.

[Real McClappy]

https://deadspin.com/nfls-worst-rule-robs-pittsburgh-of-a-win-over-new-engla-1821372652

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Real McCoy

[Doc Brown]

 

Looks a lot like the Calvin Johnson rule to me.

[frostbitmic]

Controversy in the patriots favor ... Who would think that could happen ?

[row_33]

Why weren’t the Pats handed the ball at the 20 on that play?

 

they never get a break....

 

 

[PatsFanNH]

3 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

https://deadspin.com/nfls-worst-rule-robs-pittsburgh-of-a-win-over-new-engla-1821372652

See I disagree that it robbed them of a win. The Pats had 28 seconds and 2 time outs and well Gronk was getting 25 to 30 yards a catch so it is very plausible if unlikely the Pats score in the last 28 seconds.

[Real McClappy]

1 minute ago, PatsFanNH said:

See I disagree that it robbed them of a win. The Pats had 28 seconds and 2 time outs and well Gronk was getting 25 to 30 yards a catch so it is very plausible if unlikely the Pats score in the last 28 seconds.

Robbed.

Pats would have needed a TD in 28 secs = good luck.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Real McCoy

[Augie]

The ball “moved” but he had control and a hand underneath. That was a TD, but as a Bills fan, I known the feeling of being robbed. Cheaters stole home field. 

[NoSaint]

Just now, JohnC said:

I agree with you that it was the right call. The more I watch Tony Romo the more I like him. He already is one of the best analysts in the booth. When he saw the replay where the ball was slightly bobbled and touching the ground he felt that technically the call could be over-ruled. The officials explained the ruling just as Romo stated prior to the final determination. It was a tough call but the right call. 

 

Agreed romo is great.

 

The bad ones often get the rules wrong. The good ones often teach great shorthand cheats for understanding the rules but neglect the nuance or situational variations leaving us thing we know when we only really know regular occurrences but not the exceptions. Often our longest threads on refs flow back to the differences between those memorable catch phrases vs the rarely occurring variations (football move or all you have to do is break the goal line in this thread, but even phrases like helmet to helmet were a common issue for a stretch with people over applying the phrase)

[Success]

2 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

See I disagree that it robbed them of a win. The Pats had 28 seconds and 2 time outs and well Gronk was getting 25 to 30 yards a catch so it is very plausible if unlikely the Pats score in the last 28 seconds.

Would have been game over.  One of these days, that deal with the devil is going to turn south

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Again the ball can hit the ground and move and still be a catch.  The WR must lose possession, as determined by the refs.  Your reasoning is flawed.  The ball hitting the ground and moving is irrelevant.  Did he lose possession?

 

That entire question is irrelevant.  

 

Hadhe completed the catch as soon as he reached.over the goaline.

 

You keep saying that last line but it’s simply not true. I encourage you to dig deeper before representing that as the rule.